The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Jillmz — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:41:17 -0000

DLS - we&#39re really veering apart at this point on the comments you&#39re quoting and commenting on. That&#39s the value of a blog, but my prior reflections in this thread about those assertions you&#39re making reflect my opinion still.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Jill Miller Zimon — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:41:17 -0000

DLS - we're really veering apart at this point on the comments you're quoting and commenting on. That's the value of a blog, but my prior reflections in this thread about those assertions you're making reflect my opinion still.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:22:29 -0000

"Maybe the reason the ACLU is a &#39left-Democratic auxiliary&#39 is that conservatives don&#39t care about civil liberties."

Plenty of suitable people also have been led to believe the "Conservatives are anti-science" myth, a more common and useful current political weapon and rationalization for Democratic politics and policies.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:18:10 -0000

"I think the concept of Judicial activism has been irreparably altered specifically by this Roberts Court"

It&#39s not like past decades, thank goodness. And Sotomayor, controversy and all, isn&#39t that threatening.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:14:51 -0000

" I don&#39t speak for &#39feminists&#39 as you see them."

There are no alternative "visions." The extremists characterize and taint contemporary feminism.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:13:33 -0000

"There&#39s no such thing as an accurate label unless all the people using it - speaking it and hearing it - agree on what it represents."

I made accurate statements of fact, and the "labels" (or whatever other name you may wish to substitute in place of "terms") are accurate if they are clear and correct, which they are. I suppose in a rare or odd case you could raise an example, such as demanding a specific wavelength to officially define a specific color, but that&#39s carrying things to rare and odd extremes, and is exceptional, not the norm.

Funny you mention agreement, as it is applicable to the (real) problem of judicial activism.

"And that&#39s just not the case with several of the labels you&#39ve used."

Well, if some would insist that "red" mean green instead, (which is a valid analogy to judicial activism, substuting one&#39s own views and wishes for what was intended and agreed on, and what may correctly may be inferred from this or retroactively applied to it, and having judges rather than the legislature state what a law _should_be_), I really don&#39t think that matters, Jill. Unanimity obviously is never required to define a term.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:22:29 -0000

"Maybe the reason the ACLU is a 'left-Democratic auxiliary' is that conservatives don't care about civil liberties."

Plenty of suitable people also have been led to believe the "Conservatives are anti-science" myth, a more common and useful current political weapon and rationalization for Democratic politics and policies.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:18:10 -0000

"I think the concept of Judicial activism has been irreparably altered specifically by this Roberts Court"

It's not like past decades, thank goodness. And Sotomayor, controversy and all, isn't that threatening.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:14:51 -0000

" I don't speak for 'feminists' as you see them."

There are no alternative "visions." The extremists characterize and taint contemporary feminism.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:13:33 -0000

"There's no such thing as an accurate label unless all the people using it - speaking it and hearing it - agree on what it represents."

I made accurate statements of fact, and the "labels" (or whatever other name you may wish to substitute in place of "terms") are accurate if they are clear and correct, which they are. I suppose in a rare or odd case you could raise an example, such as demanding a specific wavelength to officially define a specific color, but that's carrying things to rare and odd extremes, and is exceptional, not the norm.

Funny you mention agreement, as it is applicable to the (real) problem of judicial activism.

"And that's just not the case with several of the labels you've used."

Well, if some would insist that "red" mean green instead, (which is a valid analogy to judicial activism, substuting one's own views and wishes for what was intended and agreed on, and what may correctly may be inferred from this or retroactively applied to it, and having judges rather than the legislature state what a law _should_be_), I really don't think that matters, Jill. Unanimity obviously is never required to define a term.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

GaryJohnson2012 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:01:43 -0000

Mary Fallin - Lynn Cheney - 2016

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

GaryJohnson2012 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:01:43 -0000

Mary Fallin - Lynn Cheney - 2016

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Jillmz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:46:44 -0000

Ryan - well - I just haven&#39t reviewed enough cases of theirs lately - I tend to watch for religion and youth-related cases but otherwise don&#39t monitor regularly. I think we need to be careful and not push something that seems to be a common perception that, in fact, might not be. I&#39d be persuaded by stats etc but I don&#39t really know, beyond the meme kind of thing pushed about the ACLU. (I&#39m going a bit easy on them because I do know people who work for the ACLU and frankly, one of them, a Harvard grad, is very conservative so...I just wouldn&#39t be as sure as you are.)

