December 26
2007
Emma Caulfield's Final 2008 Voting Choice.
An interview with Ron Paul on NBC's "Meet The Press" determined her 2008 Presidential Election vote.
WhedonTrivia
| Cast&Crew
| 12:23 CET
|
144 comments total
| tags: emma caulfield
You need to
log in to be able to post comments.
About
membership.
« Older
The Long Way Home is #6 at ContraC...
|
Brand new BBC Torchwood trailer wi...
Newer »
© 2002 - 2013 - WHEDONesque.com
(
e-mail)
Individual posts are copyright their respective authors
This is a non-profit, unofficial website, not affiliated with Mutant Enemy, Inc., 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers or UPN.
WhedonTrivia | December 26, 12:24 CET
The One True b!X | December 26, 12:51 CET
LOL. I have no clue. All I know is that it was on NBC's MEET THE PRESS.
WhedonTrivia | December 26, 13:12 CET
JesterInACast | December 26, 16:20 CET
DaddyCatALSO | December 26, 17:25 CET
Pointy | December 26, 17:38 CET
I had not heard that slavery quote, bix. Amazing. And not in the gee, wow, cool way.
I seem to recall that Emma was the most conservative member of the Buffy cast, just as was Adam Baldwin of the Firefly cast.
Chris inVirginia | December 26, 17:39 CET
palehorse | December 26, 18:11 CET
azhippieinoz | December 26, 19:13 CET
Hmm, I'd be interested to hear his reasoning on why 'gradual emancipation' was necessary. I personally think freed slaves would have benefitted from some post-freedom education and aid. I think a lot of them just got cut loose with no means, so that had few options for survival.
Also, it took almost 100 years until we got the CRA, so I think that was gradual enough.
Rogue Slayer | December 26, 20:21 CET
Jim in Buffalo | December 26, 20:29 CET
Anyway, I can see why someone would want to vote for him, and that's really a stretch coming from me as I tend to disagree with every single politician ever. Especially Americans. Especially Republicans. But at least this guy doesn't seem to be invoking the Bible every ten seconds, which puts him way ahead, and he's not for the constitutional ban on gay marriage, which puts him further ahead.
But I'm still not gonna vote for him.
Partially because it's hard to believe this guy is for real, partly because he says he's Republican and partially because I don't know his entire platform...but mostly because I'm not American.
GreatMuppetyOdin | December 26, 20:48 CET
SoddingNancyTribe | December 26, 20:53 CET
Im surprised to hear so many people query her decision. Ron Paul has gained a few million supporters over the past few months... all of which I would deem to be very decent people who only want the best for their country.
Those of you who are basing any judgement upon this one interview should do some of your own research, I think.
Beren77 | December 26, 21:11 CET
And overall, I agree that political links should be considered carefully and posted cautiously, especially in the coming months. I prefer Whedonesque to be a place where I can take a break from the politics and whatnot I encounter in the rest of the web.
jclemens | December 26, 21:32 CET
Speaking of not discussing politics, yesterday a conversation about Barack Obama turned into a heated argument between my brother (democrat) and my uncle-in-law (republican). It ended amicably without any injuries, and nobody the winner. Surprising, given the 5-2 ratio of Reps vs. Dems in the house. It's also quite unusual for my family to debate politics. It opened my eyes to the kind of misinformation out there coming from both sides.
[ edited by electricspacegirl on 2007-12-27 01:53 ]
electricspacegirl | December 26, 21:39 CET
The Ron Paul "revolution" seems to stem mainly from his support of immediate withdrawal from Iraq and just about everywhere where the US has a military presence.....I don't disagree at all.
Mix that in with his honest in your face style and he seems like a really great candidate. I don't know, he's popularized the free market like its handing out gifts to people ("Merry Christmas, Here's healthcare!"; "Katrina victims, here's your rebuilt city for you and not corporate interests!"). Letting the free market (true free market principles) determine prices and our way of life is not going to help anyone. But the way he lays his ideas down is pretty much his appeal. Constantly quoting the constitution and all that. Which is great because it lays down a decent system of checks and balances. However the constitution was created by land owning white men, and the least of their concerns was ending slavery. Economics first, people second. And thats my problem with Ron Paul.
Don't ask me who I'd choose then for president, because frankly its all a game in this country. If you read up on your history you'll understand that the only changes ever to come (women's rite to vote and choose, civil rights, gay rights, 8-hour day, child labor laws, unionization, ending vietnam war), came from social movements and not form presidents or congressmen.
ChosenOne5376 | December 26, 22:33 CET
I'm a tax and spend liberal. I make no apologies.
These aren't King George's taxes that people complain about--Like it or not, it's the cost of living in a modern, capitalist world. It is the cost of keeping a civil society "together" and "civil". Education, health-care, even some (not all) of that "pork barrel" spending are necessary to modern life. They are the infrastructure of life.
People talk about taxes as if they don't benefit from it.
I benefit from my neighbor's kids being well educated-- so they don't grow to be a drag on my property values.
I benefit if the poorest of our society are NOT sick and are GETTING better educational opportunities than my "privilged" neighbors-- So they don't feel the need to come and rob our neighborhood...
There are plenty of "selfish" reasons to be liberal... Not just cause it's the right thing to do.
[snipped]
BTW...Anya didn't start out being all "money" hungry-- just kind of clueless.
Which always made me wonder if Joss, or one of his merry minions, didn't write that in, as an elaborate "in-joke". Emma Caulfied is a smart woman and probably would have gone along with it... irony and all.
Also.. Ron Paul... I'm rootin' for him to be a spoiler.
I don't know a single liberal who is willing to split the vote this time. No one I know is voting "Nader". Only people who would never vote liberal ... SOO..
Go Ron Paul Go!
[ edited by hbojo on 2007-12-26 22:24 ]
[ edited by SoddingNancyTribe on 2007-12-27 00:51 ]
hbojo | December 26, 22:52 CET
I'm going to shower now.
RhaegarTargaryen | December 26, 23:03 CET
Let's be honest, if he was suggesting gradual emancipation starting say around 1834 I'm sure anyone would agree that would have been a better decision. (i'm not familiar with his speech, just pointing that out.)
Seriously, there are a lot of ways for the US slavery issue to have been solved other than the War Between the States and Reconstruction which would have been, in the long run, less damaging to all parties concerned. Some of those "lot" would have involved extending slavery for a generation or so; incalculably hard on that generation and their children but in any number of cases better for their grandchildren and so on.
DaddyCatALSO | December 26, 23:17 CET
Tibbittz | December 27, 00:26 CET
ajay42 | December 27, 01:00 CET
Can you please clarify what you mean by that?
BrewBunny | December 27, 01:23 CET
Yes, that is her page. Check out the photos in her Myspace Photos. She has some that were taken by herself.
Welcome back SoddingNancyTribe!
WhedonTrivia | December 27, 01:24 CET
But I can't not like someone who lists Gaius Baltar as a hero. And it looks like, from her tv and movie choices, she's a big nerd. She's got my vote.
Rogue Slayer | December 27, 02:19 CET
And I also feel compelled to ask that folks adhere to the site rules on spelling and punctuation, i.e., that they are good things. Yes, the most pedantic moderator is, indeed, back.
SoddingNancyTribe | December 27, 03:54 CET
palehorse | December 27, 03:55 CET
Yes, that is her page. Check out the photos in her Myspace Photos. She has some that were taken by herself.
I read her other blog entries, and she certainly has some strong opinions now, doesn't she? Must be informed by all those hours spent reading "Jane Austin."
BrewBunny | December 27, 04:05 CET
I feel less manly somehow.
hbojo | December 27, 05:32 CET
Is it just knowing Emma is sort of rightish-of-center makes Anya 's hard-core cpaitalism harder to take?
Or are you judging Emma (and I have to admit you didn't *say* your judgment was negative, but it "almost sounded" that way) just because this is the first you're finding out what party she's registered in?
ETA: hbojo, what do you mean by a "spoiler"? Hoping he loses the Republican nom. and goes Independent?
[ edited by DaddyCatALSO on 2007-12-27 02:48 ]
DaddyCatALSO | December 27, 05:47 CET
I love this idea. While Anya encouraged Xander to make money to buy her things in season four, I think the real start of the uber-capitalism came from Fury, didn't it, in the Game of Life in "Real Me"? And then her role in the store in Petrie's "No Place Like Home"? Of course, Goddard made her a recovering communist too, in "Selfless".
