Irrespective of Circumstances: Pro-Life Rubio Thinks Abortion Shouldn't be an Option for Rape Victims

by Nomad

GOP establishment might be banking on Marco Rubio but his total-restriction views on abortions actually represent a mere 19% of the American people.  

No Exceptions Marco

Last year a Gallup poll suggested that a narrow majority of Americans (51%) felt that abortion should remain legal under certain circumstances. Twenty-nine percent, however, said that abortion should be legal under all circumstances. 

The lowest percentage of the respondents (19%) said that abortion should be illegal under any and all circumstance. Ordinarily, this absolute limit refers to conditions where the mother's life is in danger or pregnancy following a rape or incest. 

That absolutist restrictive poition has always been the extremes of the pro-life movement. In fact, the SCOTUS' Roe vs. Wade decision originated from a rape case. (The ruling, however, did not revolve around that particular circumstance.)

On Sunday, the GOP establishment's latest hope, Marco Rubio revealed that, if elected- he would only very reluctantly sign a anti-abortion bill that provided an exception for rape and incest cases. 

His position pits the candidate against a full 81% of the American electorate.

Rejecting Stagnation: Why a Progressive Ideology is Really What America's All About

by Nomad

In a world impatient for change and for development, what's so wrong about a progressive superpower?

Candidate JEB expressed a complaint commonly heard among the conservatives about the progressive mentality.

The progressive and liberal mindset believes that to every problem there is a Washington, D.C. solution.

Unlike a lot of rubbish endelessly repeated in the Republican ranks, JEB's remark is not entirely untrue. Too often too much faith is put in government to resolve all problems and immediately.

But is the alternative- of doing nothing and ignoring a problem- really any better? 

The Cancer that Ate America?

It strange to hear conservatives use the idea of progress as a kind of insult. Easily outraged Glenn Beck, back when he still had his gig at Fox News, once called JEB's brother and former President George W. Bush a progressive. (The nerve!) 

And yet, George Bush thought of himself as a “compassionate conservative." So perhaps the label is based more on one's perspective.

In the twisted mind of Glenn Beck, progressive ideology is a "cancer that's eating at America" and anybody who might think differently is "evil." Progressives are little better than Nazis, These are things he has actually claimed, at least.

The term progressive is often associated with change of a "radical" kind. As we all know, a radical is a dangerous person. Radicals blow up buildings and call for the overthrow of governments. A radical ideology is one that cannot be argued with. Compromise is not possible with radicals because a radical is not willing to respect anybody with a different opinion.

Of course, what could be more radical a policy than cutting health care for millions of Americans, eliminating environmental regulations that ensure clean air and clean water? What could be more radical than privatizing or cutting Social Security for seniors who depend on this assistance for their survival?
Shutting down the government solely on the basis of a ideological principle seems pretty radical to me. 

Beck wouldn't be the first person on the Right to use the term progressive in such a way. For quite some time now, according to conservative media, a progressive has been a very very bad thing to be.
Yet that view seems to run counter to so many ideas that America was actually built upon.

Gandhi: On Truth and Error

by Nomad

Why GOP Complaints about Pharma Price-Gouging of Vets is a Hypocritical Smokescreen

by Nomad

One Republican complaints against a drugmaker's price-gouging may be applaudable. As long as you have only half of the facts. 

In yet another example of mainstream media failing to properly inform the public, we can point to CNN and its posting of US Rep. Jeff Miller's op-ed piece. The article demonstrates how, when critical information is left out of a story, the news becomes nothing less than a lie.

The subject of Miller's piece is price-gouging by pharma companies, particularly when it comes to medication for veterans. The company in question, Gilead Sciences, has been scrutinized on several occasions in this blog. (here, here and here)

In his article, the Congressman for Florida's First district writes:

If not for the service and sacrifice of those who have worn the uniform, the United States would not be the extraordinary place it is today. Unfortunately, this concept seems lost on the people at drugmaker Gilead Sciences.

Whenever we try to qualify patients by who "deserves" life-saving treatments more, we run into ethical questions. It is all in keeping with Republican efforts to be percieved as actually caring about veterans.
The record tells a different story. In fact, the GOP has a fairly dismal record when it comes to veterans. Last year, the House Appropriations removed more than $1.4 billion from President Obama’s proposed 2016 budget. As one source notes:

As a result of the cuts, it was estimated that 70,000 fewer veterans would be able to receive needed care.