An American absurd

[angus]

No, Dibble's right on this point.  Someone says slave and you automatically think of some poor huari bastard in the forced employ of a rich Inca, or a conscripted mesopotamian building a pyramid in the hot egyptian sun, or a west african chained to the lower deck of a 17th century Dutch ship bound for Jamaica.

But loose that stereotype.  The analogy is the one I read into JJ's question as well.  Shira suggests that we all buy into the notion that if you aren't making enough to pay the rent on a one-bedroom apartment in Greenwich (try to get out of New England, sometime, sweetie!) then we ought to be sold on a social democracy, German style.  My brother, a pot-smoking, coke-snorting, gun-toting, mullet-wearing, anti-government, anti-health care Libertarian (don't want any goddamned health insurance, don't get sick, thankyouverymuch) from Michigan argues the point much better than I, so I'll not try too hard, but you have to understand that some folks really don't want that much government control over their lives.

what gets lost in all this is that universal health care is a moral value.  It's not one which you may share, nor I, but it is, in fact, a moral value.  I'm not sure even Shira realized this.

[angus]

oops, just read JJ's post that its a misinterpretation.  oh, well, seems it went over my head too. 

[angus]

I'm not sure I even understand the relevance of your question, but I think it's a hypothetical I cannot relate to.  I am a product of this society and in this society, I could NEVER have slaves.  I would imagine that had I grown up in the south pre-civil war, it would be the only society I knew and I'd probably (sadly) just go with the program.  I'd like to think that I wouldn't but I'll never know.

By the way, I am actually a southerner - born and bred in Kentucky - and still a huge Wildcat fan - can't wait till basketball season, which is  just around the corner.

I wouldn't suggest that you be so hard on yourself.  There were a few pre-civil war southerners, like Robert E. Lee, who didn't think it was moral to own slaves.  You might have very well been one of them.

The Lee analogy is my point.  He probably could have increased his wealth by doing something, completely legal, that he thought was immoral.  Sometimes people put a greater value on doing something they think in morally right, even if it puts them at an economic disadvantage.

WMS is completely right.

well, in that case:  hell yeah, if I'm Amun Ra I'd rather you out there in the hot sun building my pyramid, rather than my own delicate children doing it.  Better luck in your next life, slave. 

Don't ever buy into that marxist notion that there's any innate nobility in poverty. 

Now, get your scrawny asses back to work or I'll have Isis rain locusts and piss down on your crops, and have your wives as my mistresses!

[angus]

I think that I have not properly expressed myself.
I am talking about the non-issue of gay marriage, playing such a major role.
I have never seen this topic mentioned in election campaigns in other countries.

As to the ignorance that I talked about, many of the voters, for example, (including these without health insurance) do not even know that in other countries healthcare systems are different, and that no one is without health insurance.

while I may have misinterpreted JJ, I'm quite sure I didn't misinterpret you.  You are correct that wedge issues are silly, just as silly as wondering aloud why folks would live in big houses with lots of servants (of course we'd rather live in big houses with lots of servants!)  But I share your concern that we're talking about gay-marriage and the like, while we should be talking economics.  Indeed you make a good point.  I make it often.

I'd only point out to you that championing Universal Health Care is among the most *moralistic* positions one can take.  Think about that a bit. 

I will take exception with your implicit, or tacit, proposition that if only people knew about Health Insurance they'd want it.  Many, many of us really don't want that level of governmental interference.  And I'm not talking about the so-called "conservatives."  I'm talking about the Real Right.  The small-government types.

[angus]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

agreed.  Frankly, her way of putting it was inelegant, but it's a valid point, much like the point of the many extreme rich voting for Kerry, despite the cost in taxes.

Rich voting for Kerry (who himself is very rich) is totally different than low-income people voting for Bush.

The first ones are knowledgeable and well educated. They care much more about the Iraqi debacle than on whether they will pay $X or Y$ as taxes.

many Bush supporters care about the Iraq debacle as well.  But the fact is that the 200 billion we spent is gone.  poof.  up in smoke.   might as well have set it afire.  Installing Kerry as the president won't bring that back.  I was as vehemently opposed to US military involvement in Iraq as I can imagine anyone being.  And that's a big part of the reason I want to see those who started it get us out.  Think Bush doesn't have a sufficient plan for Iraq?  Well, frankly, neither does Kerry.  And at least with Team Bush you get a group that has given it some thought.

Moreover, Kerry has a fine voting record.  Based on your posts, I should think you'd want too see him continue as a lawmaker, which is something he does well.  Seriously.  Why buy into the popular, but indefensible notion, of applying the Peter Principle to this distinguished Statesman and Senator? 

Ah, well, campaign's over.  No need to beat a dead horse.

Have fun arguing 

[angus]

shira, bush and republicans didnt start the gay marriage controversy, gavin newsom in san francisco and the massachusetts supreme court did when they went over peoples heads to force it in the states.  people naturally wanted to make a statement on how they felt about it and bush echoed the sentiments of the people, bush has never said he supported the ban out of personal belief, but to curb activist judges who would go over the majority will of the people

still at it, eh boys and girls?

one subtle point:  the Newsom agenda was very different than the SJC decision.  In the first case, Californians had long since passed a referendum defining marriage as a bond between one woman and one man.  period.  Thus Newsom, the Mayor (an executive branch position), was breaking the law.  While I strongly support gay marriage rights, I think Newsom was a culprit.  He shirked the duty.  His is not to reason why, his is just to do or die.

The SJC, on the other hand, said simply that a law was non-compliant with the state's highest law:  its constitution.  Whether or not you agree with their decision, they were doing their jobs.  Don't like it?  Change the constitution.  In fact, that was their point.  They put the ball back in the court of Finnerman and the state leg.  No laws were broken in this case.  Very different than what Newsom, a lawbreaker, did.