The cast and crew have always been very comfortable with jokingly mocking differing political views (i.e. right-winger Tim Minear calling Joss "Kerry-boy").
As for the debate on the gradual emancipation, a Buffyverse example that comes to mind is "Chosen": Buffy may have been right in giving the girls freedom, but the decision *has* to be backed up by her working to ease the transition of the girls into their new empowered state, which she is doing in Season Eight. So too are sudden introductions of freedom without any help easing the transition inappropriate.
(By the way, I recently saw, and recommend, Deepa Mehta's film "Earth," about the chaos in India after the British's departure and partitioning; no one disputes that the British should have given India its independence back, but they departed without doing anything to deal with the chaos they left in their wake.)
WilliamTheB | December 27, 06:28 CET
Look closer. There is a lot of toxicity, like the lead paint from China. Texas should be embargoed.
I accept being edited or deleted for this.
dreamlogic | December 27, 07:30 CET
Suzie | December 27, 07:43 CET
angel fan | December 27, 08:01 CET
No, just the politics. Molly Ivins is dead, and I'm not feeling so good myself. She tried to be as cheerful for as long as she could, even trying to put the best face possible on Dubya, but had to give it up. I'm really just talking about the politics. The music and the food should be everywhere. I'm always praying for Taco Cabana to come here.
dreamlogic | December 27, 08:25 CET
Dana5140 | December 27, 09:47 CET
I don't read every post on the forum, as some do not interest me. This one did, I read it, and I enjoyed the commentary. Some may not. To those some--don't read it if it will offend you or reduce the pleasure you find in perusing this site. However, do not limit the rights of others who may find the occasional political post interesting and thought provoking.
pinkie7 | December 27, 10:06 CET
Sorry 'bout that, hbojo: knock back a beer, scratch yourself, and you'll be right as rain again.
SoddingNancyTribe | December 27, 10:39 CET
pinkie7 | December 27, 11:10 CET
Shey | December 27, 12:37 CET
Rowan Hawthorn | December 27, 16:06 CET
People have the impression that because Ron Paul is against the Federal Amendment to ban gay marriage that he is for marriage equality. He's not. He's just against changing the Federal Constitution so that local government can ban gay marriage. In fact, if a local government wanted to ban homosexuality altogether, he supports their power to do that. He even introduced a bill that would give states the power to do just that (and overturn Lawerence v. Texas.)
GrrrlRomeo | December 27, 17:42 CET
dreamlogic | December 27, 18:01 CET
There goes the neighbourhood ;).
I've quite a lot of sympathy for libertarianism as an idea but then Communism doesn't seem too bad on paper either and look how that turned out.
If we're jumping into boxes then i'm socially liberal and fiscally fairly conservative - by European standards that is i.e. i'm still happy enough for a portion of my income to go towards universal, free (at the point of service) health-care and a limited welfare system, I just don't want basic income tax rates set at 55% in order to cover it. Pure libertarianism just seems to miss the failings of lassez faire capitalism to me though (i.e. monopolies, high barriers to entry, large and increasing income gaps etc.) but even a cursory inspection tells you that this guy isn't a pure libertarian, he's just a fairly right-wing Republican with some libertarian leanings (small, non-interventionist government has always been a Republican thing, right ? This guy just wants a smaller government than most).
That said, don't know much about him, at the moment it's not that relevant to me (though if he looks like he may become US President then it certainly will be) but he at least seems to have the courage of his convictions, even if I don't agree with many/most of them (speaking out against farming subsidies - one of the more hypocritical Republican policies it seems to me - when you're a Texas congressman isn't cowardly, whatever else it may be).
(and i've always known Emma Caulfield was a Republican, just like AB and TM, though her blog - assuming that's actually hers - paints her as a bit, err, strident with it. Doesn't put me off Anya though. AB, in fact, is also a Bush fan from what I gather which must make him, like, a Republican squared or something - not to mention an increasing rarity ;)
Saje | December 27, 18:12 CET
The real Anyanka would make them eat all that gold until they burst.
dreamlogic | December 27, 19:12 CET
Heh, yeah I might come across as believing that NOT all politicians say one thing when running then do another when they get in. I feel like i've blown any "die-hard cynic" cred I may have had ;-).
Saje | December 27, 19:20 CET
dreamlogic | December 27, 19:27 CET
DaddyCatALSO | December 27, 19:34 CET
Yeah, faith in the system is hard to maintain dreamlogic. Like whoever it was that said it said, "Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others" ;).
Saje | December 27, 19:43 CET
dreamlogic | December 27, 19:53 CET
I apologize on behalf of Texas for
... NCLB
... Dubya
... Alberto Gonzalez
... Karl Rove
BUT I accept kudos (on behlaf of Texas AND San Antonio) for
... Amy Acker
... Summer Glau
... Araceli Valdez (Inca Mummy Girl)
and
... Joss Whedon
hmm....
well....
I've adopted Joss on behalf of Texas
hbojo | December 27, 20:02 CET
I'm not really sure why a lot of people on this forum seem to equate Emma Caulfield with Anya. She's not Anya, she's an actress who played her. Making the distinction is important because there's no reason why anyone's personal views should "ruin" your enjoyment of the character. I mean, just because Jayne Cobb is a thief and a robber doesn't mean you should expect the same from Adam Baldwin. I doubt anyone's enjoyment of The Sopranos is ruined because James Gandolfini is NOT a mobster in real life. One's personal picks in politics or religion should not affect your understanding that the actor and the character are entirely separate.
I'm not sure I support Ron Paul, but I am conservative. And I'd like to point out that no one has yet to actually provide a link to the Ron Paul interview in which he supposedly promotes graduated emancipation. I personally can't find it, but I haven't looked too hard since I'm posting this and trying to get out the door to run errands.
the ninja report | December 27, 20:49 CET
bubbletoes | December 27, 21:08 CET
hst3k | December 27, 21:32 CET
Which other candidates (either major party), who had a vote, voted against the Iraq war AND against the "Patriot" Act from the beginning?
Dr. Paul did.
Don't judge any candidate by sound-bytes or one dimension of a three dimensional stance. Some things that he says aren't understood without hearing the rest of his answer. Like decriminalizing marijuana, understanding the damage of the "Inflation Tax", or how our interventionist foreign policies have provoked terrorist attacks on our country.
As with any candidate, we should hear their entire response, and not just something pulled out that somebody chose for us to hear. Not that we should ignore those, just investigate and get the whole story, please.
I'm obviously a Ron Paul supporter. He's the first presidential candidate in my lifetime (and I'm pretty old)that I feel I can enthusiastically support with my money and my vote. I agree with Emma (though not from that particular Tim Russert interview, check him out on the Colbert Report -YouTube it).
I think this candidate is worth the time to research.
Anna von Ovonov | December 27, 22:16 CET
-Just agreein'
Anna von Ovonov | December 27, 22:21 CET
I think that certain captain would be pro-choice and Ron Paul ain't.
And that's a deal breaker for any self-respecting feminist
[ edited by hbojo on 2007-12-27 19:41 ]
hbojo | December 27, 22:30 CET
If you're talking about Tim Minear, I believe he's a Libertarian, not a Republican.
Dr. Paul did.
So did Barack Obama, and he's the one I'm voting for.
I think that certain captain would be pro-choice and Ron Paul ain't.
And that's a deal breaker for any self-respecting feminist
That's my policy. Lay off my rights, and I mean all of them. I just can't trust anyone who wants to take away a right. That's a dangerous slope, and I don't want to end up living in a fascist country.
electricspacegirl | December 27, 22:59 CET
Dana5140 | December 27, 23:05 CET
Dr. Paul did.
So did Barack Obama, and he's the one I'm voting for.
Obama didn't have a vote at the time of the Iraq or original Patriot Act voting periods, to my knowledge.
[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2007-12-27 20:25 ]
Rogue Slayer | December 27, 23:16 CET
On that Meet the Press interview, (approx. min. 6.30 of the youtube feature above) Dr. Paul does explain his stance on how the country should have simply phased out slavery rather than go to war. He lays it at Lincoln's feet as an attempt to expand federal power.
If my memory serves, the country *was* trying to phase out slavery for decades and the southern states got upset enough about it to secede from the country before Lincoln took office. Terms like "Bloody Kansas" came out of that attempt to phase out slavery. The Confederate States of America was formed before Lincoln even became president. The war happened to keep to try to put the country back together.