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Ryan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:20:27 -0000

They might protect civil liberties all along the spectrum but if they&#39re involved then it tends to mean that someone is infringing on another&#39s civil liberties. Now consider conservative attitudes towards gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. Who do you suppose is going to get the short end of the stick?

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Jillmz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:16:37 -0000

@Ryan "40 minutes ago" (that&#39s what it says as I type this!)

That&#39s a great perspective re: the ACLU. I do actually feel that they protect civil liberties all along the spectrum, but I like what you wrote because you open the window on the nuance of how civil liberties are perceived, defined and, ugh - I can&#39t believe I&#39m writing this - labeled. :)

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Jillmz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:15:14 -0000

@DLS 12:36

Yeah, again, I will disagree w/you here. There&#39s no such thing as an accurate label unless all the people using it - speaking it and hearing it - agree on what it represents. And that&#39s just not the case with several of the labels you&#39ve used.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Jillmz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:12:49 -0000

@DLS 12:33

I disagree and I&#39m happy to throw down my JD/MSW dual licensure as a lawyer and social worker. I stand by my opinion and I disagree with your position. Nothing personal. I just completely disagree.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Jillmz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:10:34 -0000

To DLS @12:28 -

You are going to have to ask someone else - I don&#39t speak for "feminists" as you see them. I don&#39t know what more to tell you. I&#39m just not the right person to respond to that question. I would urge you to not label and compartmentalize so much but again, just IMO.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Jillmz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:09:26 -0000

To DLS @ 12:22pm today -

Hmm. I&#39ll think about these points. The re-emphasize your previous comments, but I&#39m not sure I agree or disagree anymore or less with you on them. For ex., sure - we&#39ve come to think that judicial activism is a term of art, but a la Frank Luntz and many others, such terms have come up for grab. Sometimes I like that, sometimes I don&#39t. Activism in and of itself is nonpartisan, IMO. Which is to say, I think the concept of Judicial activism has been irreparably altered specifically by this Roberts Court. That might come to be one of its hallmarks, really.

And kind of like conservative women embracing their own brand of feminism. There are just a lot of phrases up for grabs, and not being a lover of labels, I find that to be natural and interesting, but also dangerous.

The whole thing about feminism, abortion, academia - I don&#39t related to what you&#39re expressing. I understand what you&#39ve written, but it&#39s just not something I think about much at all - it involves a very tiny portion of individuals and I would not want to overstate the influence. That is, of course, just my opinion/feeling about it.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Jillmz — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:03:38 -0000

Ryan @10:30am today:

Got it - thank you.

Re: the pipeline metaphor - well....she said with a smile. This is the whole thing! Palin and Obama (and others, esp. if you read The Fix and his article today about how hard a time the White House and Rahm are having recruiting people) demonstrate that that assumption about how a long the pipe might be re: # of election cycles is totally up for grabs. I, personally, think that that is NOT necessarily a good thing. But I also think it shows how we should ALWAYS be looking at candidates on a case by case basis - different things take different lengths of time to mature/ripen - political candidates/politicians may or may not be any different, don&#39t you think?

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Ryan — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:34:27 -0000

Maybe the reason the ACLU is a "left-Democratic auxiliary" is that conservatives don&#39t care about civil liberties.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:36:13 -0000

"You are very comfortable, it seems, in calling this &#39liberal&#39 or &#39radical&#39 or whatever - labeling. I prefer to describe what I feel they do or don&#39t do"

I do both at the same time. The "labels" are accurate descriptors, not mere nomenclature devoid of anything in addition to their character elements.

