Banning Abortion Was Never About Protecting the Unborn or Mother, Redux

While Roe vs Wade that been repealed, and it is up to individual states to determine what can or cannot be done, we are now dealing with the aftermath of that decision. 

Back in May 2022, I had pointed out that leading cause of maternal or pregnant mortality between 2018 and 2019 is none other than homicide. 

And this trend appears to have not stopped. Dallas police has arrested Harold Thompson for shooting his girlfriend to death. His reason for killing her? She got an abortion in Colorado. This guy had  an arrest warrant in March for beating a woman, probably the same one he killed. He can't control her through the baby anymore, so he killed her. 

And that's just one of the more egregious cases we've seen. We have no statistics on how many women from the Red states have left to get abortions. We know that some Red states passed laws aiming to punish people who aided women leaving the state to get procedures, even those medically necessary, or to aid minors who were raped. It's gotten bad enough, some Blue states are passing shield laws to counter such.  

Pro-life is not about life. It's about control over a woman's body. It always was. 

MAGA COVIDiocy: Pro-Trump Counties Have Far Higher COVID Death Rates

New NPR analysis shows that since May 2021, counties that voted for Trump have a COVID death rate TWICE AS HIGH as counties that voted for Biden on the average. The "most red" counties have a death rate 5.5 times higher than the "most blue" counties. This was a reversal from a year ago, before we have the vaccine, that Democratic counties were hit harder. 

The data is irrefutable: in 2021, Republicans are killing themselves because they rather have "freedom" than treat COVID seriously. 

The trend is also interesting. Early in the pandemic, certain demographics such as African Americans, rural Americans, and younger Americans are vaccine-hesitant, but as the pandemic continued, those groups have started to vaccinate, while Republicans that vaccinate have stalled. According to Kaiser Foundation, 91% of Democrats have been vaccinated against COVID, compared to 59% of Republicans. The polls also revealed that Republicans STILL believe that COVID seriousness was exaggerated, vaccination should be a personal choice, and are NOT worried about getting sick from COVID.

Indeed, antivaxxers are getting DIRECT support from Republican well-knowns... such as Eric Trump, one of Donny's sons, who spoke at such a convention in October. The convention also featured speakers who claimed drinking one's own urine is just as good as a COVID vaccine. Another claimed COVID vaccine will put "another kind of nervous system inside you" and turn you into a cyborg. No, I'm not making this up. It's looney bin stuff. 

Then there are grifters such as Del Bigtree, one of the current top antivaxxers, who find the Dems unreceptive to his antiscience, so he courted the Republicans instead, by his own admission, "Clearly I was shocked as a lifelong liberal progressive that I was hugging and hanging out and having a great time with a bunch of extremely conservative mothers and grandmothers." 

Then there are political manipulators like Roger Stone, convicted felon of lying to Congress about 2016 Trump's campaign contacts with Russia. Stone had been working for Republican candidates for decades, having worked with the Nixon campaign back in 1972. Stone was pardoned by Trump. Stone ALSO spoke at the antivax conference, using the vaccine mandate as a wedge issue, trying to motivate the conservatives to vote in the midterm elections. 

Public health, something to the benefit of all public, is now a political decision to a good portion of the population, who decided not to participate, and this is a truly huge monkeywrench for public health officials who now needs to protect the public from a good portion of the public. 

To put it more succinctly, Republicans are so desperate to win, they are politicizing mask and vaccine mandate, killing their own side by the thousands daily, AND slowing the country's recovery, just to gain some political ground in the short term. 

And even lifelong Republicans are getting alarmed. How did something that benefits all Americans got turned into a Red vs Blue polarization issue? 

The answer is simple: Short-sightedness compounded by grifters and political manipulators who only care about the next election and their own gains. 

There is a real risk that this unholy alliance will DESTROY the Republican party down the road. 

But the antivaxxers will go on. They'll just find some other group to ally with.  

Political COVIDiocy: If you wear a MAGA cap, you are far more likely to die of COVID

NYTimes reports that the death gap between red and blue counties is widening. 

In October 2021, 25 out of 100000 in heavily Trump counties died of COVID, compared to 7.8 per 100000 in heavily Biden counties. And this difference is accelerating for the FIFTH month. 

The difference is very simple: Republicans are about 40% unvaxxed, compared to 10% of Democrats. 

(Cited via Boingboing)

About Whitman-gate, and what's wrong with the allegations

I am a skeptic, not into politics. I consider myself a moderate Republican (like our Governator) but that is not the reason I doubt the charges against Whitman. I see a lot of problems with these charges, and I'll list them.


* Since when does a HOUSEKEEPER get "mileage reimbursements"? Yet that is what Allred claims she will sue Whitman for "Nicky".

* $23 / hour for only 15 hours a week is a lot. How many hours did "Nicky" work and NOT get paid? Was there a log that can be somehow verified, or is this just a matter of single-sided claims?


* WHY is that letter in the hands of "Nicki"?

Whitman's explanation is that Dr. Marsh got the letter, glanced at it, decided that Nicki probably transposed a digit or two, so wrote a note and gave it to Nicki to take care of, and Nicki intentionally held the letter and never mailed it back, and nobody ever followed up. Marsh never thought of it again, never told his wife, and Nicki, having essentially "stole" the letter, kept quiet about it.



Allred's explanation is that Dr. Marsh read the letter, knew that Nicki is illegal, but decided to say nothing, and instead used the letter to blackmail her into working overtime without pay and generally feel like ****.


Nothing said by Allred so far contradicts Whitman's explanation, and it sounds perfectly reasonable to me, at least. They may have erred in not filling out the letter himself and returned it, but the explanation why is reasonable.

On the other hand, Allred's explanation does have a few holes... the biggest of which is that very letter she claims is evidence. If the March/Whitman household wish to "blackmail" Nicki into working for free, they would never have mentioned the letter. All they have to say is "I know you are illegal. I like you, so I won't call the INS. But I need you to work a couple more hours for free."  Why mention the letter at all? Why give the letter to Nicki to be kept as evidence?


The allegations make no sense, and as some papers have stated, this has every sign of being an "October Surprise": only revealed 30 days before the election to derail the Whitman campaign in the arena of publicity, with little facts to be had.

RANT: Social Security was a fraud to start with!

Image via Wikipedia

Social Security is something invented in the 1930's. It was supposed to give you retirement money when you retire at age 65.

Do you have any idea what is the life expectancy of Americans in the 1930's?

62. Yep, 62. (as of 1935, 61.7 to be exact)

In other words, you are not really supposed to enjoy social security, even though you did pay for it. Yet you cannot opt out of it either.

What's more, the earliest social security law excluded almost 50% of the workforce. No domestic help, no hospital worker, no agricultural worker, and a lot more exclusions (see wikipedia)

That was 70+ years ago. Guess what the life expectancy is now? 78 (okay, 77.8, same link above, as of 2005).  Yet the retirement age, i.e. time to enjoy social security, is still 65. And the payout groups have grown steadily larger, and larger.

No wonder social security is going bankrupt. In fact, 2010 will be the first year that Social Security is actually running a deficit. It hasn't yet because it had built up a huge reserve in the past 70 years, but if the retirement age isn't adjusted upward, or the payout severely reduced, social security will cease to exist.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Social Security Payouts to Exceed Revenues (cbsnews.com)

Is representative democracy obsolete?

Image by _ambrown via Flickr

Controversial Idea: Is Representative Democracy obsolete?

Thnk about it... the Greeks invented democracy, where any one who cares enough to argue policy can go down to the forum and join in the debate. But then, Greece back then are small city-states, each a government onto themselves.

Then comes the republic, when the distance prevents people from voicing their opinion directly, so representatives are chosen to speak for the people, so you don't have 10000 people stampeding into the capital just to get their voices heard.

Now, with the advent of telephone, TV, and advanced communications, it is possible to practice full democracy again... You no longer have to go physically to the government to be heard. There's e-mail, fax, phone, and so on. And if you care enough, you can always go physically.

So is representative democracy, i.e. republic, obsolete?

Judicial Activism: the new double-speak

Image via Wikipedia

Judicial activism is currently defined as a judge using his or her position to affect/change law, instead of defining/interpreting law.

A judge's role is often to clarify law, like when multiple laws come together which one has precedence, would a law apply to a new situation previously unintended or never before existed, and so on. For example, on many constitutional issues, some local laws are claimed to interfere with such rights as Bill of Rights and so on, by one side, and the government on the other side, claiming the laws are perfectly fine as written.

A while back, several California Supreme Court judges declared that the California constitution, which protects against discrimination against various things, including sexual orientation, trumps over any local law or even state assembly laws that blockss "gay marriage", despite the previous State Assembly passage of "In Defense of Marriage Act". They are accused of "judicial activism", as religious right accused them of "imposing their minority view on the majority of Californians".

More recently, Supreme Court candidate justice-to-be Sonia Sotomayor was accused of judicial activism by no less than Senator John McCain, former presidential candidate. This is probably fallout from her "wise Latina" remark made years ago.

So what's the point? I believe there's a fundamental logic problem with the critics who accuse ANYONE of judicial activism.

If judges are to interpret law as written, irrespective of public opinion, then if they do pass a decision that is unpopular, they will be lambasted as "judicial activists who are forcing their will on the public", correct?

But the whole idea of a judicial activist is someone who used his/her opinion, instead of law as written, to interpret the law, isn't it?

So what are the critics saying? That it's okay for the judge to use PUBLIC OPINION to interpret the law, but not his or her own opinion?

Even though a judge is ONLY supposed to use the law exactly as written, and perhaps, a bit of background information to guess at the circumstances and the original INTENT of the lawmakers who passed those laws, correct?

So what are the critics really saying? That any judge that makes judgments against public opinion is a judicial activist?

I always thought "activists" are those who are trying to make a difference (I make no judgment on the worthiness of their cause). It seems that only among POLITICIANS that activist is a NEGATIVE word.

So the politicians are against judicial activists (who are best defined as judges who buck public opinion, according to above). Which would make sense, since politicians fight for public opinion.

But what about the rest of us? Perhaps we should just embrace judicial activists BECAUSE the politicians hate them.

Until they rule against your subgroup, of course.