The American Dilemma and How We Can Fix It

 

When my parents took me to see “The Wizard of Oz” my mother shushed me for speaking out after the above scene was shown on the screen.  I didn’t understand why Dorothy went around the road at its circular beginning instead of just starting at the part of the road where it straightened out.  I think Mom believed she had released a hellion on the world.  Maybe so.

This, of course, brings me to she of our time who is the queen and diva of convoluted thinking , Nancy Pelosi.  Possibly of all time – although I haven’t reached that conclusion quite yet.

Leader Pelosi has categorized the recent Hobby Lobby decision by the Supreme Court, granting that company an exemption from the Obamacare mandate on providing abortifacients as just one more bomb in the war on women.  Furthermore, she categorized the five male Justices as being participants in that war, if for no other reason, because of their gender.  Well, everyone is entitled to her opinion – however warped it might be.  But let’s see where this kind of thinking on the part of the liberal left, of whom Ms. Pelosi is an outstanding example, logically leads us.

For purposes of this conversation, let’s assume that Ms. Pelosi is correct.  A man simply cannot properly adjudicate an issue that is related to women simply because of a difference in our sexual apparatus .  But the “logic” of this argument would suggest that having a different experience de facto disqualifies a person from making judgments about others whose experience is different from their own.

Certainly if it’s true that a man should have no involvement in questions regarding women, it should be equally true that women should have no involvement in questions regarding men.  While I have never heard anyone on the left make that statement it does seem logical enough to me.  But should we stop there?

Let’s take the case of a man who is accused of rape.  Obviously, a woman should not serve on a jury adjudicating this case as her lifelong experience has been different from that of the male rapist and therefore it is impossible for her to come to an objective determination because she lacks the mindset to do so as a simple result of her gender.

But if that is true, then might we not go further?  Should we not restrict the jury pool not only just to men, but to men who have themselves also been accused of committing rape?  Would they not be the best  equipped to understand the mind of the accused rapist – far better than the general population – and therefore be better able than others to cut through all the legal jargon and actually penetrate to  the crux of the matter?

It disturbs me that someone who holds a position of “leadership” in our government and at one time was third in line of succession to the presidency does not understand that it is not the role of the Congress to critique the Supreme Court but it is the role of the Court to critique the laws which Congress enacts.  More disturbing is that Pelosi will win re-election by overwhelming margins until she dies or retires.

But perhaps there is hope.  I have dropped her an email explaining that the Yellow Brick Road on the way to Oz begins just off of San Francisco near Fisherman’s Wharf and submerged only about thirty feet under the Pacific’s surface.  Perhaps she will lead a brigade of her supporters on a journey to Oz, thereby making the country and the world safer for the rest of us.  Bon voyage!

Advertisements

Comments on: "FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD" (9)

  1. Well, I don’t pay much attention to any politician, because sloganeering is a big part of what they do. I was able to see the Court’s majority opinion was both nonsensical AND discriminatory without Pelosi’s help. I read Alito’s opinion, and Ginsburg’s dissent.

    It’s not just that all five who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby are men, it’s also that they are all Catholics, dogmatically opposed to contraceptives and safe abortion in principle, and unable to put that bias aside to rule on the basis of legal precedence and Constitutionality alone.

    The Green family used to cover the 4 methods they decided to bring suit by objecting to, until the PPACA mandated doing it. It was the right thing to do, until the wrong kind of president told them it was. They argued the 4 methods were not contraceptives, but “abortifacients”, methods that would expel a fertilized egg. The Greens oppose abortion in any form.

    But that’s not how the 4 methods work. They prevent fertilization, or act as spermacides. The majority opinion admits that Hobby Lobby got the science wrong, but still was entitled to exemption, because their objection was sincere and religiously-based. So now religious dogma gets to trump scientific fact. ANY fact, so long as your religious objection is devout. This decision opens the door for every loopy cult on Earth to cherry-pick their way out of laws they object to following. Ginsburg gave a few tame examples including Jehovah’s Witness employers being able to refuse to pay for transfusions, or Muslims being able to refuse coverage for treatments like heart valve repair using pig parts.

