Freedom?

Supreme Court ruling on abortion :

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ''Today's decision is alarming,'' The ruling ''refuses to take ... seriously'' previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion. The decision ''tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.''

Stare decisis. Right! Justice Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts, expressed unwavering support for this principal during their confirmation hearings. I guess we could not see their fingers crossed behind their backs.

This is just another illustration of the hypocrisy of conservatism. While preaching “freedom” conservatives consistently seek to legislate or regulate moral behavior of individuals. To a conservative, freedom and liberty are economic terms. They have little meaning when it comes to individual freedom, be it reproductive, association, or sexual. Nor do conservatives seem to believe in the most fundamental freedoms laid out in the first amendment: Freedom to practice or not practice the religion of one’s choice, and freedom to express one’s views. Instead they want freedom to accumulate as much wealth as they can, with little interference from government, or the courts, or the torte system, and without regard for the greater good.

In spite of the current propaganda from the religious right, many of the framers were deists not Christians and had good reason to insure the United States did not become a theocracy. The argument that the separation of Church and State is to prevent government interference in religion and not religion getting involved in government is specious. How can it possibly make any sense? In essence we have religion involved in government because our elected officials may have religious beliefs which effect their decisions and choices. How could anyone possibly ask for anything more?

As with all things there is a level of balance. As Ogden Nash said: “My freedom ends where the other guy's nose begins.” We create and accept laws that restrict some personal freedom because we want a more orderly and stable society. When those laws come from the right they are aimed at individual behavior and defining moral values in a way that regulate behaviors having no effect on anyone except the individual. When laws are proposed from the left they tend to be aimed at groups like corporations who’s behavior is causing harm to large numbers of individuals.

Freedom is difficult to define, but I know it when I see it. What conservatives want ain’t it.

Tumbling Tumbling Down

The MSM calls it an "implosion", but to my mind the house of cards is falling down under the weight of all the lies. Now we learn that White House staff used RNC email accounts to avoid the Presidential Records Act. Reading Paul Krugman today we find the executive branch has been infiltrated by a certain brand of religious extremist. Then there is the whole Paul Wolfawitz/World Bank/girlfriend thing. To me the scary thing is these people are out of control but still in control. I fear it will take a long time to undo the damage they have done.

Many blame this on incompetence. To my mind it has been the strategy of this administration from the beginning. The idea has been to reduce our faith in government by making it not work. As much as I disliked Bill Clinton, I have to say that his administration made the government work, and work as well as it had in a generation. The theme of the conservative movement is: Government is the problem, not a part of the solution. Well I guess that begs the question: What is the solution? Letting the marketplace decide? Hah! Begging the question: What is the problem? For conservatives it is certainly not creating a better life for all.

I think the framers got it right. I continually amazed at their brilliant foresight. We now get to witness the checks and balances they envisioned work in real time. A slow process, but in any system stability does not come with rapid change .