If Dr. Paul wants to argue whether there was another way for Lincoln to get the south to return to the USA, fine, but it is a bit ingenuous to suggest that by the time Lincoln came into office all he would have had to do was offer to buy the slaves freedom or that the war was the country's first attempt to end slavery. For that matter it is a bit ingenuous to act like the war was all Lincoln's doing. When he arrived in office the southern states had already formed a separate government and were denying access to federal forts in their territory. They also started shooting at ships and attacked Fort Sumter within the first three months of Lincoln's presidency.
That was not a one sided war in any sense. There is plenty of responsibility to go around. One thing for sure, the south did not secede because they were looking for a federal buy-out scheme.
I get suspicious of candidates who rewrite and dumb-down history for their own purposes.
newcj | December 27, 23:18 CET
To borrow an insight applied to someone much better known than Malcolm Reynolds, what a person sees in Mal often says far more about them than it does about Mal.
I'd caution against continuing this thread further into the political realm. Mentioning abortion is one step away from Godwin's law. Politeness and our social contract restrain me from further comment.
jclemens | December 27, 23:24 CET
hst3k | December 27, 23:41 CET
What made the question of slavery in the U.S. different than other countries and capable of leading to a civil war was the inherent economic dichotomy: a southern agrarian economy that was dependent on slave labor and a northern industrial economy that wasn't. Slavery wasn't just a way of life in the south-- it was the entire economy. Most of the southern states saw any threat to slavery, such as Lincoln's election, as a threat to their very survival. Hence a war to settle the issue.
Sunfire | December 28, 00:29 CET
And given that Emma is a Republican, and this is primary s eason, I'd see it as bad taste to endorse candidates in other parties yet *grin.
DaddyCatALSO | December 28, 00:29 CET
SugarFalls | December 28, 00:32 CET
That said, I think on matters as political party affiliation where neither party is a dictatorship, and we're operating under free choice, I don't think it's really fair to say you are angry, disappointed, or ANYTHING with an actor when he or she has beliefs, just like all of us do. I am personally a Republican, but would never stop watching an actor's work that I enjoy, if that person were Democratic or Libertarian. Their political affiliation does not affect my enjoyment of their roles because I feel that none of the major three parties are BAD or corrupt. I wouldn't support Communism, because that IS bad and corrupt in many ways.
I will, however, enjoy an actor's work less, if they make decisions that I think are morally apprehensible in their own lives. I'm not going to watch another Ben Affleck movie, not because Ben Affleck is a Democrat, but because I don't tend to enjoy his choice in roles. But if he were to advocate something so obviously morally apprehensible as to that the majority of the people, regardless of politics, would regard as offensive (say, if he were to suggest that women were second-class and shouldn't vote) then not only would I have problems watching his movies, but I feel that Sydney Bristow would exact revenge and then I might be able to watch Good Will Hunting again.
the ninja report | December 28, 01:17 CET
Well IIRC he was referred to as Republican and a Bush supporter in 2004 electricspacegirl (it's mentioned a few times on this thread about the Kerry fundraiser) by people like Alyson (who seems to have real world contact with him) though obviously that may well be because he didn't have the opportunity to vote libertarian (and he may no longer support Bush - right thinking people change their minds about stuff like that all the time, whichever "side" of the arbitrary left/right divide they happen to sit on).
Of course I will avoid a performer because of "addytood" so perhaps I'm not consistent here.
Old ground to some extent (Orson Scott Card casts a long shadow ;) but though I don't really care about an actor's politics, if I found out for instance that an actor felt that AIDS was God's vengeance on gays for being evil, that'd give me pause. Some knowledge just permanently colours your view of a person and if you can completely forget that when watching them act then I think you've an uncommon knack for compartmentalisation (that's the big 'you' BTW, not any actual 'you's on this thread ;).
Saje | December 28, 01:43 CET
Saje;If an example is useful, I strongly objected to the Actual choice of words the lead singe fromt he Dixie Chicks used toe xpress her feeling sbaout Iraq while in copncert but I had no problem with ehr talking baout it. But when the fiddler from the group said she was glad they had recorded an album that had maved away form country format because she didn't want their songs on the same stations with a couple harmless fun songs she proceeded to bash, then I said good riddance.
DaddyCatALSO | December 28, 02:06 CET
Dana5140 | December 28, 02:07 CET
Don Imus is the perfect example. I don't care how much money he's donated to various African-American groups or even if he goes and adopts eight children from Africa, what he said about the women's basketball team was deeply offensive and unforgiveable to me. I've never listened to Don Imus, but even if he was a musician or an actor instead of a radio host, I'd extend the same courtesy I'd extend to anyone else who makes comments such as those - I wouldn't support them. But it has nothing to do with whether Don Imus is Democrat or Republican.
the ninja report | December 28, 02:40 CET
Is it just knowing Emma is sort of rightish-of-center makes Anya 's hard-core capitalism harder to take?
Or are you judging Emma (and I have to admit you didn't *say* your judgment was negative, but it "almost sounded" that way) just because this is the first you're finding out what party she's registered in?
- DaddyCatALSO
Well, I'm always surprised to find out someone in the arts, and especially someone who's been involved in such an arguably progressive project as Buffy would support ideas/political parties that are inherently regressive. But it wasn't her political affiliation that I found so off-putting; rather it was this blog post:
It’s only natural
Maybe you haven't heard about the the breast feeding sit-ins that some crazy "activists" are pushing for, but I have. Sigh. Recently a mother was asked to cover up while breast feeding her baby while "dining" at an Applebees restaurant in Arizona. In an attempt to squash the discomfort of the other patrons, the manager asked if she could cover her breast while in the dining room. She explained she didn't have a blanket and then made it clear she was offended by his request and soon made her story national news. It is her "right" to breast feed in public, whenever and wherever she pleases.
Soon to follow were accusations of discrimination and the demands for apologies. An argument this woman and other Lactivists have made is that breast feeding is natural and therefor should be excepted and therefor catered to by all. They haven't actually said they should be catered to but really, that's what they want.
But you know breast feeding IS natural. And you know what else is natural? Sex. Should couples be allowed to shag in between meals if their desire overcomes them? What about relieving one's bladder or bowels? That's certainly natural, so should we forego using bathrooms as well? Hell while we're at it, being naked is the most natural thing in the world so should nudists be allowed to dine in the buff while sampling the all you can salad bar? The answer to these questions is no.
- Emma Caulfield
I think it's patently absurd that we have, as a culture, distanced ourselves so far from public breastfeeding that it's thought of by anyone as vulgar. It'll be hard now for me to watch Caulfield as Anya and not be reminded of how strongly I disagree with her views.
Not that this will actually ruin Anya for me, I was being dramatic...
Tibbittz | December 28, 03:33 CET
Sorry, Sunfire, but I think you misspelt "new nation." As much as we like to ignore it, the War for Southern Independence had a lot of economic and military similarities with the American Revolutionary War: Smaller, more agrarian section seceeds from larger, more populous industrial nation, which proceeds to launch a war of aggression to reconqueor the rebellious provinces.
Of course, we know what the moral issues and military outcomes were in each war, but the similarities are all-so-often overlooked. Fort Sumter was sovereign soil of the Confederate States of America, which it had de facto nationalized as part of secession. For the USA to attempt to resuppy it, rather than withdrawing its troops, was the initial act of war.
Morally ambiguous stories are part of what makes Firefly and Angel (and, to a lesser extent, Buffy) so interesting. Funny thing is, if you look beyond the dumbed-down versions we got in grade school, there's plenty of moral ambiguity right smack in the middle of history.
jclemens | December 28, 03:41 CET
I won't even touch the post denouncing atheists who have the audacity to advocate for a separation of church and state ...
BrewBunny | December 28, 04:02 CET
The dispute with Applebee’s began June 14. Ryan chose a booth in the back of the restaurant away from other customers. When her baby, Michael, got hungry, she began to nurse him discreetly, she said.
But a waitress came over and said that if she wanted to breast-feed, she had to cover the baby with a blanket. Ryan said it was so hot that she didn’t have a blanket. The waitress then repeated her request. Ryan said she then asked to see the manager and handed him a copy of the 2006 law that prohibits any interference with a woman breast-feeding her baby in public.
The manager said he knew about the law but a customer had complained about indecent exposure, so she had to cover the baby with a blanket.
Just as her food arrived, Ryan left to nurse her baby in her car.
Her lawyer wrote a letter to Thomas and King, the company that operates Central Kentucky’s Applebee’s. They got no response. After a second letter, a Thomas and King lawyer said the restaurant chain would consider keeping blankets in the restaurant so that breast-feeding women could cover themselves.
“That’s like telling Rosa Parks she still had to sit in the back of the bus, but we’ll give her a blanket to make her more comfortable,” Ryan said.
Yep, that's a really "crazy" woman there who obviously is just looking for the public to cater to her.
BrewBunny | December 28, 04:09 CET
I'm always amazed that it's apparently just the 'nippular' area that is offensive, given what passes for bathing suits and bikinis these days.
That said, is it unreasonable to ask someone to cover up their breast, regardless of why it is out? I've seen tons of women breastfeeding in public, and every one of them covered themselves with a blanket.
I mean, if we're going to say you can expose your breast to breastfeed, then why can I not expose my breast for the fun of it? Then you get into a bit of hairy territory with equal rights and whatnot.
Mind you, I think people should be able to go around nude if they want, and that we are a far too puritanical society, but just going along with society...it should be even-steven, if you ask me.
Ryan said she then asked to see the manager and handed him a copy of the 2006 law that prohibits any interference with a woman breast-feeding her baby in public.
Wow, that kind of sounds like a woman who was aiming to either start a lawsuit or prove a point. Who walks around with laws in their purse??
After a second letter, a Thomas and King lawyer said the restaurant chain would consider keeping blankets in the restaurant so that breast-feeding women could cover themselves.
Good for them. I don't agree with making people breastfeed in the restroom, because after all, that doesn't seem very hygenic. But asking them to cover with, and even providing, a blanket. Seems fair enough. Clearly some people find expose breasts offensive, and if you're a business trying to keep everyone happy, it seems a fair compromise. You're allowing the mother to feed her child naturally, and you're allowing the other patrons to not feel...whatever they feel by seeing a boob. Offended. Disgusted. Whatever negative emotions boobs evoke.
[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2007-12-28 01:20 ]
Rogue Slayer | December 28, 04:20 CET
That post, as well as the breast feeding post, also made me realize just how much I disagree with Emma's politics and beliefs. But they also made me think that she may just be an even better actress than I gave her credit for... she sold Anya completely, even if the character was used in service of messages she may not believe in herself. I always knew Emma had excellent comedic timing, but now, I am pretty convinced she is a great actress. And if she came over to my house for dinner, we'd have a nice boring discussion about the weather :)
igj | December 28, 04:25 CET
But you know, it gives me new respect for the cast and crew of Buffy, that they co-existed (I think peacefully?) with Emma. Some of the DVD commentary would suggest they really liked her. I think that says a lot, that they saw the woman, not her wacky politics.
hst3k | December 28, 04:28 CET
A woman who is smart enough to know what her rights are and who is experienced enough to know that a large portion of the public is not similarly informed.
Signed,
Another woman who once carried a copy of her state's right to breastfeed law with her. ;-)
BrewBunny | December 28, 04:28 CET
Well, men can already expose their breasts for the fun of it (though we might not get served in bars or supermarkets) so the equal rights thing doesn't worry me ;).
The thing is Rogue Slayer, some people find exposed hair offensive, they still don't have the right (in Western countries) to ask people that don't share their beliefs to cover their heads. And surely it could be she'd had trouble before and so got a copy of the law to cover herself (ba dum dum ;) ?
Just read the "Let's make a big church/state pie cos the founding fathers she praises so highly really didn't want the two kept separate (all evidence to the contrary)" post. She likes her totally unsubstantiated, ill-considered rants doesn't she ? Love it, everyone should have a hobby ;).
Saje | December 28, 04:38 CET
And in Ontario, 10 years ago, it was decided that women could go topless where they pleased. More or less.
Lioness | December 28, 04:42 CET
Is that it continues.. that more and more people voice opinions about Caulfield's politics.
On other boards that I read (where testosterone is king...her opinions would not even raise an eyebrow).
Regardless, of the political stripes in here-- it seems that Whedonites just seem to be more politically interesting (eventhough you conservatives are wrong....we still love you).
Emma's opinions breastfeeding opinions aren't exactly mainstream... but I have to admit that they need to be confronted when appropriate.
I don't believe that it's right to just let other's "be" with what are patently wrong ideas. It's good to confront bad ideas.
Otherwise, bad ideas gain currency.
I'm still apalled by the fact that every American is not outraged at our involvement in a war based on false premises.
Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum... the fact that we are in Iraq and there were NO WMDs should make us ashamed. It's not a matter of left and right... but of right and wrong.
[ edited by hbojo on 2007-12-28 01:44 ]
hbojo | December 28, 04:43 CET
Dana5140; Sorry, I was taking your comment a bit more broadly than you meant it. I'm the last person to ever comment on another's decision to avoid spending money :-).
hbojo; The main probklem with Iraq is we're there now and just withdrawing isn't good way to deal with that emssy rel;aity.
Tibbitz;Just for the sake of argument, I could say the Buffyverse has a strong conservative element it it also, mainly because it has a fairly specific moral code running thru it and most prime-time shows, well, don't.
jclemens;Britain wasn't all that industrialized at the time; the economic asepcts were very different in the two wars.
hst3k; Emma and Tonyw ere the only actors from the casts invited to Aly and Alexis's wedding. Thsoe 4 plus AMy Acker, Nicky, and Charisma, plus their various spousen* are all fairly close socially last I heard.
*not a typo, that's how I spell and say it :-)
[ edited by DaddyCatALSO on 2007-12-28 01:47 ]
DaddyCatALSO | December 28, 04:45 CET
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may
breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, except the
private home or residence of another, where the mother and the child
are otherwise authorized to be present.
Now, of course, I've never argued anyone's right to breastfeed in public, but whether if 'covering up' is called for. The law doesn't really address it. And I wonder what the consensus would be if the mother were in a school. But like I said, it's never been an issue in my experience, as all breastfeeding women I've seen cover up in public, and from those I've talked to, they don't particularly like having their breast exposed to the public anyway.
A woman who is smart enough to know what her rights are and who is experienced enough to know that a large portion of the public is not similarly informed.
Signed,
Another woman who once carried a copy of her state's right to breastfeed law with her. ;-)
So this woman probably had prior experiences of breastfeeding in public, without cover, and people asking her to cover? Not speaking to the legality of it, but I'd just bring a blanket in the future if that happened. But then again, I'm not big on fighting for rights that don't really have much consequence, just because it's a right. I mean, breastfeeding in public is a right. Yes, fight for that. But being asked to cover up is not taking that right away from you. I mean, I'm sure she had a spit-up rag with her, if she is an experience mother. I wonder if her main problem was them asking her to cover up, or her impression that she had to leave. If they had provided her with a blanket, would she have refused it on principle? Didn't sound that way, sounded like she simply didn't have one. And did the restaurant insist she leave? I guess I just don't have enough facts to really get a full picture of the situation.
The thing is Rogue Slayer, some people find exposed hair offensive, they still don't have the right (in Western countries) to ask people that don't share their beliefs to cover their heads.
Yes, but in countries where it is against the accepted 'law' to expose your hair, they certainly can ask you to cover your head. And it seems in the US, it is not accepted to expose your breasts, so you are asked to cover them.
I would guess this woman carried a copy of the law in her purse because this was not the first time she had been told she couldn't breast feed her child in public and she was willing to take a stance.
I guess my point is, from the info we have, she wasn't told she can't breast feed in public. She was asked to cover up, as it was apparently offending other patrons.
Rogue Slayer | December 28, 04:49 CET
You know, for some reason, a lot of people in this world have made it a point to add in the words "in spite of" as if politics should be a yardstick for us to compare each other to. I don't care what your politics are, if you're a bad person who hates others, I'm not going to respect you.I don't feel as if anyone from the cast "put up with" or simply "co-existed" with Emma. It's not as if she had leprosy, for heaven's sake. That's one of the problems with this world, that instead of seeing people for being people, common decent human beings, we see red hat or blue hat, and we think that people with beliefs that are different than ours can't possibly get along with "normal" folks because obviously, Emma's politics are CRAZY.
I personally wouldn't like to breastfeed in public, thankyouverymuch. Forgive me for being extremely puritanical, but I think it'd just be a little distracting to the other restaurant-goers, if it was obvious. This woman wasn't being obvious, which is fine, that I have no problem with, but I don't think Emma should be judged or written off for expressing her opinion, which I'm sure is the same as many others.
