I am a values voter

[Bucky]

I am pro-family

I truly believe strong, stable families are the backbone of a moral, healthy society. In my book, the more families there are, the better off America is. That means all families, treated equally, regardless of the gender of any member of that partnership. If they're committed for life and they're raising their kids, I say more power to 'em. Now, personally, I'm single. And this means I support taxing myself at a higher rate than couples get. It sucks, but not as bad as the marriage penalty sucks.

Logically speaking, two families, each headed by a single parent (which I also am), cost less to government than a single family headed by two adults. Demographic studies consistently show that married people are healthier, live longer, have fewer accidents, are more likely to have medical insurance, commit fewer crimes, have kids who are higher-performing students in school, have kids less likely to get involved in unhealthy or destructive paths in life, use fewer social services, pay more taxes, and in a number of other ways quite simply impose fewer social costs onto the public sector than single adults do. The more people we can get into the institution of marriage, the more barriers to marriage we as a society can overcome, the stronger our communities will be. Marriage is a positive good for the country and we ought, as a matter of policy, to do what we can (short of imposing into people's private lives) to support marriage wherever it can flourish.

I am pro-military

As a teacher, I've seen quite a few examples, up close and on a very personal level, how a few years in the military can help shape young peoples' character and give them the direction, goals, and discipline they need to be successful in life. Our young people, from birth to young adulthood, are more than just a precious resource--they are literally all there is of our future, all that will be left of us as a society in the future. We have already saddled them with a horrendous national debt--most of it acquire during bountiful times--and a poisoned ecosphere and a world saddled with hatred, terror, overpopulation, and diminished resources.

I would like to see the young people in the military protected from all the threats that face them. Thus we need to make sure that they are not burdened down with any number of make-believe or optional threats generated in recent years to bolster politicians' political fortunes. I would like to see that none of the resources they need to be safe and to protect our country get diverted into trillion dollar projects that fatten contractors' purses, but only protect the country from threats that died off 20 years ago. Every dollar spent in anti-Soviet missile defense systems is a dollar than could have been spent improving base housing, or building schools for the children of service members overseas, or spent in the costly healthcare costs to the families of service members, or spent in upgrading the training in unparallel warfare that our nation will face in the 21st century.

And because I believe in a strong national defense, clearly the smartest thing is to support policies that diminish world threats, which necessarily means supporting global justice and peace-building policies. To protect our guardians, we need to empower the struggling countries in the world to stabilize their own societies so that they don't becoming breeding grounds for avoidable future wars.

I am pro-life

I mean this in more ways than just being anti-war and anti-death penalty. Too many Americans die because they can't afford health insurance or are exposed to harmful home and workplace hazards. We have to get smart about our environment. We need to take responsible measures to make sure we can help those who need it and prevent as many people as possible from needing so much help in the first place.

For instance, did you know the US is the country with the highest abortion rate in the industrialized world? This is largely because Americans, more than any other First World country, use abortion as a form of birth control. Now, only an insane person would think it makes sense to have Big Brother government come in and regulate what any woman can and can't do with her body. But as a matter of sane policy, we simply must do more in our society, in our schools, to provide the much needed sexuality education (including frank sexual responsibility education) to young men and women in their pre-teen years. The cost of American ignorance is stunningly high and it costs us far more than just dollars.

Our young people are bombarded by the brilliant light of capitalism and free speech capitalizing on the fun and glamor of sex... but we do almost nothing as a society to teach responsibility. A friend of mine who's in health policy education tells me that in many western countries women can get over-the-counter birth control pills for about one-third the cost of what Americans pay.

I support limited government

The government sticks its fingers into so many pies. During the Enlightenment, Baron Montesquieu (the same guy who identified the necessity of checks and balances in republican government) demonstrated that the larger a country is, the more tyrannical and despotic its government tended to be. Or, as George Washington said, "Government is not eloquence... it is force." Government is like a guard dog. You want a dog with big teeth, but you got to keep that SOB on a leash or he's liable to jump up and bite your kids quicker than you can say Olive Garden. Obviously a Bill of Rights can serve as one of many necessary chains on that slobbering, snarling mutt of yours.