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:33:47 -0000

"The ACLU can&#39t be knocked as liberal when you&#39ve got a SCOTUS whose 5-4 decisions this year in particular show a huge amount of activism "

I&#39ll just note that in addition to misusing "activism" here too freely and loosely, this was a logical goof of the first order. What matters is the nature of the ACLU; it&#39s irrelevent what you may believe, true or otherwise, about the behavior of other parties. (Also, even if the current Court _were_ activist, that is in no way a logical or ethical or any other kind of defense of the ACLU.) And we know the nature of the ACLU. (Like other parties such as unions, it&#39s effective a left-Democratic auxiliary.)

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:28:53 -0000

"Sadly, this post wouldn&#39t be necessary or even generating comments if the reality was that women were always perceived as just people. But they haven&#39t been and so this is where we are."

But what is it that feminists want now (or demand, or dogmatically "require", as C. Stanley put it so well?) Why substitute "well-to-the-left-of-the-public-as-well-as-often-blatantly-partisan-Democrat" for "people"?

(Note: This applies to other leftist groups in the Democratic Party camp, like black Americans. The Democratic Party and liberalism in this country isn&#39t merely "inclusive" but demands ideological, political, and often blatantly partisan dogma as credentials of these "people&#39s" _authenticity_, in their view.)

Re: GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

DLS — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:22:19 -0000

Jill,

1. 49 comments so far. I told you that this is the best thread in quite a while (as measured, at least, by the number of comments it has attracted).

2. Judicial activism is a term that is quite clear, and doesn&#39t merit being used if a courts&#39 decisions merely aren&#39t what you want (not liberal enough, or not liberal frequently enough). True critics such as I of the illegitimate practice know the difference between correct use of the term and misuse of the term, be it out of ignorance, to seek dimunition of the term&#39s effect when correctly used, to confuse, or elsewise.

3. I deliberately chose not to comment on something, as I occasionally do in order to let others mention it first, and it has been mentioned now: abortion. Even those of us moderates and even those who truly are conservative who support abortion rights are repelled by the extremist, militant, and worse stance that is frequently taken by feminist groups, far out of the mainstream (government should provide abortion to all, even minors, demanding no parental consent or even notification, etc; blind, maniacal devotion to and defense of Roe v. Wade, which was an obvious truly activist ruling by the Supreme Court; pro-abortion, as-militant-as-possible "litmus test" along with absolute acceptance of Roe v. Wade for any candidate Justice of the Supreme Court, etc.), as well as the accompanying dishonesty and slander about people who oppose such extremism, and its frequently accompanying dishonesty and slander of such people that they are "anti-woman" [sic], with the implicit presumption that the militant extremists define what is the "true" [sic] position of and for women. This also goes for other occasional farther-left "causes" on which "authentic" women are expected to hold the (politically) "correct" position, such as the "comparable worth" cause.

4. I could also have added yesterday the bizarre phenomenon in academia of what is claimed to be "scholarship" related to feminism (and women&#39s studies), which is a combination of schizoid word-and-phrase-salad psycho-babble and predictable adherence to a radical (sometimes militant and extremist) left-wing political ideology, along with related excursions into an alternative universe, claiming, similar to what the Afro-centrist kooks* have, that conventional, "establishment" science as well as the economy and society are "patriarchal," wrongly contrived (typically to "dominate" or "suppress" women, minorities, etc.-- Evil Western Culture) and there are legitimate alternative female versions of these, that in fact are superior), and that people should be "discovering" patriarchal "privilege" [sic] everywhere and feeling guilty about it and flagellating themselves to atone for this -- but I didn&#39t mention it earlier because these people truly are fringists and ordinarily don&#39t merit attention. However, they are part of feminism&#39s true baggage.

* Birds of a feather -- PC-lockstep far-left types. Same "problems," same "solutions" -- quite typical.