And how dare any of us single Emma out for her comments. It's not as if any of us ever read one article on the internet and make opinions without digging through four or five other ones to confirm the details, right? I'm sure all of us do it a lot, even if we try not to. Her comments regarding the breastfeeding woman were not "she's a wretched human being" but simply that just because it is natural, perhaps it should not be done everywhere. That's a sensible line of logic, IMO.
the ninja report | December 28, 04:53 CET
and
And it seems in the US, it is not accepted to expose your breasts, so you are asked to cover them.
seem slightly contradictory Rogue Slayer. If we don't know then we don't know, we can't say whether it's protected OR illegal.
I kind of agree though that it makes sense to pick your battles and (the odd occasion apart, usually in the morning or pre-coffee ;) i'm not really the sort to fight over the small things either. But then I guess everyone has different priorities on "issues".
And how dare any of us single Emma out for her comments.
We dare like ... this ;). Seriously, she posted comments in public, that means the public get to scrutinise them (just as all our comments on here are open to scrutiny and, within the rules of the site and the mods' judgement, being challenged/ridiculed). And anyway, I very much doubt she's so thin skinned to be bothered by it. Her logic's not "insane and happenstance" but at the same time it just boils down to what some find offensive and what others don't so in this instance, logic doesn't really help us (unless it's actually been ruled illegal, which seems murky).
Saje | December 28, 05:02 CET
the ninja report | December 28, 05:10 CET
In general, the (few) posts i've read have been ad hominem (in a general sense), ranty and sometimes nonsensical. That's fine, she's absolutely entitled to express herself any way she likes and on one level it's quite entertaining. Doesn't mean we have to just accept it without comment if it rubs us up the wrong way though (anymore than Ms Caulfield has to).
Saje | December 28, 05:26 CET
I don't think republicans are bad people, and I think extremist democrats are just as reprehensible as extremist republicans. (Seriously, Tim Robbins is uber-talented, but I want to punch him in the face every time he starts talking about politics despite the fact that I agree with most of his beliefs). And if I want to, I can say that this disappoints me a little...and it does. I mean, she's as fully entitled to her beliefs as I am mine, but I always associate Buffy with liberalism.
Plus, her blog posts just seem rather insane, at least by my definition of insanity. And she's got a Rudy Giuliani thing on her MySpace (yet also tons of Bono admiration, which boggles my mind). Ugh.
This doesn't change Buffy or the Anya character for me, though. She's a very talented actress, and I will continue to enjoy her work. I mean, when I found out that Trey Parker and Matt Stone were registered republicans I nearly had a heart attack, but South Park continues to be one of the best shows on television (or at least it will if this damned strike ever comes to an end). Though I must say, their views seem way closer to mine than Emma's, and also sensible.
UnpluggedCrazy | December 28, 05:34 CET
the ninja report | December 28, 06:05 CET
I find it funny that the same republicans who decry any "Hollywood liberal" voicing a political opinion will defend to the nth degree Chuck Norris speaking out for Mike Huckabee. I am tired of the situationalism. In fact, I hate it on both sides- the republicans are fighting for the same rights that they once stripped from the democrats, now that they are in the minority. Jeez.
As to Emma, not a one of us would give a fig for her views were she not on Buffy. I love her character, but she's a actor "without portfolio" right now and her comments will have virtually no effect on anything. Save for a day long political discussion here.
Dana5140 | December 28, 06:13 CET
I'm surprised too, but mostly because Hollywood tends to lean left, way, way left. So hearing that someone takes a different point of view is refreshing to me. Sure some of her posts I don't agree with, but others make sense.
As for me, well I'm a libertarian at heart, even though I do recognize the limitations of the truly theoretical limited government that it aspires for. So back to the point of the original article posted about, her endorsement of Ron Paul, I'm glad to hear it since I voted for him for President when he ran the last time. While I find that my preference for limited govt. finds a better home on the republican side of the fence, in general elections I tend to vote third party to make the point that I'm not happy with the limited lesser-of-two-weavels choices our two party system gives us. That and the tendency of the republican nominating system to serve up candidates that are more into interventionist/authoritarian policies, like our current President.
Kyrax | December 28, 06:20 CET
Even if the law confirms their right to breast feed their children, why is asking for some discretion such a problem. Sure it should be done politely, but just asking for consideration of others should not be a crime. We live in a too litigious society already, so bringing lawyers into the mix because you don't like how someone handled the situation is a bit much.
Kyrax | December 28, 06:31 CET
But nobody says a bad word about my beloved Dixie Chicks: DaddyCatALSO, you're fired. ;-)
SoddingNancyTribe | December 28, 07:14 CET
and
And it seems in the US, it is not accepted to expose your breasts, so you are asked to cover them.
seem slightly contradictory Rogue Slayer. If we don't know then we don't know, we can't say whether it's protected OR illegal.
I just meant that the breastfeeding law doesn't mention anything about the need for covering up or anything like that; however walking around with your breasts exposed is considered 'indecent exposure', so I do know that is illegal(or maybe depends on your state). So does the breastfeeding law exempt a woman from the 'indecent exposure' law? It's quite possible it does.
Rogue Slayer | December 28, 08:10 CET
As a student of politics I appreciate that this year we have an embarassment of riches. There are almost twenty candidates between the two major parties, and even I'll admit that there are decent ones on each side who could be good Presidents if elected. Sure there are some clunkers and the typical ego trips who shouldn't have bothered filing for the nomination. So look around and research their positions, and you'll probably find someone you can tolerate. If you get involved now, you may even have an impact on getting your favorite nominated.
Kyrax | December 28, 08:35 CET
About seeing conservatism in "Buffy" because it's moral -- er, DaddyCatALSO, are you saying liberals aren't moral? :) I would disagree there.
About Emma Caulfield's political views being at odds with those of her castmates -- Joss Whedon hired her for five seasons of "Buffy" and gave Adam Baldwin a job on the end of "Angel" when "Firefly" went away (and brought him back for "Serenity"). If Joss is happy to work with people who have different political views than his own, then why should the actors who *do* agree with him politically be uncomfortable working with these folks? :)
[ edited by Shapenew on 2007-12-28 06:17 ]
[ edited by Shapenew on 2007-12-28 16:46 ]
Shapenew | December 28, 08:53 CET
Burp cloths = boobie burqas.
[ edited by BrewBunny on 2007-12-28 06:03 ]
BrewBunny | December 28, 09:03 CET
Doesn't the ninth amendment make it clear that no freedoms shall be denied that aren't specifically prohibited?
If so, then breast feeding in the open should be protected (but of course, that doesn't mean that you won't be unjustly arrested and detained for it without so much as an apology from the police),even if people are offended by it.
Anna von Ovonov | December 28, 09:47 CET
Dana5140 | December 28, 17:35 CET
The whole Janet Jackson tempest in a teacup clued me in like nothing else had just how sensitive some segments of the US are to nudity. Kinda funny ;).
(that said, we're "sensitive" about head-butts being shown on TV believe it or not - the UK seems to worry more about violence, the US seems to get more wound up about sex and swearing - so it's all just down to cultural mores)
Saje | December 28, 18:06 CET
Dana5140 | December 28, 19:50 CET
Shapenew | December 28, 19:55 CET
newcj | December 28, 20:06 CET
Rogue Slayer | December 28, 20:31 CET
But I think there is a greater point here, well beyond the issue. And it is this: this country is now so divided and so divisive that I think, in general, you can pick the politics of a person once they provide an opinion on just about anything. I will venture to guess that most- I said most, not all- of those who are against breast feeding in public fall on the conservative side of politics, and those for on the liberal side. And pick your issue, I think this is true- abortion, social security reform, universal health care, stem cell research, intelligent design (a canard if ever there was one), religion in the public square- pick it, and by your answer you reveal your politics- in general. And our politicians exploit these differences. I will be caucusing for Obama next week largely because he is the only candidate anywhere who continually and relentlessly talks about uniting, not dividing, hope not fear.
Dana5140 | December 28, 20:57 CET
Or they wanna see some breasts. In which case, they should buy Angel: After the Fall... wah wah wah! Sorry, couldn't resist the urge to tie two semi-offtopic threads together.
zeitgeist | December 28, 21:12 CET
Saje, actually, defecating in public in unhygienic and can be smelled by anyone in the immediate vicinity.
Not necessarily. You could have a loo in the middle of the room so that it's basically the same as it is now only right out in front of people, nothing unhygienic about it (so long as you wash your hands - which we all do, right ? ;). And smelling bad isn't illegal either AFAIK - again, it's just arbitrary preference.
