Steven P. BarrettABOVE HIS PAY GRADE ALRIGHT, SO'S THE JOB
August 17th 2008 21:04
By Steven Barrett
It's time for the Big O to relearn his birds and the bees from one of his closest advisors: Michelle Obama. He's already been given at least two lessons, but seeing that he's having a hard time understanding when we become human beings, I'm sure she could fill him in.
The old salt, John McCain had no problems. Maybe it's because he's a little older, owns a few more wrinkles around his eyes and seen a lot more than Obama would ever care to in his worst nightmares, much less the good times, the Navy pilot had it all over his younger opponent, just on one little question.
Warren's question dealing with the legal status of an unborn fetus was wonderfully crafted because it avoided giving any recipient wiggle room.
When does a fetus obtain legal protection?
When you're forced to answer a softball question like that, you'd best have a definitive answer or you'll forever be playing catch up.
McCain gave the obvious answer: The moment of conception. Not a toughie. But Obama simply blew it when he said the answer was above his pay grade. Michelle, where are you? Your ever so bright hubbie, the guy liberals keep saying walks on water, doesn't know when we become human. You know, and you told him. He probably didn't get it then any more than he couldn't find it sitting across from Rick Warren.
His next flub was in trying to explain his voting record with this self-delusionary notion that he's not pro-abortion. Somehow if you're carrying all the campaign cash Planned Parenthood and NARAL are shoveling hand over fist to your campaign, that doesn't make you pro-abortion.
Want to run that by again? Along with the "pay grade" line?
If I were any of your assorted Daddy Warbucks pumping money in what's soon to be a hole in the water of a campaign for you -- I'd be looking for a new craft. Buddy, you're springing some pretty big leaks here. No doubt a certain former Democratic president lit up a big fat cigar when he heard your take on the birds and the bees.
It's time for the Big O to relearn his birds and the bees from one of his closest advisors: Michelle Obama. He's already been given at least two lessons, but seeing that he's having a hard time understanding when we become human beings, I'm sure she could fill him in.
The old salt, John McCain had no problems. Maybe it's because he's a little older, owns a few more wrinkles around his eyes and seen a lot more than Obama would ever care to in his worst nightmares, much less the good times, the Navy pilot had it all over his younger opponent, just on one little question.
Warren's question dealing with the legal status of an unborn fetus was wonderfully crafted because it avoided giving any recipient wiggle room.
When does a fetus obtain legal protection?
When you're forced to answer a softball question like that, you'd best have a definitive answer or you'll forever be playing catch up.
Huhhhh?
McCain gave the obvious answer: The moment of conception. Not a toughie. But Obama simply blew it when he said the answer was above his pay grade. Michelle, where are you? Your ever so bright hubbie, the guy liberals keep saying walks on water, doesn't know when we become human. You know, and you told him. He probably didn't get it then any more than he couldn't find it sitting across from Rick Warren.
His next flub was in trying to explain his voting record with this self-delusionary notion that he's not pro-abortion. Somehow if you're carrying all the campaign cash Planned Parenthood and NARAL are shoveling hand over fist to your campaign, that doesn't make you pro-abortion.
Want to run that by again? Along with the "pay grade" line?
If I were any of your assorted Daddy Warbucks pumping money in what's soon to be a hole in the water of a campaign for you -- I'd be looking for a new craft. Buddy, you're springing some pretty big leaks here. No doubt a certain former Democratic president lit up a big fat cigar when he heard your take on the birds and the bees.
| 71 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Meanwhile, the question that was posed, “When does a fetus get human being status and protection?” isn’t readily and universally answered. For example, from a religious point of view, many mainstream faiths do not consider conception to be the defining moment.
Last year I posted some consequences of treating a fetus, at least before viability, as having all of the rights of a “person”.
Most people accept that certain exceptions to the prohibition of rape do exist. There is precedent for excusing the killing of a human being, and, to some extent, they could be applicable and applied here.
Generally, a person may kill another if the killing were in self-defense. Thus, there is a generally accepted excuse for an abortion, even at a late stage, if the pregnancy is terminated to save the life of the mother. If one accepts the fetus as living person, then can the relative values and “worth” of the mother and yet-unborn child be compared? If that comparison is found to be offensive, then what if the choice is the life of the fetus and the physical or emotional health of the mother?
Another exception often allowed by pro-life adherents is in connection with a pregnancy as a result of rape. If one feels that rape would excuse an abortion, he or she risks being caught in an ethical and logical mess.
One last quandary to be addressed is the legal consequences of treating the fetus as the same as a living person.
Would an early term abortion constitute murder on the part of the mother who makes that choice or on the part of the physician? Are you prepared to imprison a woman who has had an abortion; a mother would certainly be prosecuted for willfully killing an infant. A doctor who participated in the killing of a live child several months old would certainly be subject to prosecution. What punishment will be imposed upon a pregnant woman who ingests a drug in the belief that the pregnancy will terminate?
What if the pregnant woman acts in a manner inconsistent with the health and even life of the unborn child? Once the child is born, there are statutes and policies in place to prevent, or punish, child abuse or neglect. Suppose the woman’s doctor warns her of serious aspects of the pregnancy and directs her to take medicine or get extra rest and she does not take the medicine and goes to a disco every night, remaining until dawn. She suffers a miscarriage, likely due to her failure to take measures to protect the fetus from harm. Will we prosecute her for murder? What if the pregnant woman continues to smoke or drink or refuses to take prescribed vitamins, all legal behaviors. Can she be arrested for endangering her child? If a fetus is the same as a living child, it should follow.
Whatever you believe, I suggest that the issues are not so clear cut as Senator McCain would have you believe.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The bottom line in all this is why these two candidate thought it was necessary to attend such a debate.
Obviously there is a crucial constituent that is both want to vote for them. The candidate are honing into the demographic that might win or lose their election.
So for those people hoping that there is going to be some Secular Revolution coming they must be sitting back and wondering what the hell is going on. Reality check number one: the revolution is over before it starts. It is all about broader interests than a few ideological points.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
Of course we're not talking about electoral gamesmanship here, but we are talking about the denigration of a person's full humanity. History has shown time and time again (especially during the past 100 years) what happens when people are stripped of their full humanity. I've visited such a reminder: Dachau.
Still, some people managed to escape the holocausts, pogroms, and other genocides because they and/or their parents and loved ones were able to get out or help them get out.
What chance does an unborn child have in comparison? Especially if further legal denigration of their full humanity is allowed? My (Catholic) Church states clearly "human life begins at conception." I'm not one to quarrel with Church teachings, but I'd even advocate for further hair-splitting in the exact opposite direction you've taken your argument by substituting the word "instant" for "moment," for no other reason than to drive my point home with more emphasis -- primarily because a sharp distinguishing and final line has to be drawn.
So long as the pro-abortion lobby can get away with its own brand of hair-splitting to justify abortion and keep this legal issue simmering on a perpetual political hot stove, it'll continue raking in millions of dollars through its mini-Auschwitzes across the country. And so long as it has allies in small-c catholic Benedict Arnolds like NARAL's Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling putting their hay of political interest money in the stalls of their stable of reliable pols, this killing business will go on and on and on ... but to what end and what will it look like? II'll give you a big hint: with the deaths of 40 would be taxpayers, what kind of shape do you think social security will be in by the year 2040 or 45? Who knows? But I know damn we wouldn't even be worrying about it. After all, it wasn't 40 million baby boomers we killed off.
And there's the tie-in with embryonic stem cell-research: without aborted children, there goes their would-be supply of these cells and all their arguments, and grants, etc. to go with them if the BIG BUSINESS of baby-killing was to continue unabatted.
I can tell that you're not in favor of this, but by giving Obama and his-like thinkers this much room for the benefit of the doubt when the need for clarity is badly needed to save lives by drawing final distinctions -- you're falling right into their crowd on this.
And as for the last example you brought up about the careless pregnant mother; I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation in giving her a new set of stainless steel wrist jewelry. People are initially arrested for murder as a result of wanton disregard, neglect or even abuse and their cases are plea- bargained down to manslaughter. But they still have to pay for their crimes. As for exposing an unborn child to cigarette smoke and booze, I'd have her arrested in a heartbeat.
That sounds harsh; but it's a lot milder and more just all around to both mother and child. After all, if the child survives and thrives, there's still time for a possible reunification, and carefully monitored rehabilitation of the mother, etc. Not so with death as the result of parental carelessness.
In the eyes of some folks, and to some degree yourself, judging by your points and defense of Obama's--fetuses at one time before we became human beings. But I'd prefer to take the argument held by my Church and many other Christian denominations, that we're all human beings from the very moment/instant of our conception(s.)
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
Ruby, How can I thank you enough for putting a big wide grin on my face with that crack about mentioning the Nazis so deep into the blog. Actually, I wasn't aware that something was coming in from Damo when I penned my remarks; but I'm glad you caught it. Maybe the next time I'll update it by mentioning the Khmer Rouge, or the Serbs.
But after all's said and done, you know what I'm getting at!
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
ANONYMOUS: IN THE ABSENCE OF TEACHING ABOUT HONORING AND PRESERVING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE, WHAT WOULD YOU PREFER MY CHURCH TO TEACH ABOUT?
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Of course life begins at conception. What is a woman pregnant with? The term is "pregnant with child" and the pro-abortion crowd doesn't like to be reminded that some of us know what they're in favor of.
