Contraception - 2-26-2012 - part two

(ed. caveat: there is no reason to attempt a true discussion of the matter at hand unless one avoids employing colorful euphemisms and politically correct terminology. This subject requires frank and direct language and thus it is used as required – if you are overly sensitive, please find something else to occupy your time other than reading this blog)

The hue and cry over the ongoing contraception debate within the national body politic is an example of reflexive political correctness hysteria run amok. The real issues have been ignored and obfuscated to the point of distraction by intellectual lightweights interested not in true public policy, but rather with an eye to securing a place at the table of power, never understanding that all power and fame is fleeting to those who would treat it in such a cavalier manner.

To wit:

Consider the fact that somehow rape has been introduced into the aforementioned national discussion revolving around the voluntary process of employing contraceptive methodologies. Rape is not about sex; rape is a physical assault, an act of violence. We as a nation should be outraged that our elected officials have opted to entangle and intertwine this crime with the debate on health care. A victim of rape has as much to do with the subject of contraception in the form of a ‘morning after pill’ as a naval base has being designed for the city of Denver; to tie the crime of rape to contraception is nothing more than adding another level of assault upon the victim. The issue of rape and incest should be dealt with within the realm of the criminal courts, with an eye to inflicting a more appropriate penalty to the perpetrator; the victim is issued a lifetime sentence dealing with  the trauma – the same should hold for the assailant, with the added guarantee of castration to guarantee that the crime can never be repeated by the now soprano  criminal. The diminishing recognition that rape and incest are violent, heinous, vicious attacks has allowed the weak of political mind to casually group such crimes with ‘women’s health’. The American electorate should demand of their local officials to legislate harsher penalties, preferably as delineated above, to help secure some manner of preemptive protection for the public, and some attempt to provide justice to the victims.

Once rape and incest are properly removed from the subject of contraception, the issue becomes one of responsibility and rights. It strikes an odd chord that the media and certain public officials seem so comfortable equating contraception as inclusive solely with women’s health rights. When last it was examined, conception cannot take place without two consenting members of each required gender. The fact therefore that the issue of contraception has become part of the discussion of women’s reproductive rights seems to imply that the responsibility for addressing the responsibilities for birth control lies solely with the woman; is it not a matter of mutual consent?

The reality is that ‘reproductive rights’ is the new politically correct euphemism for abortion.

There are issues of conscience and morality involved with the subject of abortion and thus by definition should be kept out of the governmental discourse of the subject. With that point being made, however, there are matters of public policy that do in fact need to be addressed as part of the overall reality of the contraception debate.

Consider this  all too familiar scenario:

Lady A is impregnated as matter of mutual consent, or as a result of combined poor planning, by Gentleman B. If the political point is to be understood by those who group such matters into ‘women’s health’, the woman has the sole responsibility to decide whether she opts to have the pregnancy brought to term. “Brought to term’ is one side of the debates description of the issue; the opposing side chooses to describe it as the birth of a baby.

These are the lines of demarcation in the debate; it’s becoming accepted as merely a matter of semantics.

If Lady A decides to terminate her pregnancy, Gentleman B is considered by some as to have no say in the woman’s decision relative to her ‘reproductive rights’. Any attempt by Gentleman B to assert any level of input into the decision is derided by many of a political slant as being an infringement on a woman’s’ ‘right to choose’ – it is her body and she should have sole say into any decision affecting that body.

If Lady A decides to bring the baby to term, society now requires that Gentleman B provide financial support for the child and the mother until the child reaches the age of eighteen. He has no say in this decision either, as again it is the woman’s ‘right’ to decide what she does; Gentleman B is merely an appendage to that thought process.

These two apparently accepted principles are in direct conflict with each other, yet neither the mass media not the political class that accepts this as axiom chooses to fully comprehend that fact.

How does one have no say in what their fiscal responsibilities will be, and should Gentleman B opt to vanish from his public policy stated responsibilities, it is the public at large who is then charged with supporting that child for the next two decades.

Understand and be clear of the point being made here: any and all questions of morality and conscience have been removed as to avoid the aura of hysteria currently surrounding these questions within the body politic. It is essential to have this national debate absent any position of moral responsibility; once that Rubicon is crossed, the United States of America will transform itself into nothing more than a theocracy of any given current majority.