My point (and hers) though is there are plenty of things that are natural (and not illegal) that people don't do in public out of consideration for others i.e. being "natural" is no defence, it's still down to arbitrary lines.
(she used crapping to sway people by evoking disgust - standard rhetorical trick and another irksome thing about her posts IMO - but the point is not that crapping and breast-feeding are directly comparable, the point is they're both natural human bodily functions so that simply saying "Breast-feeding is the most natural thing in the world" isn't a justification for doing it in public - saying it's not hurting anyone so why shouldn't the mother be free to do it is IMO but I suppose it's down to whether we put the onus of dealing with the problem on those causing offence or those being offended i.e. either the mother could cover up or the offended people could look away)
So, taking your argument to its logical extreme, if something offends someone somewhere, we need to accede to that?
That's not my argument Dana5140, my argument is merely that pleading "naturalness" doesn't justify a behaviour. You hit the nail though in that it boils down to what people want to see, not what's natural (or even legal as in your women kissing example - i'm assuming that's not against the law in the US ?) i.e. it's about taboos. Your example about racism is germane I think because of course, 50 years ago, in certain parts of America they would have had to leave - what people find acceptable changed (as did the law) and that's no longer the case.
[ edited by Saje on 2007-12-28 18:16 ]
Saje | December 28, 21:14 CET
Ah, but its only because you stole the gravitic anomalizer from my TARDIS. On the alleged topic - I think we should try and be aware that not everyone wants us to push everything we are doing in their faces. At some point we have to realize that people are slow to change and while it sucks, its not polite to ram things down people's throats if they are not ready for it. You have to get to tolerance before you have a chance at acceptance, and when you demand acceptance now versus asking for tolerance, you get a backlash reaction. So, hey, wacky idea, try being discrete about your breastfeeding or public displays of affection, unless you are doing it specifically to irk people and geta r eaction. I may be alone in this, but I don't go to the IHoP to see people breastfeeding or making out (no matter what orientation). No sir, I go there to eat crappy food and then feel sick and vaguely uneasy for three days following.
zeitgeist | December 28, 21:41 CET
ˇYa basta!
or..
ˇOrale vato!
hbojo | December 28, 22:06 CET
Old Fan | December 28, 22:09 CET
Yes, but where do you think that milk for your pancakes comes from, eh? Breasts! Cow breasts! So you are, in a roundabout way, breastfeeding yourself there, mister! As for the making out...well, making out usually comes before sex, which can lead to the inevitable breastfeeding. It's all a wacky circle of natural functions, right there in your IHOP(or Denny's if you're looking to go the full week feeling sick.)
Rogue Slayer | December 28, 22:30 CET
Actually, not so much. The women who made up my breastfeeding support groups, message boards and listserves were among the most diverse groups of people I've ever encountered. From crunchy Berkeley vegans to gun-totin', red-meat-eatin', born-again Christian Republicans, we had them all. I'd like to believe that this is because breastfeeding is a public health issue that crosses all socical, political, economic and religious boundaries. The indisputable fact is that on the whole, feeding infants artificial baby milk rather than breastmilk makes our nation's children sicker. A mother who chooses to swim upstream and breastfeed her children deserve to be supported, not harassed.
And as for insistence that nursing mothers cover up with a blanket for the benefit of those who *may* be squeamish, have those of you who hold that view ever actually nursed a baby with a blanket? It's actually a bit of a pain in the ass. Nursing can be tricky enough in those early weeks when you're learning to help your physically helpless little one latch on and stay latched on without having to also hassle with keeping a blanket appropriately situated, not to mention nursing with an older, curious and wriggly baby who does not appreciate having their view of their surroundings obstructed.
Frankly, the idea that these mothers are a bunch of exhibitionists who like showing off their breasts is ridiculous. The vast majority of nursing mothers in this country do so "bottom up" rather than "top down," meaning that all that really gets exposed is maybe a little bit of tummy flab when they lift up their shirt and a little flash of nipple while the baby latches on and off. The rest that you see is no different from any images of breasts that are common in our world. Which suggests that it's not so much the exposure of the breast that people object to as the fact that there is a baby attached to it. Otherwise, you'd likely be seeing people running up to Victoria's Secret ads on bus stops with baby blankets and burp cloths to cover up the renegade titties. ;-)
BrewBunny | December 28, 22:50 CET
Dana5140 | December 28, 22:59 CET
The thing is, if your beliefs are coherent then it follows that how you feel about one "big issue" is very likely going to relate to how you feel about them all and since, ideally, how you vote relates to how you feel about the "big issues" (rather than for instance the candidate's colour or hair style or where they keep their reproductive organs) then it makes sense that people's views on e.g. abortion correlate to how they vote (because you vote for people that agree with and support your views).
Don't really see the problem Dana5140.
(though I do get what I think is your point about polarisation and demonisation of the "other" side - it's just barmy, all it does is make dialogue and compromise even more difficult to achieve. Course, the problem is, some opinions are morally incompatible which means it's a constant temptation to think of and treat people that hold those other opinions as bad people)
Saje | December 28, 23:23 CET
hbojo;I think the main issue in Iraq is, given that we're involved and can't "make that didn't happen," finding the least worst way out. I think that's taking shape, from what I've read of the latest events over there, And most of the candidates on either side, and most columnists, seem to agree a precipitous withdrawal isn't it.
Saje; A lot of areas seem to takwe the view of "if somebody is offended, that's it." Many workplace sexual harrassment, ethnic diversity, and other programs take a stance like that and disallow the "reasonable person defense."
be back later
DaddyCatALSO | December 28, 23:42 CET
This is obvious, saje, and makes my point. It has come down to what amounts to two antithetical world views. I just think it stinks- the moment you know someone is against stem cell research, you know exactly where they stand on a host of other unrelated issues. And isn't that just a shame? I feel so often like Hannibal Lector- what did he say, "I find discourtesy unxpeakably incivil" or something like that? Well, I do. Most conservatives do not debate me; rather, they call me names and excuse Bush administration depredations by citing Clinton-era ones, as if two wrongs make a right. For people who reuse situationalism- at least when they were not in power- there is sure a lot of it now, now that the tables are turned. But in the end, my feeling is that it is not just me that is tired of all this, it is the entire country. Change is coming, thank goodness.
Dana5140 | December 29, 01:26 CET
Thus, I'm not sure about the value of the coherency/two antithetical world views theory either. How you feel about abortion may be informed by your belief in a woman's right to "choose," by religious or ethical beliefs, by medical knowledge, or by a certain view of the U.S. Constitution. I don't agree that my position on that issue will necessarily tell you what I think about the economy, school desegregation, the war in Iraq, gay marriage, or whatever else. (As is made clear when you consider that certain liberal Democrats are anti-abortion or, more relevantly, that Ron Paul opposes both the war in Iraq and abortion). My own example: I think "Intelligent Design" is absolutely poppycock, from a scientific perspective, yet I'm quite tolerant of expressions of "religion in the public square," based on my own understanding of the Constitution. I believe the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms, but I think gas guzzling vehicles should be far more severely regulated, and so on. My expression of support for certain candidates should not be read as an across-the-board endorsement of everything they stand for.
SoddingNancyTribe | December 29, 02:13 CET
Dana5140 SoddingNancyTribe BrewBunny; I also don't like the whole pick-an-issue predictability thing, not least because I'm one of the many people who isn't. (that's one reason I describe myself as a Whig) And I also agree on the fact that lots of people are tired of the polarization. (I *am*, however, not completley sure that the present system allows much change, so my hopes are limited.) And I believe in the "sauce for the goose" principle whether my party is in the majority or not. I just often wonder, outside of a group as preselected for intelligence as Joss-fans, how many people really do think these things thru as much as most of us seem to.
As for Emma being part of a larger group of friends most of whom disagree with her politically, I was just thinking of Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart. They started as struggling actors about the same time; they may have been roomates for a while. They decided early on that when they wanted to discuss politcs they wouldn't do it with each other, and remained lifelong friends. So it isn't *that* unusual.
DaddyCatALSO | December 29, 02:31 CET
Can't agree with you more SoddingNancyTribe. Partisans on both sides of that divide would like you to believe that there are only two sides to pay attention to for all issues. But for most people the reality is that they agree and disagree with the stances of the major political parties and their prominent candidates at the same time. The challenge for most people is working out who to support based on their stances on a small number of critical issues, and stomaching the issues where you oppose what they stand for.