Obama is a sick puppy who wants the abortion survivors killed. His hopes of getting "the evangelical and Catholic" vote with hopefully come to nothing. It's way above his "pay grade" to give a rats behind about anything but the polls and the voters he can fool.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
I'm not in the least fazed by Anon's remarks, except more or less suprised by the vehement tone. THis person's not alone in asking why was RIck Warren brought in? Besides the fact he wouldn't be my first idea for an inquisitor -- which is what pols need. I'm not talking about watching Obama and McCain come on to a stage where next to the interviewer's desk is The Rack, thumbscrews, stocks, things used for waterboarding and such. Just somebody who'd put the fear of God in them. Read that Anonymous?
Good ol' fashioned "fear of God which is the beginning of all wisdom."
And nobody would've been burnt at the stake. (Though I wonder what kind of reception The Big O had when he got home. Talk about a double-bad night!)
In fairness to Warren, he proved to be the right man by the way he mixed his questions and crafted them in such a way as to cut out as much wiggle space as possible to prevent exactly what Obama fell into. That was a trap of his own making consisting of pure eggheady flatulence. He was given a golden opportunity in a pleasant sit-down discussion format and he simply choked in the worst way possible.
And as badly as he mangled the abortion issue, the arrogance and intellectual snobbery he displayed while tearing down Clarence Thomas was overwhelmingly palpable. He could've left it at Thomas' conservative leanings; but no, that wasn't enough for this guy. He wanted to make Thomas look like Stepinfetchit. Big HUGE Mistake. That, along with his lack of understanding of the natural tension between the judiciary and executive branches, when he said he'd seek to reduce undue pressure on the judiciary by the executive. What a pack of lies. If he actually believes this foolishness, he's lying to himself. But from there I guess it only gets easier. Because I can't believe he's that dumb to believe this nonsense, much less expect anybody else to. I wouldn't want to be his Solicitor General. He'd be in there with two hands tied behind his back and duct tape plastered over his mouth.
McCain resorted to the old line "no legislating judges." Well, I can remember when it was necessary, such as the federal judges who broke up the awful MA "dept of mental health" mini-concentration camps for the retarded and mentally ill. These were hell-holes in every sense of the word. I know because I saw them! And of course, there's Brown v. Board of Ed. But I agree that not every case of judicial legislation works out well, and I don't think I'll need to consult a higher pay grade to recall the name of this gem which led to the mass killing of at least 40 million innocent babies.
As for the people who don't believe pastors have any business in politics, pols should be presenting their cases there and such, that's completely shortsighted, esp. given the bland setting of Saddleback. (What did they do, hide the crosses?)
And besides, the running for an elective office is still a private pursuit. Not only that, what a better large church to hold it in than an evangelical church that's a non-affiliated non-denominational entity?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I must admit Anon is pretty funny.
Signs in as anon then peddles out the usual line written pamphlets from 30 years ago. Obviously lacks any confidence to sign is himself (or herself). However blogs are not the centre of intellectual discourse. They are pretty close to drunks arguing in a pub. The Internet mixed with anonymity is like a double shot of grappa on an empty stomach.
My only observation over this matter is that both Obama and McCain turned up.
That indicates very strongly where the crucial votes may be in the up coming election. Otherwise Obama would not be there at all.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
You might be a blog martyr!
Hey, anonymous might be a little angry but he/she is onto something. Honestly, how much do you have to hate women to ban both contraception AND abortion?
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Blog Martyr?
Like the person thinks that everything written by others is all about them.
Why do I want get upset when entertainment comes to me in such volumes?
Kuckoo; kuckoo, kuckoo.
Hahahaha.
Now I am off for few hours (because I have a life) so enjoy snapping at nothing. I do not bother arguing with mad people. You only go mad yourself.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
Damo's got a humorous point about the drunks at the bar each of whom's got THE take on every situation at hand. (But who's gonna leave the tip? We haven't figured THAT out. We'll let Adsense handle that. Ah, Anon just popped in. We'll just sneak out as he's unaware that the bartender's ready to pass along the bill as he's all set to sidle down and chew his cud of woe is I and the whole damn world with me.
Such an uplifting spirit.
Poor guy doesn't have a prayer now. If he doesn't pay up, it's dishes for the rest of the night, then he's got to mop up the puke, blood, loose teeth, cow dung and respread a new layer of sawdust. But I hear if Anon doesn't get the job done soon enough, the barkeep's got Jim's number in case he needs a 'gator to add some "emphasis" to Anon's mission.
And to all a good night...
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Really Long Link
The thoughts expressed by Mr. Westen deserve more than a casual look!
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
So protective and yet so obvious.
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
Damo, as for getting serious ... I can only speak for myself on that score: "way above my pay grade."