So the debate further extends to the nebulous and ridiculous of the choice between right and responsibility. The arc of the debate as being currently framed by the political extremes, leads us inexorably towards a point that has no location on any map of reality. The ‘right’ of ‘reproductive health’ by definition gives consent to it apparently to being a right solely held by Lady A in our example. Gentleman B is nothing more than a vessel, both for procreation and financial sustenance; his voice is silenced by those who feel that the male of the species have no viable existence in the conception and raising of their young. There is no comparable narrative with which to point out the absurdity, arrogance and intellectual dishonesty of such perceptions put into governmental action.

There can be no right without any corresponding responsibility; democracy, as does nature, abhors a vacuum; the belief that there can be action without consequence is folly. The argument is being made that the choice of contraception is a reasoned approach to accepting responsibility of an action. The reality remains that said choice should remain solely to the individual; there should be no public, or governmental involvement in the choice, or financial subsidy attached.

The hypocrisy involved with the inherent conflict of these arguments in staggering in scope. There is widespread outcry that the government has no business being involved in the bedrooms of the electorate; the chorus of the political elite of the entire political spectrum is heard clear and strong on that point.

It appears, however, that such a salient argument only holds when the attempt is made by the opposing political force to imbue their version of morality and conscience choice into an issue that the body politic has no business injecting itself in; the adage that holds what’s good for the goose is good for the gander - but the rights of what’s good are by political fiat held solely by the goose.

This debate must be taken as a whole if America is to address issues of abortion, contraceptive rights, reproductive rights, and whatever terminology the intellectual lightweights involved in the issue decide is the term of the month to describe the legislation of human sexuality.

The summation of this argumentative framework is thus:

- Rape is a violent crime of assault and must be treated apart from any discussion of consensual sexual interaction.

- Morality and conscious, while major imperatives in a personal decision making process, must be removed from the public debate, for at its heart it requires one to understand the machinations of another’s mind, and that is never a quality starting point for a rational debate.

- It takes two to conceive, or to opt not to conceive – each party has rights and responsibilities within that decision; society at large must determine what the boundaries and limitations of those should be.

-  Poor planning should not result in the public picking up the tab for one’s passion – abstinence should not be considered an unacceptable option.

Unless a reasoned framework is employed to debate the issue, America is slated to follow in the footsteps of other societies and civilizations that opted for a policy that everything is acceptable. It is not, but the boundaries of responsibility must be decided by the electorate, not by those who will say only what they believe to be of greater self interest to secure positions of political power.

Our posterity, should it be allowed to arrive, deserves no less.

Contraception - 2-19-2012 - part one

There occurs from time to time a convergence of particular realities that demonstrate the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of intransient political dogma; the appearance of light when all that is evident is nothing more than the heat generated by the blather of idiocy.

The recent nonsense of the contraception debate performs the exact function as stated above.

The Madison Conservative will discuss the inherent flaws in the actual positions taken by both political extremes in a later post; the more immediate concern is to provide a particular insight into the twisted logic of those vying for political power at the expense of American democracy.

Consider the following.

In  what was heralded by certain media flacks as a concession to specific religious organizations  objections over the mandate that the aforementioned  groups must ignore issues of conscious, not to mention fundamental tenets of their theology, the President of the United States announced that those groups would not need to fund the costs of providing contraception. He stated unambiguously that the costs associated with that particular service would be fully borne by the insurance companies.

This is remarkable both in the scope of arrogance and the breadth of executive fiat. This simple decision should concern freedom loving people across this nation.

To understand the danger of such executive mandate, the issue needs to be broken down into its several components. This blog will attempt to do that, addressing the aforementioned parts in no particular order of significance, as all the relevant issues bear equal importance and significance.

The constitutionality of the presidents’ signature domestic legislation, derided by some as “ObamaCare”, lauded by others as the “health care Insurance Reform Act” is at the core of the concerns. If the Supreme Court finds that indeed the individual mandate is constitutional, this president and future presidents of varying political lineage will be able to announce that private business, companies that are not part of government but provide a service to the public, will now do the bidding of the government, under the heading of whatever the topic, that it falls under the banner of ‘healthcare’. There is little in daily life that could not be attributable to ones health, from the manner of their transportation, to their individual diet, to the materials used in home décor. The ability of the government to regulate and control aspects of a citizens ‘ life, for what is euphemistically noted as being ‘for their own good’ strikes at the heart of American independence and individuality, the American sense of self. 

