Are GOP Governors who Reject Medicaid Expansion Violating their Residents' Civil Rights?

by Nomad

If the first duty of government is to protect its citizens then isn't access to health care included in that idea? 

Are the 21 governors that rejected the Medicaid expansion violating their state residents' civil rights? 

It has been long recognized that the first duty of government is to protect the people. Everything else- including party politics and budget considerations come after that responsibility. (This was something that even Ronald Reagan recognized.)  

The Most Basic Duty of Government

The idea that government has its special duty is based on the so-called Social Compact that pre-dates (but is upheld by) the US Bill of Rights and the Constitution. 

It works like this: The government has a duty to protect and in turn, all citizens conditionally surrender their absolute freedom (but not surrender absolutely) as a form of consent. Furthermore as subjects, all citizens were obliged to contribute- in the form of taxes and in the form of general compliance- to maintain the general welfare of the nation.
More and more we see some- especially in the Tea Party- calling to question this compact. 

Teddy Roosevelt and The Necessity for Government Regulation

by Nomad

Women and Politics: Why We can Never Go Back to the 1950s

by Nomad

In my formative years (which, as far as I can tell, haven't ended) there was a popular tune was by Helen Reddy called "I am Woman." It became a kind of anthem to the Feminist Movement of the 1970s. It was a song that clearly changed lives.

Back then, I couldn't understand what the fuss was about back then. I mean, apart from the dubious grammar, my thought was "Okay, you are woman. Wasn't it obvious?" Since that time, the tides of enlightenment through liberation have swept in, left their marks and in some ways, swept out again. 

For some people, the fact that women really are people who deserve the same rights as the male population isn't all that obvious and some of these people somehow find themselves in positions of power.

In any event,  related to that idea,  here are two articles from women I thought I would share with you. 

First, there one by Kimberley A. Johnson, the author of The Virgin Diaries. It is called "Why I Am Leaving The Democratic Party And Voting Republican." 

Here's an excerpt:

I imagine this will come as a great shock to many but I have decided that rather than vote for the losing team in November, I will vote a straight Republican ticket.

I have been singing the liberal song for so long now and it just isn’t working. I have asked so many senators and representatives to support the Equal Rights Amendment because for some crazy reason, I thought women should earn as much as men for the same work. They just ignore me. Every time I turn around, I hear Republican women telling me that pay inequality is just a myth. Men say it too. Rick Perry just said it is ridiculous to even discuss it, and he has GREAT HAIR!

She goes on to say:

I think the main reason why I have decided to vote Republican is because I am just sick and tired of worrying about my rights. It’s exhausting. Voting is such a pain anyway. I could be at the mall getting my nails done and ENJOYING a nice massage and some Republican man can pay for it. I am sick and tired of having to make every decision myself.

I tend to think she might be pulling my leg. What do you think?

NYT Editor John Swinton and The Truth about the Independent Press

by Nomad

The American journalist, orator, and fighter for progressive causes, John Swinton (1829-1901) has long been forgotten by the public but his comments on the Independent press of his day seems strikingly familiar to our own.

To Fawn at the Feet of Mammon

In 1880, newspaper publisher, New York Times chief editor and orator John Swinton was the guest of honor at a banquet for the press. When a toast was raised to the independent press, Swinton reportedly had this rather surprising announcement:

THERE is no such thing in America as an independent press, unless it is in the country towns. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write his honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with—others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things—and any of you who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

The business of the New York journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his race and his country for his daily bread.

You know this and I know it, and what folly is this to be toasting an "Independent Press." We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.

We are intellectual prostitutes.

Call It Irony: Mormon Leaders Oppose Re-Defining The Concept of Marriage

by Nomad

The official opposition of the Mormon Church to same-sex marriage reveals an amusing paradox, unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
Given its history with polygamy, what authority does the Mormon Church have to dictate what is and what is not a traditional marriage?

A few days ago Neil L. Andersen , a well-respected leader of the  Church of the Latter Day Saints,  had an announcement to make on the official position of the Mormon Church on same-sex marriage.  The opinions of Andersen, as a member of of the Quorum of the Twelve, carry a lot of weight. He declared:

"While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not. He designated the purpose of marriage to go far beyond the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of adults, to more importantly, advancing the ideal setting for children to be born, reared and nurtured."

One can scrutinize the position and point out its flaws, such as the fact that, while the Church gives its stamp of approval on all traditional marriage, it doesn't dare claim that every marriage is an ideal setting for children. So why does it do so in this case?

Apart from some manufactured evidence from special interests, there is no actual proof that same-sex marriage is any better or any worse for child rearing and nurturing. At least that's what qualified doctors tell us:

“Many studies have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents,” Siegel writes with coauthor Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics and director of developmental and behavioral pediatrics.

Nevertheless, Andersen knows because .. well, he just knows because God told him so. Yet, Church leaders have been wrong in the past. And they have had to suddenly reverse their formerly rock-solid positions on marriage in the past.