Comment by Steven Barrett's OpEd Blog
He was right in saying Obama had better pay attention to using a more commonsense approach in the way he gives his answers as opposed to the (drum roll here please) "nuanced, carefully paced (read: parsed) commentary (read: bull)." Mike Dukakis was blasted by the Bush crowd for being eggheady, but compared to Obama? The Duke was more of a street fighter in the way he talked. Obama, on the other hand acted like he had to wear HAHvud on his sleeves, collars, pant cuffs, belt loops, you name it.
Let's face it folks; Obama blew that question plain and simple. But blowing a question isn't nearly as big a deal as what he betrayed in the way he led up to his ridiculous "pay grade" line. He felt more at home like a lot of the over-educated beyond their actual intelligence elitists running and ruining the Democratic Party, couching his answers in ever so precise and sophisticated sounding answers as if just by uttering them we're supposed to genuflect when they walk by or just mention their names and of course, their Ivied pedigrees. Well, the GOP have their share of those people, too. But I can also remember meeting Eliot RIchardson who ran for the US Senate against Ray Shamie, who eventually lost to John Kerry. Richardson, the oh, so nuanced, every so-smart and wildly erudite hero from Harvard Yard who stood up to Tricky Dicky during Watergate -- GOT HIS HEAD HANDED BACK TO HIM because even Massachusetts voters could only take so much of that dripping codescension.
Obama's track record on abortion puts him to the left of Hillary Clinton because of the way he truly looks at the baby killing industry as a legal problem. No wonder he was totally lost. He couldn't see abortion as a moral issue because it was beyond his political, intellectual capacities and temperament to do so. He looked at abortion much in the same manner as an ante-bellum Southern pol would see slavery. An ugly, albeit somewhat understanable and oh so complicated unfortunate matter. Not a plain evil, but just what I described in the preceding sentence.
He reminded me of Robert McNamara and his "we're winning the war on body counts and slide rules" horse pucky. Hillary Clinton's personal record of working with Mother Teresa after the prayer breakfast debacle of 1994 (?) demonstrated that she "got it" when it came to comprehending abortion as more than a mere legal issue.
If Obama thought he was coming close to "getting it" from a personal perspective, even that was flubbed when he spoke so mechanically and almost ploddingly said most women don't want an abortion and it's not something they take lightly. Who said they did in the first place? In many respects they've been FORCED into having these life altering/shattering decisions and acts forced upon them, much in the same way so many young Africans had the experience of slave labor enforced on them upon arriving on American shores. By ignoring even this simple aspect, he was in many respects behaving much like a lot of plantation owners who detested slavery but sure as hell took advantage of it until they could manumit their slaves. That was impossible for some of them like Jefferson who'd always find one excuse or another to keep them at hand, particuarly one female for personal use.
Obama's not in that league of crassness by a long shot and I believe he's an honest loyal husband and good father. But, he and his party have to shed this damnned know-it-all because we're so educated and we've all been trained at the rights schools in THAT corner attitude. FDR oozed Harvard, the old-school-Knickerbocker and WASP Northeastern milieu -- but only on the surface because deep inside, he was far more wiley and understanding of human nature on his worst days than Obama could ever reach on his first. Oliver Wendell Holmes, truly one of this nation's most overrated "heroes" and "leading lights," however accurately described FDR as having a "second rate mind with a first-class temperament." I'll take a so-called "second rate" intellect any day if the one who any candidate who's dumb enough to think he deserves to be president just because he got be tter grades than the others in his class -- even if he's a complete horse's ass. And haven't we known a ton of those in every school -- and with good reasons!
To hell with nuance, anyway. It's a European construct, and that says enough -- against it.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
While SL will never read anything I proffer, and she calls my scribbles “dreck” for liberal loonies (alliterative lass is she) if anyone is interested on why I am a member of the ACLU, my views are at
Really Long Link
Notwithstanding my acknowledged liberal positions, ACLU support should come from conservatives and everyone who loves the freedoms we enjoy in the United States.
It’s easy to support free speech for the popular spokesperson, it’s easy to protest if your faith is threatened; the test is whether free speech and the other constitutional rights of people whose ideas you hate are worth fighting for.
Our Constitution and system of laws are not designed to protect the interests of the majority, the popular, and the agreeable. Those who need protection are the unpopular, the minority, and the despised among us. And that is what the ACLU does. And that is something SL is unable to understand. There may come a time, however, when her liberties are put in jeopardy and she’ll thank God that there is an ACLU.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
This may come as a devastating blow to you, Jim, but it really isn't all about S.L. Bradish, in spite of your efforts to make it appear so. You can stop baiting me anytime you'd like Jim.
My security level is just fine, thank you. I don't "fear" the piles my dog leaves in the back yard, but I do make an effort not to step in them. And I make a point of cleaning them up, not trying to discuss politics with them.