The United States Constitution is a restriction on the rights and powers of the government, designed specifically to allow for the individual to decide how they would opt to live their life. A nation that is tethered to the political vision of a president is not democracy, but rather tyranny. The ability for a president to unilaterally decide how private business will conduct itself, “for the common good” is nothing short of a third world dictatorship, bumped up to super power status.

The belief that removing the financial burden from an issue of conscious is simultaneously arrogant and stupid, no easy feat, and speaks volumes to those who see an issue in that simplistic a light.

There are many private, religious entities that self-insure; how do they provide coverage for issues that they fundamentally disagree with. The argument that such entities take federal monies and so must follow governmental edict is ignorant. The logic would then follow that if there were a federal guideline for gay marriage, churches would be forced to provide clergy to perform the ceremony. Any objections would be dismissed with the clarification that the church would be financially compensated for the service. Where then would the line exist between freedom of religion and the power of the state to ignore that right based solely on the premise of the ‘public good’ and the perceived power of the dollar.

It might behoove certain parties in this public debate of imbecility to brush up on their King James editions.

This entire spectacle is claimed to be centered on the ‘right’ of contraception, and that either one is fully supportive of contraception as a health right, or one is a Neanderthal low brow who would prefer women have no access to any level of healthcare.

As noted above, the Madison Conservative will address the specific salient point in a later blog; for now the theater of the political absurd is the issue.

The absence of intelligent dialogue should be troubling to the electorate at large. The speed and ease with which particular issues are granted the status of a convoluted constitutional ‘right’ is breathtaking.

The American mindset knows instinctively that there is no ‘right’ without an accompanying responsibility. The right to vote is secured only through the responsibility of civic action at the ballot box.

The right to freedom of speech is only garnered through the responsibility to defend that right for those whose speech is anathema to all you hold close and dear. The right for a redress of your grievances to the government comes with the responsibility to do so in a peaceful assembly.

The ‘right’ of contraception does not carry with it any announced corresponding responsibility, and so cannot be considered a ‘right’.

There is a place for such medical applications, and those will be discussed within the framework of a blog focused on the debate on health care.

In the interim, however, the body politic should take two aspirin, lie down, and wait for the blood to return to its brain.

The Endorsement

In what is euphemistically called the ‘presidential primary season’, a time when the populace cast their votes for a slate of candidates presented by inept and conspiratorial private business enterprises believing they are government, one of the apparently forgotten tenets of a free and democratic republic is the concept of the secret ballot.

The principle of the secret ballot is singularly thus: citizens are allowed to have their voice heard, without fear of governmental sanction or retribution.

The right to vote can duly take its place amongst the higher echelons of the precious gifts given to us by the framers and the founders who in their wisdom understood that a free and open democracy relies on the safety and security of an unconstrained electorate.

The fight to protect this fundamental tenet of American democracy has been waged and won by the blood of those who understood the importance of America and gave their lives to defend her principles.

The electorate needs to remember this when the cult of personality infects the body politic under the guise of a political ‘endorsement’ and attempts to subjugate democracy to political short term expediency.

The premise of the endorsement is as follows, given the examples set in recent years.

A potential candidate, seeking to secure a position of political power and leadership, buttressed by claims of a singular focus to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, seeks short term electoral advantage by garnering a public show of support from a popular non-candidate, or from a recently vanquished political rival.

The absurdity of this minor bit of incestuous pas de deux seems to be missed by the media at large, and by a majority of the nation as a whole.

Consider the true nature of what an endorsement is: a private citizen casting aside their sacred right, and their civic responsibility to defend the right to a secret ballot, for the fleeting flaccid opportunity to bask in the fluorescent glow of vapid citizenship.

The arrogance of the endorser, primped and primed for their public display of ignorance exemplifies the insidious nature of politics today. The solipsistic belief that a public seal of approval from such a singular show of support flies in direct opposition to the secret ballot and displays a lack of intellectual heft.