Part of the problem that we have seen in the last four or five Presidential elections (Bush41, Clinton, Clinton, Bush43, Bush43) is that the electorate has been roughly divided in half, with the "winner" barely getting half of the vote (of the half of the registered voters who bother to go to the polls). Heck, until the 2004 election, none of these "winners" even got 50% of the votes cast due to large enough third party efforts by Perot and then Nader. This fed the vitriol of the partisans on both sides as they sought to motivate segments of the electorate to vote based on "their" issue, whether it was abortion, the economy, tax cuts, fear of globalization ("that giant sucking sound"), and so on. That same partisan venom is also aimed at discouraging turnout by groups unlikely to vote the "right way", directly or indirectly. When I've done phone banking for candidates around election time, one of the keys is to identify a person likely to vote "our" way and to help motivate them to actually go to the polls - and bring their family and friends who will vote the same way. There's nothing wrong with that - but it also includes identifying those who disagree and making sure that you aren't encouraging them to vote.
Ironically Dana, the issue you raise as being so indicative, Stem Cell Research, is one that I'd disagree with you as being such a clear indicator of other policy positions. At least it is when you consider the supporters of it - I've met many very conservative folks who do support research on embryonic stem cells, including religious conservatives. For the most part their seemingly contradictory stance on that issue is due to having their lives or the lives of loved ones and friends affected by disease or cancer. Your point is apt in many ways when you use a different issue, like abortion or creationism, as an indicator.
Kyrax | December 29, 03:05 CET
I love that DaddyCatALSO - I will have to steal that line and become a Whig too!
Kyrax | December 29, 03:30 CET
SNT- the concerns that inform one stance typically do so for others as well. On this baord, we have people far better able to express their opinion on a host of matters, likely better informed if for no other reason than that academic discussions of Buffy sort of mandates a bit of study, and so we might see more variance. But listen, I live in Iowa, and I am heading out to see Obama in a few moments, since he is here in Davenport, notwithstanding the 8 inches of snow we got today. And I can tell you, pretty definitively, that there is a huge and widening divide between the right and the left, and little ability to talk to one another. As a Jew, I am facing Huckabee's "Christian leader" ads, and I have to listen to what people in the stores say, and it is pretty damned scary. (Besides the fact that Huckabee apparently thinks the eastern border of Pakistan is Afghanistan, and i trying to link our immigration problems with Bhutto's assassination). I can say the pro-Bush folk here are all anti-abortion, anti-stem cell, pro-ID, anti-immigration, anti-gun registration, pro-war, etc. Without fail.
And DCA, Tara was never one to pay much attention to fashion, so rarely lightened her hair. If ever. :-)
Dana5140 | December 29, 05:23 CET
Hmm, so you think many people vote Democrat one election and then Republican the following election based on one or a few issues SNT ? That might be true in the US (though I really doubt it) but it absolutely doesn't jibe with my experience of UK voting where many (maybe most) people waver at most as far as the centre (i.e. Lib Dem) from their normal affiliation. Conservatives tend to vote Conservative or abstain unless they want to register a protest vote (then they might go as far "left" as Lib Dem then at the following election they very often swing back) and the same holds true for Labour i.e. IMO people vote in accordance with broad philosophical agreement unless there's a very compelling reason not to.
(i'm pretty disgusted with the current Labour government for instance, despite voting them in in '97 BUT it'll take more than that to get me to vote Tory - Satan buying ice skates might do it ;)
This is obvious, saje, and makes my point. It has come down to what amounts to two antithetical world views. I just think it stinks- the moment you know someone is against stem cell research, you know exactly where they stand on a host of other unrelated issues. And isn't that just a shame?
I say again, not really. If you're socially conservative then broadly speaking you're going to feel the same way about a lot of issues - that's just intellectual consistency, there's nothing wrong with it, it's not (as you seem to think) a symptom of the real problem IMO i.e. the aforementioned demonisation and straw-man portrayals of the opposition along with aggressive, anti-compromise, often intolerant rhetoric (on both "sides" I hasten to add).
(I also don't agree with what you say re: pro-Bush voters, or rather I disagree that being pro-Bush is the same as being right of centre and most of the issues you mention are related to that rather than what someone might think of the current US President)
Saje | December 29, 05:38 CET
[ edited by Rowan Hawthorn on 2007-12-29 02:47 ]
Rowan Hawthorn | December 29, 05:47 CET
It doesn't do anything to the theory, it just makes you a liberal Rowan Hawthorn ;). Being anti-gun registration is consistent with valuing personal autonomy and responsibility very highly, everything else you mention is consistent with that, hence a (more or less) coherent political position. Out of curiosity, what are you "hard right" on ?
(that's in the classical liberal sense BTW i.e. more what's meant in the UK by "liberal" than the US definition)
Saje | December 29, 05:59 CET
Dana5140 | December 29, 06:23 CET
[ edited by Dana5140 on 2007-12-29 03:24 ]
Dana5140 | December 29, 06:23 CET
I didn't mean to imply quite such variability/fickleness. What I was getting at was my underlying disagreement with the sense that we each fall on one side of Dana's great partisan divide (although I certainly can't speak about Iowa). (I myself have voted for candidates from various parties here.) Nevertheless, I do think it's true that many who might normally have voted for John Kerry in 2004 chose to support the incumbent President for obvious reasons. (I think Margaret Thatcher benefited from a similar response post-Falklands). So while no "heartfelt liberal" (but that definition is begging the question, isn't it?) would define herself as pro-Bush today, some did in the aftermath of 9/11.
Every individual's political position is surely internally "coherent," based on her background, experiences, and preferences; what I'm suggesting is that position doesn't necessarily map onto any political party or candidate on offer. I think Rowan is right that most of us are more moderate (meaning, willing to listen to others' views) if given the chance. To illustrate once again: you could add a "somewhat," or a "depending" to every political stance identified by Rowan above, and you'd have my position.
Voting, alas, is the quintessential "yah/boo" expression - up mine, down yours, with no opportunity to express nuance or shade. And electioneering focuses on that binary opposition, thus drowning out reasoned discussion.
SoddingNancyTribe | December 29, 06:30 CET
Hm. That's what I keep claiming...
"Hard right" may be the wrong term to use from an international standpoint, although, here in the US, my position on gun ownership (think everybody oughta have'em, carry'em, and know how to use'em - if common decency isn't enough to get people to treat other people with a minimum of respect, let's see how the fear of getting their asses shot off will work) would class as that. I support capital punishment for some crimes (but I also support more rigid controls and accountability for the people in charge of it, so I guess that's a wash.) And I think the wrong side won the Civil War - not because I think we should have kept slavery, but because I think the result handed too much power to the federal government, with disastrous results. I think we're better off when the government actually has to work to get anything done, and I'd rather live with the inconvenience of waiting than live with the consequences of turning some damn fool loose with more power than he (or she) has ethics or conscience to deal with.
Rowan Hawthorn | December 29, 06:33 CET
Yeah Dana5140, that's actually what I was getting at, I just worded it very badly. What I should have said is closer to "Being right wing doesn't necessarily make you pro-Bush" which sounds obvious when I actually say it in English like that ;).
My gist is, Bush supporters are (now anyway) often at the more extreme end of the spectrum and that you can be anti-abortion, anti-stem cell, anti-immigration and anti-gun registration and still not be pro-Bush (I doubt you're likely to be a proponent of ID - by which i'm assuming you mean Intelligent Design ? - and pro-war without also being pro-Bush though).
Every individual's political position is surely internally "coherent," based on her background, experiences, and preferences; what I'm suggesting is that position doesn't necessarily map onto any political party or candidate on offer.
Ah OK, that's closer to what I think SNT. I agree that you're unlikely to get anything like an exact match between your actual beliefs and a particular party (or even a particular candidate), we just have to pick the least worst choice (which IMO is the one that broadly matches, in the absence of "hot-button" issues, rather than based on one or a few specific issues - I think that might be a distinction without a difference though).
So while no "heartfelt liberal" (but that definition is begging the question, isn't it?) would define herself as pro-Bush today, some did in the aftermath of 9/11.
But in fairness, George Bush was a much less "known commodity" back then and i'd say that a lot of people that threw their lot in with him were actually throwing their lot in with The President of the United States i.e. the office itself and by extension the country he represents. It was an easy go-to choice for displaying patriotism and unity in the face of an "enemy" basically (quotes because I think calling them our "enemy" elevates them above the "mere" criminals that they actually are).