One subtle way government gets out of hand is by the intrusion of extraordinary debt into the national economy. Oh, a little bit of debt is good, provided its debt acquired to pay for expenditures that target activities that grows your economy in the long run (things like technology, research, human services, education, and infrastructure). But burdening future generations with unsustainable debt rates is immoral. As a strong pro-family voter, I favor increases in taxes. We've bought more government than we've been willing to pay for. To not pay for it, now that we've used it, would be like telling our kids it's okay to steal or be wasteful of limited resources. Raising taxes now will reduce the size of government for future Americans (and maybe even inspire present day voters to spend their own tax dollars more wisely). In that light, anyone today favoring greater tax cuts is advocating a form of pre-emptive, intergenerational treason, bringing the bootheel of Big Brother oppression down on the throats of our grand children.

I am against class warfare

Half a century ago we as a nation were led by a generation of men who'd served side by side as equals in war, or who had been drafted and brought into the Army--many of them for the first time meeing large numbers of cohort Americans from different regions, races, cultures, and economic classes. The 50s were far from free of social strife. But at least there was a growing, rather than shrinking, middle class in those days and an expanding field of job and lifestyle opportunities for people who had been historically discriminated against. Today the wealthiest 1% actively lobbies for policies that suck wealth out of the middle classes and redistribute it to the upper echelons of our society. This economic class warfare seeks to divide the nation and weaken our national cohesion.

There are other noneconomic classes of Americans, as defined by race, nationality, naturalization status and place of birth, geography within the country, religion, sex, and age, that are also discriminated against in the halls of power. The only cure for economic abuses of this sort is to ensure a fuller integration of our workplaces. In the days when the government supported stronger economic and political integration, the country was prospering. I don't think that it's a coincidence that, whenever the government quits prioritizing the struggle for equality, the economy tends to contract.

Now I still believe in a government that's as small as possible, but like with K-Y jelly, you still want to slap enough on to get the job done.

I believe there should be a strong, prohibitive ban against the United States instituting shariah law

This is extremely important. But this is such an important issue that I think there should be a Constitutional Amendment put in place to ensure that neither Congress nor any state in the Union starts instituting shariah law on our nation. And it shouldn't be any old Amendment; it needs to be the very First Amendment to the Constitution. Maybe it could say something like "Congress shall make no law... respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof." I suppose some big government zealots may want to layer on more laws on top of that. But I'm a small government conservative family-values voter and I say the less government the better.

I practice abstinence

This is not necessarily voluntary on my part. But, Goddamn, am I one persistently abstinent son of a bitch!

Thank you for your time and kind attention.

[uncommon]

1. "This is largely because Americans, more than any other First World country, use abortion as a form

of birth control."

Abortion IS a form of birth control - it's just a last minute form. It prevents birth.

"Women use abortion as birth control" is a right wing talking point and it's disgusting. I don't care if women use abortion as RECREATION, it should still be legal.

[murielm99]

2. yes!

:applause:

[Bucky]

3. Actually, no.

As my OP stated, it is a form of birth control that Americans use. It's an invasive and economically inefficient form of birth control that, given our social mores, carries a considerable emotional burden on the service recipient. On this point, I get my talking points not from a right winger, but from a well educated, vehemently pro-choice health professional. I'm not a health professional, but my post was explicitly pro-choice.

I don't know how you missed that.

I honestly don't know anyone who thinks it wouldn't be better to prevent, rather than ex post factor terminate, unplanned pregnancies. Unless you tell me different, of course, and then I'll know exactly one person who thinks abortion is preferable to pregnancy prevention.

[uncommon]

4. No one said it isn't better to prevent pregnancy than have to terminate a pregnancy - but it IS

a woman's body and her choice and however she makes that choice, as long as it is freely, is fine by me.

"Using abortion as birth control" IS very much a RW talking point, whether that it where you personally picked it up or not.

[Bucky]

5. The only point of contention between us is a fact that you seem think reinforces antichoice views.

I'll respond with the left wing axiom that you're entitled to your opinion (which I happen to share), but not to your own facts. And one thing that both Planned Parenthood and medical experts and Operation Harassment agree on is that Americans are using abortion as a form of birth control. Recognizing this fact isn't betraying our side, which we seem to be on the same side of.

Yet you keep on asserting at me that abortion is a woman's choice, as if I didn't already say exactly that in the OP. Heck, I put it in bold. The director of our local Planned Parenthood told us in a meeting just last month that there are too many abortions going on. You need to understand that this is an indicator of a lack of public education on the options that women have in exercising control over their own bodies. That is, pointing this out helps bring people to our side, not theirs.

I would hope that you're on the side of education as a way of treating the problem of unwanted pregnancies. From your arguments, you seem not to be.