This demonstrative shallow understanding of the heart of American independence should give every citizen serious cause for pause; a candidate that believes a voter will sway towards them merely because of a vote of confidence from anyone so willing to dismiss their own civic responsibility for mere momentary popularity is not an individual who should be given the opportunity to serve in government.

The price of freedom is to accept the diligent responsibility to protect and respect that freedom.

The American electorate needs to display their birthright of a secret ballot by shunning those who would both accept a political endorsement, and those who choose to make such a display of constitutional idiocy.

Our ancestors gave their lives to protect our right for a secret ballot; we owe our posterity that example of electoral intelligence.

Fair - part two

Despite the fact that the nebulous and inherently imbecilic premise of governmental ‘fairness” is discounted by the American electorate on an almost quantum level, the hue and cry over it continues unabated by the full spectrum of the body politic to he extent that the argument continues around a ‘fair’ tax structure and ‘fair’ tax rate, so that certain Americans would be paying their ‘fair’ share, despite there being no substantive  evidence that suggests what the intent of ‘fair’ might be.

The founders and framers had a very specific concept with respect to taxation. The Constitution clearly stated what their firm conviction was to as to taxation; they understood a functioning government needed revenue by way of collecting taxes, but their methodology was specific.

Consider the relevant delineation within Article 1, Section 9

“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Note the words ‘unless in proportion’.

That was what the constructors of our founding document believed to be the singular way of allaying the cost of government. There is little if any ambiguity; equally shared by all. No hint of ‘fair’, but only ‘equal’.

A subsequent Congress decided that there was a better way to be ‘fair’. They called it the sixteenth amendment and all it did was to use this phrase within its construct:

“without apportionment…and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The supposition is that they felt the Constitution as originally written was insufficiently ‘fair’.

The Constitution was flawed from its inception; qualifying black folks as three-fifths of a whole person was a bad idea, and thus that clause absolutely needed to be excised from the document nby wayof amendments.

The principal governmental funding mechanism, however, was changed to make it more ‘fair’ and thus one of the true bedrock principles of a self ruling democratic republic was scuttled for nothing more than a short sighted political theater sense of ‘fair’.

The dictum of unforeseen consequences has now led us to the point where the tax structure, its rates, and the concept of a tax is being used to quantize society as a whole, depending on the perceptions of those who are in temporary control of the mechanisms of government.

Consider the current financial state of the economy. It can be argued that the housing bubble, the deficiencies of Wall Street, and a bloated national debt were the cornerstones of the recent debacle.

The housing market collapse was initiated by the inflated worth of housing, and that mortgages were given to folks who could not have conceivable repaid those loans. The foundation for such a process was governments’ belief that it was only ‘fair’ that the American dream be realized by everyone, regardless the cost.

Wall Street was made whole by the abused taxpayer on the premise that if it was not bailed out, the very being of the economy would be destroyed, plunging the nation into irrevocable despair. It was deemed the right and ‘fair’ thing to do, given the scope of the national interest. Consider that: the government providing financial relief for private entities, in the name of ‘fairness’.  A free market economy will not thrive if the government is intent on deciding who will win, and who will lose.

The national debt is an ever increasing monster simply because of the fact politicians of all stripes have never explained what the cost of government actually is;  its obfuscation has become an art form unto itself. They pledge tax cuts, promise to increase taxes on the wealthy, so that they pay their ‘fair’ share, without detailing what those audacious claims mean in true dollars and cents.

How do they promise to either cut some, or raise some, again, all in the name of being ‘fair’, without disclosing what their intended fiscal end game truly is?

In hard economic times, an electorate is more than willing to seek a scapegoat for their troubles, and are ill-served when their elected officials opt to build straw men and claim that it is the ‘unfairness’ of the system is to blame.

The system, as envisioned and constructed by the founders and the framers is fine; it is the ignorance and cowardice of the current custodians of our heritage that make it seem unfair, manipulating money for short term political gain and glory.

There is little ‘fair’ about the American people being abused in such a manner, and the American people, en masse, need to put it end to it in the only way Americans know how – at the ballot box.

That is fair.