... although, here in the US, my position on gun ownership (think everybody oughta have'em, carry'em, and know how to use'em - if common decency isn't enough to get people to treat other people with a minimum of respect, let's see how the fear of getting their asses shot off will work) would class as that.
Yep, that qualifies in my book. Personally, that scenario would scare the shit out of me, I think I may have a bit less faith in my fellow humans than you do ;).
Saje | December 29, 06:53 CET
I certainly see the difference, but you suppose wrong. I am definitely pro-gun ownership. I just don't think you should have to be arrested fifteen fraggin' times for armed robbery before you get put away.
But how can you have the one without the potential for the other? Either you have the right to keep and bear or you don't. There really isn't any "Well, you do, but let's say you don't," kinda thing there - although lots of people would like it that way (generally, though, I notice that most of the people who want this don't seem to have any problem carrying themselves - or hiring someone to carry for them.)
Well, medical records are not open to casual inspection (or generally, not at all without a court order,) so registration for that purpose would be useless for anyone who has not in some way gotten a criminal record because of it. And there's no way to make it work without removing doctor-patient confidentiality; any loophole created would simply throw the doors wide open to anyone who had a friend or family on a police force to gain access to those records, if they wished. When the gun registrations first started in the US, those records were not available to local (ie, city, state, or county) police; they were available only to federal officers. So, if the local sheriff wanted to look at the records, all he did was get in touch with the local BATF officer - who simply picked up the books and handed them over. Privacy? We don' need no steenking privacy!
Saje:
Heh! I wouldn't be a bit surprised...
Edit:
Duh. I mean, I would be a bit surprised. Faith in my fellow humans is something I have very little of, these days.
[ edited by Rowan Hawthorn on 2007-12-29 04:08 ]
Rowan Hawthorn | December 29, 07:06 CET
And rather than opening medical records, couldn't the police just ask the applicant's doctor/psychiatrist if there were any reason, in their estimation, for that person not to have a gun ? I guess it still betrays confidential information but much, much less.
Saje | December 29, 07:17 CET
Could they? Sure. Let's see:
Estimated population of Kentucky in 2006: 4,206,074
Percent of those under 18: 23.5%
That leaves approximately 3,217,646 who are of legal age to buy a gun. Now, I have no flippin' clue how many of those may actually be buying at any given time, but I think it's fair to say that trying to call up and ask each of these people's doctor (leaving aside the questions of which of their doctors you might ask, if they have more than one, and how would you know they weren't lying if they said they didn't have one at all, which lots of people don't,) would put a tremendous strain on services, both on the questioner's side and the questionee.
ETA: There also seems to be two slightly different ideas of registration going on here: I have no problems with people's criminal records being on file, nor of doing a background check the way it's done today to see if they have a criminal record. But once that's done, that should be it. It serves no real useful purpose to keep those records. They tell you who bought the thing, not who last used it (if I'm gonna commit a cold-blooded murder, I'm not gonna use one of mine, fer cryin' out loud - I'm gonna do like every other self-respecting murderer and steal one...)
[ edited by Rowan Hawthorn on 2007-12-29 04:36 ]
Rowan Hawthorn | December 29, 07:30 CET
Well Saje, here in the U.S. we don't have a party of the Centre, like your Liberal Democrats. So for folks who really are of the center with opinions that straddle the divide, the choice is either a mixed vote, or going back and forth about which party to support. By a mixed vote I mean the tendency to vote for one party's candidate for President and the other for legislature. In a parlaimentary system you cannot do that, at least until you can vote on the King or Queen as head of state. Also the U.S. has two legislative bodies, so one can even split your vote three ways if you've got those choices available in your State or District.
As I mentioned earlier, in the U.S. there are strong partisans of one party or the other who will normally not vote for the other party. Like the comment about Satan getting ice skates, I'm not likely to vote for a Democrat but I have done so when the alternative is distasteful. Heck, even though I'm normally right-of-center, I voted for the Green Party candidate Nader in 2000 as a protest vote. In between both extremes are many people who vote for the candidate, not the party, that they feel will best represent them or will handle particular problems the best. That "soft" middle voted for Ronald Reagan in the 80's, but when it was "the economy stupid" voted for the centrist Democrat Bill Clinton in the 90's, and shifted to support G.W. Bush (#41) and his "family values" campaign in 2000. We're not talking about droves of people, but a few percentage points shift one way or the other is all it takes when our Presidents are elected with a slight plurality. Again from 1988 to 2000 none were elected by majorities of those who actually voted.
Kyrax | December 29, 08:04 CET
Dana5140 | December 29, 09:05 CET
Just because you know it, Dana5140, doesn't make it true. In fact, if you look at the historical trends, gun ownership per capita in the USA is rising and has been for years, and at the same time the number of accidental firearms fatalities and injuries--in both absolute and per capita terms--are declining.
But that really begs the question--are you expressing a political viewpoint or a religious belief? The latter are generally not amenable to logical persuasion. If I were to demonstrate that your statement was incorrect, would it alter your viewpoint towards gun ownership?
Most anti-gun doctors see only one half of the equation--the suffering and death caused by the criminal misuse of guns. They don't see the crimes of violence not committed because potential victims were armed. And for those folks, the visceral reality of bloody patients far outweighs the cold calculus of potential crime victims not victimized.
jclemens | December 29, 10:28 CET
OK, jclemems. Produce the cold hard calculus, in the form of statistics with sources that can't be easily discredited. You must know that your assertion that higher gun ownership produces greater public safety has never met with any success, anywhere, when examined rigorously. Do you have a spectacular new source?
dreamlogic | December 29, 12:09 CET
jcs | December 29, 12:39 CET
The "privacy issue" ought to bother everybody. And giving people permission to poke through your medical records does nothing to safeguard that privacy; beyond the fact that having to do this in in order to exercise (any) right is unacceptable - you're putting people who have no negatives associated with them to the same risk as people who do. At least, with the current background check, they're not searching through my personal information to see if I have a criminal record; they're searching police databases to see if they have any record of me. I would support a similar database of dangerously mentally ill patients, but only if the patient had the ability to appeal it - because otherwise, doctors who "know" that people shouldn't own guns would have a tendency to put patients on that list as a matter of course. As a doctor, you can deny that if you like, but I've seen too many people abuse whatever ability they may have to screw with other people's lives to give any credence to the "But they're professionals! They wouldn't do that!" theory. IME, professionals are just as quick to abuse their positions as anyone else.
That's your choice. Advocating ownership is not the same as advocating requiring ownership.
No, it really isn't end of story; more people die from household accidents (and botched medical procedures...) than gun-related accidents.
Anyway, I wasn't trying to turn this into a "gun thread", because that's pretty much a dead-end discussion and I'll be away for the next day or two and unable to keep up anyway.
Rowan Hawthorn | December 29, 15:42 CET
AFAIK there's evidence either way pro and anti gun control and there's also a lot made of correlations without necessarily demonstrating causation (on either side). That said, it's hard to get clean information because it's such an emotive issue for some people.
Of course, if it's not guns that cause the alarmingly high (among Western nations) murder rate in the US then you're still stuck trying to find out what does (my own theory is sweets - a friend brought me back a chocolate bar from the US one time and trust me, that is NOT chocolate. Which might drive me to kill ;).
Saje | December 29, 15:54 CET
If there were such a thing as a downward trend in crime correlated with an increase in gun ownership, you could argue over an inference that guns deter crime, but I've never seen any such numbers. So it doesn't have to get that fancy, as far as I know.
dreamlogic | December 29, 19:56 CET
My point though (apart from "Hey, facetiousness is great" ;) was partly that showing correlation->causation for an occurrence is hard, showing it for a non occurrence is very hard. Basically, we need a state to experiment on, who wants to volunteer ? ;)
Saje | December 29, 20:25 CET
As for the relative amicability of the primary races, I have to admit that the news is now full of he said/ he-she said stuff. The bickering level has gone up sharply in recent days due to extremely tight races on both sides of the contest.
Dana5140 - good luck with your caucusing next week. I hope that you and your neighbors pick well and help us get good choices for candidates. As a political junkie and concerned citizen, I admire the Iowa caucus system, with its second chance votes (if your first choice doesn't meet a certain minimum), open voting and so on. I'm not about to move there to participate, but it is an interesting way to do things. Besides, what else do you have to do in the dead of winter on the Great Plains? (;-)
Kyrax | December 31, 02:03 CET
WhedonTrivia | December 31, 09:47 CET