    The discriminatory part of the ruling, which is the basis for Pelosi’s sloganeering, is that Hobby Lobby now gets to refuse to cover some contraceptive methods for women, while still paying for contraceptives, vasectomies and Viagra (!!??) for men.

    • Thanks for taking the time to provide your lengthy and thoughtful respose.

      While I appreciate your taking the high road as far as evaluaing Leader Pelosi’s basis for her opinion, I am not sure that I agree with you that she is indeed concerned about the substance of the decision as opposed to what she wants to categorize as its appearance. To argue that the Justices’ Roman Catholic faith was influential in making their determination would seem to be undercut on its face by the fact that many Roman Catholics practice birth control and some, including Pelosi. advocate for abortion as well, cleraly in opposition to official church doctrine and teaching. If history is an indicator, I suspect you did a lot more homework on this decision than did the former Speaker who crammed through the PPACA without giving it a thorough reading.

      As to “opening the door” for allowing people with religious objections from trying to exempt themselves from receiving a specific form of medical treatment, I suspect the pendulum has swung far more to having society make those decisions for them, rather than the other way around. There have been many instances in which both children and adults who religiously wanted to refuse receiving transfusions or other medical procedures were forced into doing so.

      As to the most recent argument that the four abortifacients to which you refer do not in fact act as such, that is the latest attempt to misdirect the facts by those who want to provide unlimited abortive procedures. Both the FDA and the DOJ in their arguments before the court admit that is precisely the purpose of these drugs and devices – specifically, to inhibit a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

      So to the question of balance, perhaps we could even the score on this by simply prohibiting certain kinds of male contraceptives – neon prophylastics might be an excellent candidate.

      Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

  2. You’re welcome, and I appreciate your polite response. The FDA in no way supports the idea that these methods are abortifacients. I’m a medical assistant and imaging tech. Facts are facts. I have to know them to renew my licenses.

    • Well, reasonable people may agree to disagree. However, if you read the DOJ’s arguments before the court you will see that they specifically alleged that the reason for Hobby Lobby’s wanting to exclude these specific four drugs/devices was because they were abortion-inducing. Perhaps government departments should learn to communicate better with one another.

      Although I was pressed for time in my earlier response, I did want to follow up on your assertion that Hobby Lobby previously covered these four particular items but then dropped them. I inferred that was simply so they would have a basis for filing this legal challenge. That is the first I heard of that – which surprises me as it would seem that would be a real focus of attention. Would you be able to provide the source for that statement? I always like to do my own research, no matter how credible the source. Thanks in advance.

      • The fact that the Greens had changed their position on what to pay for was brought up in News articles before the case was argued, but also during the case itself. Hobby Lobby pleaded ignorance. They said they “didn’t know” they had previously covered the methods, until they went over the mandated treatment procedure list from HHS, and then decided not to cover them. I can’t say I know what the truth is, but the timing of the reversal seemed suspicious. Here’s a fairly typical round-up article that cites Mother Jones, Forbes, CNN and others in summarizing the non-legal philosophical opposition : http://guardianlv.com/2014/07/hobby-lobby-angers-some-christians-with-hypocrisy/

        Amicus Curie (“Friend of the Court” – expert testimony from authorities outside the case) briefs from doctors and pharmaceutical companies explained for the Court the specific actions and mechanisms the treatments employed for preventing pregnancy. That’s why the majority had to admit the products did not induce abortions. They therefore decided in favor solely on the basis of legal precedent via the RFRA act of 1993. However, the protections of the RFRA were never previously extended to companies, only to individuals, hence the minority dissenting opinion suggesting this was a decision of breadth and not a narrow ruling.

      • Thanks for the update. I’ll check this out.

  3. Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.

  4. Trixie Black said:

    There you go again…Being logical.

    • It’s on the list of bad habits I’m trying to kick. The good news is that I’ve reduced that list to a mere 244 – so I’ve made great progress.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: