Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Who is Senator Bill Frist?

By minus273 in Op-Ed
Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 12:57:39 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

After Republican Senate majority leader Trent Lott's decision to step down, Senator Bill Frist is about to become one of the most powerful men in America and the world. Who exactly is Bill Frist? What is the significance of this change in leadership?


Bill Frist is a moderate Republican and the only medical doctor in the Senate. He led the National Republican Senatorial Committee and is widely credited with a large part in last month's historic victory.

It is widely known that Sen. Frist is very close to the Bush administration. As a practicing medical doctor, he advised the government and senate on issues such as cloning, stem cell research, AIDS and other health policy. He was even at the scene attending to victims in the 1998 shooting in the Capitol. In addition, he gained prominence during the anthrax incident in 2001. Like most other Republicans, Sen. Frist supports the right to life. As a doctor, he is also known to regularly travel to Africa and provide medical care and even travelled to AIDS ravaged counties with U2's Bono.

As a moderate, the selection of Frist is probably one of the best decisions made by GOP. Frist is a symbol of the kindler-gentler GOP that Pres. Bush's campaign defined as compassionate conservatism. It signals a further shift towards the center and is a departure from Sen. Lott. Like many other politicians, Sen. Frist was raised in a wealthy family and attended Princeton and Harvard. Unlike most others however, he studied a natural science. The fact that it is medicine means that he will probably act according to the ethics and morals of his profession. This would be a strong departure from that of lawyers, businessmen and academics that make up most of Washington.

By all means, Sen. Frist seems like an intelligent person. His positions are generally a mixture of two sides. He also presents the "younger kinder" face that the Republican party wants to project. It will be very difficult for the Democrats to demonize him. He will probably be attacked based on his pro-life position or for "not doing enough" on other issues. It will be very interesting to see how they go about this challenge.

Overall, given the Democrats recent movement to the left, played correctly, the selection of a moderate by the Republicans should allow them to further expand their control by taking the center and thus, the support of the majority of Americans.

Further links

Frist Senate Site

opensecrets.org profile

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Do you think the GOP made the right choice?
o Yes 31%
o No, Sen. X would be better 4%
o No, Sen. Lott should have stayed 20%
o Yes, given the options 44%

Votes: 45
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Bill Frist
o He led the National Republican Senatorial Committee
o last month's historic victory
o a practicing medical doctor
o cloning, stem cell research, AIDS
o act according to the ethics and morals of his profession
o recent movement to the left
o Frist Senate Site
o opensecret s.org profile
o Also by minus273


Display: Sort:
Who is Senator Bill Frist? | 140 comments (89 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden)
The irony (4.50 / 2) (#8)
by gibichung on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 03:03:04 AM EST

Is that Senator Frist's power grab has hurt the representation of the very people who should have been offended by Lott's comment; Mississippi has the highest percentage of blacks (37%) in the nation. And I can say for a fact that they have benefited immensely from Lott's position of leadership.

This, rather than Lott's remarks, will be the grudge that Mississippi's blacks and whites alike will hold against the GOP. I fear that Mississippians may once again feel the sense of disenfranchisement that lead them to vote for Thurmond in '48.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Actually, I find the basic irony... (4.50 / 4) (#30)
by davidduncanscott on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:32:35 PM EST

is that a Republican has praised the actions of a then-Democrat and been lambasted by every current Democrat for it. Everybody seems to have forgotten that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat in '48, and his campaign so repelled the party that they...did nothing at all, allowing him to keep running (and winning) as a Democrat until he left them in 1964.

[ Parent ]
The parties have traded places (4.00 / 1) (#121)
by isdnip on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 10:26:00 AM EST

Yes, Thurmond was a Democrat before bolting in 1948 to the "States Rights Party" (Dixiecrats). But that's because the Democrats were, in the 19th century, a rural-focused party, and Lincoln, reviled among the white southern polity, was a founding Republican, which at that time was basically an industrialist's party.

Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican who later became a "Progressive" in his third-party run.  By FDR's day the Democrats had drifted leftward and towards adopting civil rights (never a big Republican issue), but the south still had its late-19th century alignments.  Thurmond helped the shift towards today's alignment, with Republicans representing rural interests, white supremacy, and and other Dixiecrat ideals, while the Democrats embrace the principles of Lincoln.


[ Parent ]

Before and after (4.00 / 1) (#122)
by davidduncanscott on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 11:48:07 AM EST

He didn't bolt very far or for very long. To quote from the US Senate's site
Thurmond met with the Democratic Conference from his arrival in the Senate, although he made clear that his election in 1954 had not been aided by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. (In April 1956 he resigned and ran again for his seat that November as a Democrat.) He was still attending Democratic Conferences as late as August 1964, but changed to the Republican party on September 16, 1964.
Apparently the Democratic Party was not so revolted by Thurmond's positions as to turn down a Senate seat.

[ Parent ]
Straw man (none / 0) (#123)
by Eloquence on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 12:28:43 PM EST

Both Republicans and Democrats supported racism in the past -- that's nothing new, and nobody denies it. If a current acting politician supports a political campaign against "anti-lynching and anti-segregation" laws, however, that is news, and it doesn't matter if that politician is a Republican or a Democrat.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
Nobody denies it (none / 0) (#125)
by davidduncanscott on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 02:10:45 PM EST

Really. Well, nobody denies it, perhaps, but the Democrats don't generally stand up and and say it either -- "We're the party that went to war rather than give up slavery..."

[ Parent ]
Your point being? [nt] (none / 0) (#127)
by Eloquence on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 05:51:33 PM EST


--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]
My point being... (4.00 / 1) (#132)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 10:49:53 AM EST

that it wasn't all that long ago. It's not like all the witnesses are long dead.

The general current assumption is that the Republican Party is the party of bigoted white men, while the Democrats are splendid crusaders for Truth and Justice and Civil Rights, as indeed many Democrats are. The fact is, however, that most of the terrible policies against which some Democrats crusaded were the policies of their fellow Democrats, and they never made a move to (for instance) expel them from the party, not as long as they were winning seats and able to aid the party.

In fact, I don't really think it's reasonable to say that "the parties' positions have reversed." Show me Republican fire hoses and attack dogs and segregated schools and we'll see a reversal, but otherwise I think you'll see that some Republican officials have taken some of the positions held by fairly moderate Democrats of forty years ago, while nobody but Klansmen hold the positions held by extremist (but significant and electable) Democrats of that time.

[ Parent ]

I still don't see the point (4.00 / 1) (#133)
by Eloquence on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 01:05:37 PM EST

After Thurmond lost, many of the Dixiecrats became Republicans -- many southern Republicans fought civil rights legislation, just like many southern Democrats did. The correlation here is stronger with the region than with the political affiliation. If you want to condemn something, condem southern bigotry and fundamentalism and racist movements like the KKK.

But this is not about some historical debate "who was more racist", it is about a current politician supporting racist policies. That politician happens to be a Republican.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

I'm not condoning Lott (none / 0) (#135)
by davidduncanscott on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 10:04:16 AM EST

and I'm registered as an independent, for precisely this sort of reason. Parties are all about compromise, and they tend to have an integrity level that is the average of their leadership.

My only point is that it is ironic that the criticism has come straight down on party lines, when Lott merely praised the actions of a man whom the Democrats never ejected from their ranks. Apparently Thurmond smells so bad now that even to speak well of him at his birthday party is unacceptable, whereas is was perfectly OK to sit down and do business with him back then, when he was an active segregationist. The former is terrible, the latter was politics, so Lott is hounded and Lyndon Johnson is praised. I'm sorry if you can't see irony there, but to me it sticks right out.

[ Parent ]

Doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#136)
by Eloquence on Fri Dec 27, 2002 at 07:10:18 PM EST

Thurmond is a Republican today - what kind of "ejection" do you expect, given that Thurmond quit the Democratic Party in 1964, when the whole civil rights issue started to come around?

I'm not condoning Lott

But then you state that "Lott merely praised the actions of a man .." - sounds pretty apologetic to me. "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Thurmond ran on a fundamentally racist platform, and Lott feels that "we wouldn't have had all these problems" had such a platform been implemented? Even Bush felt the need to intervene. What on Earth is so ironic about today's politicians criticizing this racist bullshit? Both parties have a racist past and they have fortunately overcome it (the Democrats apparently more so than the Republicans), it's any notion of racism in the present that needs to be fought. What kind of reaction did you want? Did you want democratic senators to stand up and say "Trent Lott's words may not have been kind towards our black brothers, but we have to remember that many Democrats supported racism way back then, so he should be forgiven." Are you serious? Or are you just trying to find something to rile against?
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

Really? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by davidduncanscott on Mon Dec 30, 2002 at 10:47:58 AM EST

Both parties have a racist past...
See, here's where you lose me. When were the Republicans using fire hoses on black marchers? Who were the Republican slave holders? Which Republicans practically legalized lynching? In short, which party institutionalized racism as a legal structure and a plank in the party platform for close to a century, and now cries that the other party are racists?

For any individual to criticize Lott is entirely appropriate, but for it to fall on party lines is remarkable. What the Democrats are saying, in effect, is that a Republican is a racist, so racist, in fact, that he begins to resemble a Democrat, the dirty bastard!

[ Parent ]

My next stories (4.64 / 14) (#9)
by psychologist on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:56:44 AM EST

  1. Who is Minister Zhang Wenkang ?
  2. Who is Minister Pierre Oba?
  3. Who is Abgeordneter Jürgen Trittin?
  4. Who is Minister Kemal Dervis?
  5. Who is Speaker Alhaji Ghali Umar Na'abba?


looking forward to learning and voting up (nt) (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by MrLarch on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 09:23:18 AM EST



[ Parent ]
How (1.57 / 7) (#14)
by local roger on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 08:05:58 AM EST

in the name of fuck is senate majority leader one of the "most powerful positions in the world"?

On the bloody morning after / One tin soldier rides away. -- Joan Baez
in line after veep (nt) (2.00 / 1) (#21)
by minus273 on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:36:43 AM EST



[ Parent ]
no, that would be the speaker of the house (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by MorEDakKA on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:43:41 AM EST



[ Parent ]
You see ... (3.80 / 5) (#23)
by sonovel on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:57:43 AM EST

He is a majority party leader in the majority party in the Senate of the U.S. As majority party leader, he has great power within his party and therefore over the U.S. Senate. He is close behind the U.S. president with respect to power within his party, and therefore within the U.S. government.

The Senate is one of the four most powerful federal organizations of the U.S. It has unique powers granted by the U.S. Constitution that make it powerful in many legal relms and dominant in foreign policy. So it has a great impact both within and without the U.S.

The U.S. is the richest nation in the world. Its economy is the largest in the world and is very healthly compared to most other nations. The U.S. has the largest and by many measures best military in the world. It can project force farther and harder than any other nation. The U.S. is pretty much at the head of the dominant culture in the world.

That is what makes the head of the U.S. Senate one of the "most powerful positions in the world".

[ Parent ]

that's the answer to everything: (3.50 / 2) (#65)
by s alpha on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 11:52:39 PM EST

  1. "because the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world."
  2. "because the Senate is a powerful organization in the most powerful nation in the world."
  3. "because the majority leader is a powerful position in the most powerful organization in the most powerful nation in the world."
thanks for the news flash, but perhaps someone here is capable of identifying what actual authority and powers come with the position?

increasingly common these days to see folks referred to as the "most powerful [insert field of endeavour here] in the most powerful nation in the world" — like the nation is at their command, or like it makes them most powerful in the world and not just the country.

[ Parent ]
You miss the forest ... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
by sonovel on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 02:24:39 AM EST

for the trees.

There are very few formal powers with the position of Senate leader.

However, he is at least the "first among equals" in the most powerful legistative body of the most powerful nation in the world. Any Senator has a global reach that is unexcelled by anyone outside of a handfull of foreign leaders. Consider how much power a single vote on an important treaty represents! Think of the power that the Senate leader has on things like unleashing the power of the U.S. military.  

Isn't that enough? The whole "how the fuck" question is just absurd. Anyone who thinks that the lowliest U.S. Senator isn't in one of the most powerful positions in the world is ignorant or an idiot. The leader of the Senate is even more powerful.

On paper, the junior hayseed Senator from North Dakota is pretty much equal to any other Senator. However, this naive view turns out not to be valid.

By custom, the majority leader has more power than other Senators. This has to do with party politics. Nowhere in the Constitution are you going to find the details of that. You need to look to how the position is created and how it can be used to see its importance.


[ Parent ]

majority leader gets (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by dr k on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:41:25 PM EST

a cloak of invisibility and a bag of holding.


Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

Simple. (4.00 / 1) (#73)
by Skywise on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 03:31:59 AM EST

As Majority Leader, he gets to decide the timetable for when and how legislation comes up for discussion and voting.

Which means that if he doesn't like a particular piece of law... he can effectively kill it by making sure that it never comes up for a vote.

There are ways around this, but it requires a substantial amount of effort (I think at least a simple majority vote of the senate) to override him.  But because he's the "majority" leader, the majority is rarely going to show a lack of confidence in the guy they voted into that position to begin with.  And the minority certainly isn't going to come up with the votes...

For example, he can singlehandedly kill the bills to continue UN funding, and UN military support by the US...  Which makes the position, I think, a powerful one in the world?

[ Parent ]

lookalike name troll alert (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#82)
by localroger on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 11:59:45 AM EST


I can haz blog!
[ Parent ]

"right to life" (4.00 / 6) (#15)
by ShadowNode on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 08:09:43 AM EST

Could someone clarify this a bit? It's certainly possible for him to oppose abortion personally, without necessarily being anti-choice.

I'm not so sure (3.60 / 5) (#20)
by tarpy on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:33:56 AM EST

As a pro-life person, I don't know how I could be against what I consider murder personally, but feel that it was ok for others to be for it. It's not like bootlegging or something else...it's murder (as I see it), so of course, I must advocate public policies that attempt to make it illegal.


Sir, this is old skool. Old skool. I salute you! - Knot In The Face
[ Parent ]
My opinion (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by AnomymousCoward on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:03:28 PM EST

As a Seventh Day Adventists, I agree that abortion, in all of its forms, is murder. Having seen some 'less-than-pleasant' pictures of aborted fetuses, I can certainly say that my opinion on that issue will not change.

However, I cannot and will not support the birth of a child into a household that does not want it. If a parent is willing to kill their unborn child, why should any child be forced to live with in such a situation? Banning abortion will do little more than increase the number of children living in homes that do not want them, increasing poverty, and further killing public education by shoving undisiplined children into the school system as daycare.

Vobbo.com: video blogs made easy: point click smile
[ Parent ]
Interesting logic (4.00 / 2) (#29)
by davidduncanscott on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:23:48 PM EST

It's hard not to sound completely provocative here, but doesn't your reasoning suggest that if a parent attempts to murder her child (let's say the gun misfires), thereby expressing a willingness to do so, you would support finishing the job?

[ Parent ]
Sorry, but.... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by John Milton on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:23:51 PM EST

...that doesn't wash. People who are pro-choice don't see abortion as murder. Therefore your argument that a child should not be born into a family that wants to kill him lacks real sense. While I believe that abortion is murder, I do not believe that pro-choice people are homicidal maniacs. What your suggesting is that people who perform abortions think of that as murder, so they, as murderers in the first degree, should not be allowed to have children, and should be allowed to continue to kill the ones they do have. That's some extremely distorted thinking. If you believe that abortion is murder then you need to ask yourself what kind of murder it is.

  1. Murder in the first degree - premeditated deliberate murder.
  2. Murder in the second degree - deliberate but not premeditated.
  3. Murder in the third degree (now called manslaughter) - unintentional, not premeditated.

It seems clear to me that abortions must be considered as manslaughter since no one goes to an abortion clinic telling themselves that they're killing an actual child. By not trying to convince them of that difference, you're actually more guilty than they.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
"unwanted child" argument (3.66 / 3) (#97)
by bolthole on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 04:08:48 AM EST

This is a common argument, and it is fundamentally flawed, even taking into account so-called "relative morals". At best, it means you havent thought the reasoning through fully. At worst, it means you're plain hyppocritical.

IF it is okay to kill an "unborn child", becuase the child isnt wanted... then why isnt it acceptible for the parents to kill the child AFTER it is born? 10 seconds after it is naturally plopped outside the mother, compared to 10 seconds before, while inside the mother, there is no significant difference in the maturity of the baby. Yet I presume you would have some kind of problem with the 'after' case.

If you say that placement relative to the mother is the deciding factor, than what you're saying is I dont CARE if it is alive or non-alive, its all about the mother having total control over its life, and her convenience.

If on the other hand, your dividing line is "can the baby live on its own"(ie "apart from its mother"), there are at least two problems to that, also.

First of all, no baby can truely survive on its own. Even the healthiest baby needs the natural equivalent of "intensive care" from its mother. It needs special nutrients and immune boosters from breast milk, or it will have serious problems.

Secondly, babies can be prematurely born months before the due date nowadays, and survive with modern health care. 50 years ago, they couldnt. So was it somehow not murder 50 years ago to abort a 7 month old fetus, but now it is?

If somehow you still think this is okay, how about, "Do you, in this time now, not consider it murder when someone killed 'their' slave 100 years ago?"

Just because something is legal, doesnt make it right.

[ Parent ]

It has to do with control (none / 0) (#96)
by John Miles on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:35:49 AM EST

As a pro-life person, I don't know how I could be against what I consider murder personally, but feel that it was ok for others to be for it I'm opposed to abortion on personal moral (albeit not religious) grounds, but I also recognize that there are multiple ways of looking at the issue. I'm not comfortable forcing the rest of the world to conform to my opinion, although I can understand why others ("pro-lifers") consider it mandatory to do so.

For so long as men do as they are told, there will be war.
[ Parent ]
Also... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
by artsygeek on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:23:02 PM EST

Frist isn't exactly against the death penalty....doesn't sound very pro-life to me. But, that's just because I think people's views should be consistent. If someone talks about the sanctity of human life, they'd better be consistent and believe all life is sacred. And that extends not just to pro-active killing, but what I'd call INactive killing(such as a person with a brain tumor being unable to afford the surgery dying, or someone with AIDS not being able to afford medication not getting the medication they need). If I hear someone talk about the sanctity of human life, they'd better not simply be against abortion and euthanasia(and, of course, using right to life arguments on euthanasia is a bit of a strawman, but that's a whole 'nother barrel of rice).

[ Parent ]
It's not inconsistent (3.00 / 2) (#46)
by John Milton on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:29:43 PM EST

It's not inconsistent to support the death penalty while being against abortion. I'm sure Senator Frist would support you in the execution of a fetus that was involved in the serial killing of thirty people.

Personally, I'm against abortion and capital punishment for entirely different reasons.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Good point (none / 0) (#100)
by artsygeek on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:25:19 PM EST

You do make a good point, but I think that Frist will now pretty much take whatever position the White House chooses, (rant)which is to execute retarded people and smirk about it(/rant).

[ Parent ]
Foolish consistencies (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by Godel on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 05:00:55 PM EST

Frist isn't exactly against the death penalty....doesn't sound very pro-life to me. But, that's just because I think people's views should be consistent.

So you see punishing a vicious criminal with the ultimate penalty as morally equivalent to murdering an innocent child? I'm curious, if I support putting criminals in prison, do I then have to support putting innocent children in prison in order to be consistent by your standards?

If you wanna talk about inconsitencies, how about the pro-abortion people, who are against the death penalty for convicted mass murderers after a fair trial by a jury of their peers, yet have no problem with an innocent defenseless child being murdered at the whim of the mother.

No matter what your opinion on abortion is, you should acknowledge that Roe vs Wade was bad law, the ultimate in judicial activism. There's no way in hell the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion because of a "right to privacy". Using that logic I guess dads have a right to sexually abuse their daughters as long as it takes place in the privacy of the home. Abortion should be a state's decision like other murder laws.

If the US Constitution guarantees a right to abortion, please point out the section or amendment where such a right can be found.

[ Parent ]

I think it has something to do with.... (none / 0) (#104)
by artsygeek on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 05:15:03 PM EST

The fact that the law is directed SPECIFICALLY at women....if you can make a man pregnant, then abortion can be made illegal.  That's the heart of the "privacy" argument in Roe v. Wade.

(rant)
HOW can I not be against capital punishment?
It's something called being against state-sponsored, cold-blooded, calculated MURDER. And besides that, it's against my religion...and I SHUDDER to think that my tax dollars PAY for it, OKAY? By the way, I personally am against abortion....but I think it must be legal to prevent botched abortions that cause severely brain-damaged babies. As a corollary to that, I am also against state-sponsored abortions...Until ALL medical procedures get paid for by the government, abortion shouldn't be paid for by the government, if at all. And not all people who get convicted of murder are guilty.  And of course, you're comparing apples and oranges with that little "Innocent children in prison" strawman. (/rant)

[ Parent ]

if execution = murder, imprisonment = kidnapping (3.00 / 2) (#105)
by Godel on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 05:30:09 PM EST

The fact that the law is directed SPECIFICALLY at women....if you can make a man pregnant, then abortion can be made illegal. That's the heart of the "privacy" argument in Roe v. Wade.

And rape laws are directed almost solely against men. I guess rape should be legalized too then.

Half the children aborted are female,(actually more in India/China) what about their rights? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It's something called being against state-sponsored, cold-blooded, calculated MURDER. And besides that, it's against my religion

Guess what, kidnapping is horrible and wrong too. I mean the evil of taking someone by force against and imprisoning them agains their will. Depriving them of all their freedom and putting them a cage. But when a jury of their peers sentences a criminal to prison, that is essentially state sponsored kidnapping. Do you see a moral distinction between a criminal kidnapping an innocent person and the state kidnapping a criminal as punishment for horrible crimes?

and I SHUDDER to think that my tax dollars PAY for it, OKAY? By the way, I personally am against abortion

Good luck with that argument. I'm against abortion but my tax dollars go to pay for that. I think that welfare actually damages society because it takes away the incentive to work and encourages those who dont work to have large numbers of kids who then grow up with the idea that work is optional. But goody two-shoes liberals don't have a problem telling me that I'm morally obligated to pay for something that I find morally repugnant. Life sucks.

And of course, you're comparing apples and oranges with that little "Innocent children in prison" strawman. (/rant)

Nope. Your argument is that its somehow hypocritical to support death for vicious criminals but want innocent children to live. Comparing innocent children in prison to vicious criminals in prison is a direct analogy. And you completely neglected to mention the hypocrisy of those who are against the death penalty for hardened criminals, but have no problem imposing the death penalty on innocent children.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm...maybe it is (none / 0) (#138)
by artsygeek on Sat Dec 28, 2002 at 04:42:34 PM EST

Perhaps imprisonment is a form of kidnapping. I should add that I think the "lock 'em up" model ain't workin...and we need a more integrative model, like restorative justice.

[ Parent ]
RE: Right to Abortion (none / 0) (#108)
by Bridge Troll on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 10:43:17 PM EST

If the US Constitution guarantees a right to abortion, please point out the section or amendment where such a right can be found.

The Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution says so, for one. I quote. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment supports this position, also: only women can become pregnant, so an anti-abortion law by its nature discriminates against women. Note that because citizenship is granted to those born within the United States, the equal protection clause does not apply to fetuses. They are not yet born.




And besides, pounding your meat with a club is a very satisfying thing to do :) -- Sleepy
[ Parent ]
Ironic (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by Godel on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 03:12:43 AM EST

The Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution says so, for one. I quote. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You realize that the US Constitution is an enumeration of the powers of the Federal Government, correct? If the Federal government had tried to pass a law outlawing abortion, your position would be correct, but the opposite is true. The Supreme Court's decision overturned all State Laws and made it IMPOSSIBLE for any state for any reason to make laws restricting abortion. Roe vs Wade is a case of the federal government usurping the powers of the state, which ironically is exactly what the 9th amendment was supposed to protect against.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment supports this position, also: only women can become pregnant, so an anti-abortion law by its nature discriminates against women. Note that because citizenship is granted to those born within the United States, the equal protection clause does not apply to fetuses. They are not yet born.

Only people with children can be convicted of child neglect. Does this unfairly discriminate against parents? According to your interpretation it does. Would your solution be to legalize child abuse?



[ Parent ]

Refutations. (none / 0) (#112)
by Bridge Troll on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 10:03:52 AM EST

The Supreme Court's decision overturned all State Laws and made it IMPOSSIBLE for any state for any reason to make laws restricting abortion. Roe vs Wade is a case of the federal government usurping the powers of the state, which ironically is exactly what the 9th amendment was supposed to protect against.
Yes, you would be right, except that the 14th Amendment specifically states that neither the Federal government nor the various state governments may abridge the equal protection of the law.

Only people with children can be convicted of child neglect. Does this unfairly discriminate against parents? According to your interpretation it does. Would your solution be to legalize child abuse?
This is a spurious argument. Chosen behavior is legal for the governments to discriminate against. It is clear from my argument that abortion is legal because laws against it are both discriminatory against women, I.E., they apply only to women, which is a natural condition of birth and not resulting from choice, and because the unborn are not yet persons with respect to the law.

Furthermore, abortion is useful in a variety of circumstances. In cases of rape or incest, in cases of damage to health of the mother, and when the pregnancy is a burden upon the mother, abortion is sometines necessitated. Carrying around 20-40 pounds of flesh and fluid is not a burden I would wish on the unwilling.




And besides, pounding your meat with a club is a very satisfying thing to do :) -- Sleepy
[ Parent ]
Absurd Interpretation of the 14th (3.00 / 2) (#117)
by Godel on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 02:40:55 AM EST

This is a spurious argument. Chosen behavior is legal for the governments to discriminate against. It is clear from my argument that abortion is legal because laws against it are both discriminatory against women, I.E., they apply only to women, which is a natural condition of birth and not resulting from choice, and because the unborn are not yet persons with respect to the law.

This is absurd. a woman can request an abortion, but a male doctor can perform one also, a man could punch a pregnant woman repeatedly in the stomach and receive the same result. The act of killing an unborn child is the crime, equal protection means all laws apply to everyone equally, it doesnt mean that behavior can only be made criminal if both males and females are equally likely to participate in it.

Men are far more likely to commit rape, murder, robbery and other violent crimes than woman. Should we therefore assume that such crimes unfairly discriminate against men, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? Of course this is absurd, but thats the argument you're making.

Actually I've heard a similar argument made on the death penalty, the argument goes that because blacks are far more likely to commit repeated violent crimes that warrant the death penalty, therefore the death penalty discriminates against blacks. Of course this entire thinking is absurd, should abhorrent behavior be made legal because not all groups participate in it in exactly equal proportions?

[ Parent ]

Absurd Interpretation of the 14th (3.00 / 2) (#118)
by Godel on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 03:14:56 AM EST

This is a spurious argument. Chosen behavior is legal for the governments to discriminate against. It is clear from my argument that abortion is legal because laws against it are both discriminatory against women, I.E., they apply only to women, which is a natural condition of birth and not resulting from choice, and because the unborn are not yet persons with respect to the law.

This is absurd. a woman can request an abortion, but a male doctor can perform one also, a man could punch a pregnant woman repeatedly in the stomach and receive the same result. The act of killing an unborn child is the crime, equal protection means all laws apply to everyone equally, it doesnt mean that behavior can only be made criminal if both males and females are equally likely to participate in it.

Men are far more likely to commit rape, murder, robbery and other violent crimes than woman. Should we therefore assume that such crimes unfairly discriminate against men, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? Of course this is absurd, but thats the argument you're making.

Actually I've heard a similar argument made on the death penalty, the argument goes that because blacks are far more likely to commit repeated violent crimes that warrant the death penalty, therefore the death penalty discriminates against blacks. Of course this entire thinking is absurd, should abhorrent behavior be made legal because not all groups participate in it in exactly equal proportions?

[ Parent ]

Frist and HCA (4.46 / 15) (#18)
by cestmoi on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 09:39:47 AM EST

The NY Times has a write up on Frist that isn't quite as complementary as yours. Specifically, they cite a membership in an all-white country club until 1993, an un-reprimanded racial slur from one of his staff, and a whopping $1.7 Billion fraud settlement from a health organization that his father and brother founded.

Waiting until 1993 to resign from the country club does not speak well of Dr. Frist. Given that he was smart enough to become a heart surgeon, he should have been smart enough to realize that membership in an all white country club endorses racial segregation. Coming from a family that has actively engaged in fraud doesn't enhance his reputation much either. Especially since Dr. Frist's claim to the leadership is based not on his policy leadership but on his ability to raise funds.

Unfortunately, Daschle hasn't exhibited much that recommends him either.

I wonder if it's the nature of partisan politics that leads to the stench coming from Washington or if it's something peculiar to Washington. In an interview published several years ago, Bruce Babbit reminisced:

"Working with a hostile Legislature in Arizona was great training," says Babbitt, who waxes nostalgic talking about his Arizona years, when he and his political opponent Burton Barr "knew how to feed the lions in the press."

"After sunset," Babbitt remembers, "when the issues were at stake, we always managed to find common ground."

"I thought in the major leagues the game would be a little more dignified," says Babbitt. "But in fact Congress is a much worse place than the Arizona Legislature of Burton Barr and Stan Turley [another political opponent]. There is no seriousness of purpose, there is no attempt to find common ground, it is all for show. No one is interested in facts or constructive solutions. It's all rhetoric for political consumption."

That will not change as long as we continue to send people such as Frist and Daschle to Washington.

All White Country Clubs... (4.50 / 2) (#41)
by Skywise on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 03:45:12 PM EST

I don't think most of these guys joined because they were "white only".

Until Tiger Woods came along, Golf was mostly seen as a rich, white man's sport.

Until my school system was forced to "desegregate" (meaning they bused kids from all black neighborhoods in the cities 30 miles into the suburbs in the interest of racial equality...) I saw only a handful of black people.  And that was "normal" to me.

 So unless there was a giant sign out front of the club saying "Whites only" (and there probably wasn't) and you're not aware of a formal written policy for "Whites only" (and there probably wasn't)  It's very easy to just assume that no black people are applying.

Or do we all just consider it "normal" that Eminem and Vanilla Ice are the only white people to try to rap.  Or that most white people can't rap?


[ Parent ]

Frist Hypocrisy (5.00 / 2) (#89)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 04:49:48 PM EST

I personally have a lot more respect for either outright segregationists like Thurmond was, or folks that are integrationists and really toe the line. What I'm seeing here is the pattern of a hypocrite-a guy that joins "all white" country clubs that aren't really up front about their membership criteria--and then turns around and votes for H-1b expansion.



[ Parent ]

country club (none / 0) (#116)
by timmyd on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 10:38:01 PM EST

It is not an "all white" country club. The surrounding neighborhood is pretty much only white because of the cost of living as well as the cost to be a member of the country club. However, the whole point is that he left the country club (and his hometown) when he started his political career. It's not like he just chose to join the country club because he knew a lot of people in it that were white. I'm not sure at all how the admission works, but I would guess that you need someone who is already a member that can say that you would be a good and giving member. So if you have family members who are members I would guess that they would let you in easily. Anyways, it's irrelevant because he left the club when he stopped being a heart-surgeon and started his political career.

[ Parent ]
Not irrelevant (5.00 / 2) (#124)
by nomoreh1b on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 01:30:33 PM EST

Anyways, it's irrelevant because he left the club when he stopped being a heart-surgeon and started his political career.

This may surprise folks that think of me as a "white surpremist", but I grew up in an area similar to where Frist grew up-and when I was a teenager refused to join some local organizations that might have helped me greatly with social/business contacts because that time, I opposed segregated social organizations.

Now, I may have been wrong then,now(or both times), but I tried to be sincere each step along the way. That isn't my read on Frist--rather every step along the way he's smiled and said the right thing to get what he wanted-there isn't a bit of backbone or principle in this man. You might as well auction the government off the highest bidder-you'll get the same result as you get with someone like Bill Frist.



[ Parent ]

auction off the government (none / 0) (#128)
by timmyd on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 11:58:25 PM EST

I think you are sort of asking if you want your canidate to represent the minority and have the backbone for doing  so---or do you want your canidate to represent the majority and go with the flow. While it would be a noble cause to have a backbone and stand out with decisions like that, I don't know of any politians that have made it big by doing that. He has probably stood out more than most other politians with work on stuff like a patient's bill of rights.

And with your use of "segregated": I want to make it clear to anyone else that is reading this that it is about money, not skin color.

[ Parent ]

Plutocracy in Action (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by nomoreh1b on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 01:21:00 AM EST

When Bill Frist supported H-1b he was going against the will of the majority of his constituents-over 80% of the US public opposed H-1b expansion in a Harris poll-and I'll bet it was higher in Tennessee. I think Frist also went against the will of his constituents when he supported the Eli Lilly protection clause in Homeland Security Bill.

My honest read of Bill Frist is he's a machine that will go with the flow enough to get elected and sell out as much as he can and still get re-elected. Whatever the problems with direct democracy, it may be preferable to "leadership" like that of Frist.



[ Parent ]

auction off the government (none / 0) (#129)
by timmyd on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 01:11:30 AM EST

I think you are sort of asking if you want your canidate to represent the minority and have the backbone for doing  so---or do you want your canidate to represent the majority and go with the flow. While it would be a noble cause to have a backbone and stand out with decisions like that, I don't know of any politians that have made it big by doing that. He has probably stood out more than most other politians with work on stuff like a patient's bill of rights.

And with your use of "segregated": I want to make it clear to anyone else that is reading this that it is about money, not skin color.

[ Parent ]

oops double (none / 0) (#130)
by timmyd on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 01:13:14 AM EST

weird that it posted the first time... i just previewed it and then when i hit post it looked like it was timing out....

[ Parent ]
his country club, his staff, his family (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by s alpha on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 11:08:53 PM EST

i never heard of Frist before but now i'm supposed to believe he's stench -- not because of anything he's done, but because of what his acquaintances, relatives, and hired help have done.

he quit the club, but not fast enough? his lackey said a bad word, and he didn't reprimand him, at least not in public? his dad and bro settled a fraud suit, and he didn't disown them?

if he is indeed stench you'll have to dig deeper than that.

[ Parent ]

Bingo...this thread stinks (none / 0) (#74)
by kholmes on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 06:49:05 AM EST

Unfortunately his post got rated to 5... The whole post was meant to demonize the guy for nothing he did. For people you don't know give them the benefit of the doubt.

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]
Yep - you're right (4.00 / 1) (#80)
by cestmoi on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 10:25:56 AM EST

You're right - my critique was unfair. Skywise pointed out a reason the club could be all white that wouldn't necessarily imply racism. I'm not sure how my brother earns his living but he lives well and the apparent failure to reprimand the slur could simply be a mistake on Frist's part.

I should have held my fire - the guy does deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[ Parent ]

And then his investment in HCA ... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
by pyramid termite on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 07:09:40 AM EST

... has been questioned by the pro-life crowd. Here's one article. So that would make him pro-life, but as long as abortions are legal, he might as well make a little off of them, right?

I'm not impressed.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Not to mention, (4.00 / 2) (#98)
by Kintanon on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 12:50:55 PM EST

He also kills kittens! Check out his biography, he talks about adopting stray kittens then performing surgery on them and stuff when he was a med student. Which is, incidentally, illegal. So not only is he a lying racist, but he ALSO kills kittens!

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

In a nutshell (3.50 / 10) (#19)
by acceleriter on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:21:58 AM EST

Frist feels the same way as Lott. He was just smart enough not to say something that pointed out so clearly in public.

I believe he is a senator. (nt) (2.50 / 2) (#26)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:09:22 PM EST



I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
Your sig (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by jabber on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 12:16:24 PM EST

Murder is bad, mmm'kay, but there is nothing wrong with being a dungeon master, gay or otherwise. So long as we all agree on the rules, it's party time!

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Politicitans have theoretical morals to... (none / 0) (#28)
by autopr0n on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 01:18:25 PM EST

It dosn't mean they follow them...


[autopr0n] got pr0n?
autopr0n.com is a categorically searchable database of porn links, updated every day (or so). no popups!
Cure Autism Now and Frist (4.80 / 5) (#33)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 02:01:41 PM EST

Frist was one of the leaders in providing protection to drug companies around Autism lawsuits. This is part of a larger pattern of GOP leadership getting in the way of investigation outside of government channels in this area-as Bush did in requesting records on vaccination be sealed.

There are several giant issues here:
Is corporate welfare a good idea? Should companies get to use the government as a shield in the case of extreme liability? Is it really a good idea for existing corporate management to be left in placed and left with substantial wealth in their hands in the case of a major problem like this?

Have the government actions really provided incentives here appropriate for the scope of the problem? We are most likely talking several hundred thousand children being permanently disabled here. Comparatively, the autism epidemic makes 911 look like a more dramatic, but much smaller incident.

Should corporate leadership be allowed to extenstively influence the political process with donations? How does the corporate system influence the very scientific process by which problems like the autism epidemic get evaluated?

The way this relates to Bill Frist: can this guy tackle the big issues? At this point, it doesn't appear that is the case. Is there any real difference between government by men like Frist and simple auctioning off congressional seats to the the highest bidder?



The rider bill isn't inconsistent with current law (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by John Milton on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:06:30 PM EST

I'll just copy my comment from the hidden article on this subject.

The rider bill in question doesn't prevent the families from seeking money for damages. It merely forces them to go to a special no-fault arbitration instead. In vaccine arbitration, there is a limit to how much damages can be recovered. Congress decided that vaccine companies should have limited liability in 1986. Vaccine arbitration was created to prevent vaccine companies from being crippled by lawsuits. The parents in this case found a loop hole by claiming that thimerosal, a preservative, was an additive instead of the vaccine itself. When you throw in the fact that there is no proven link between thimerosal and autism yet, you can see why some would see these cases as frivolous.

The essential questions are:

  1. Should vaccine companies have limited liability?
  2. Should thimerosal be considered part of the vaccine or as an additive.

You may argue that it was cowardly to not admit involvement with this bill until later, but it's not quite the kiss to the vaccine companies ass that people are making it out to be.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Current law inconsistent with free enterprise (4.66 / 3) (#54)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 05:52:09 PM EST

The rider bill in question doesn't prevent the families from seeking money for damages. It merely forces them to go to a special no-fault arbitration instead.

Which lets the execs and shareholders in question off the hook from serious examination-that in my book is a serious problem.

In vaccine arbitration, there is a limit to how much damages can be recovered. Congress decided that vaccine companies should have limited liability in 1986.

Vaccine arbitration was created to prevent vaccine companies from being crippled by lawsuits. The parents in this case found a loop hole by claiming that thimerosal, a preservative, was an additive instead of the vaccine itself.

When you throw in the fact that there is no proven link between thimerosal and autism yet, you can see why some would see these cases as frivolous.

There have been several eminent researchers that have gone on record as saying that there is a probably link between thimerosal, vaccine protocols and the autism epidemic in the US(head of immunology at UC Irvine and another that was at one point one of the 5 most cited authors in the medical literature). Now, the way the scientific establishement works the folks going public in that area are putting their careers on the line. A substantial portion of medical research funds at major universities is provided by large drug companies and politicians do not like folks that use government funds in ways that make major political donors look bad.

The essential questions are: Should vaccine companies have limited liability?

Personally, I think that the government providing this insurance was a bad idea. Private companies should provide this type of protection-and if they can't--that tells you something. I'm pretty consistent on this point-I don't think the government should provide insurance for nuclear power plants, subsidize anti-terrorism insurance or be involved in the Federal reserve either. Whenever government gets involved in these activities, it is just a way for corporate elites to steal from the public coffers.

Should thimerosal be considered part of the vaccine or as an additive.

I suggest you read the literature on that whole mess. There was ample evidence to bring this substance into question before the whole process started. Personally, I think the execs in these companies should be treated under criminal law.

You may argue that it was cowardly to not admit involvement with this bill until later, but it's not quite the kiss to the vaccine companies ass that people are making it out to be.

It went beyond cowardly-it was sneaky, lying tactic-but that is what we have in congress and corporate america today-a bunch of sneaky liars. I don't think this rider has anything to do with national security(i.e. it would be straightfoward to keep the drug companies in business-lots of other execs willing/able to take over management of those companies. The drug companies had all the aces in their court-they had preferential treatment by congress, and they screwed up badly and needlessly.



[ Parent ]

That's a real stretch (none / 0) (#50)
by artsygeek on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 04:43:34 PM EST

Overall, given the Democrats recent movement to the left, played correctly, the selection of a moderate by the Republicans should allow them to further expand their control by taking the center and thus, the support of the majority of Americans.

Hmmmmm...I wouldn't necessarily call Frist a centrist. And I also take pause to making that kind of assumption about voters. Frist, unlike Lott, tends to follow the White House. So by that standard, a vote for Frist and senate Republicans is a vote for Bush. That's kinda putting all your eggs in one basket ain't it?

Of course, there are exceptions in the Senate. John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, I'd even go so far as to include conservatives like Mitch McConnell in the list of "independent" Republicans.

The US sorta needs three parties: a Left party, a Right party, and a Center one...of course, both of the parties do function like that. Voters need to see something different, and that's what killed the Dems this election year...they tried too hard to be Republicans, and people didn't want that.

US needs a multi-party democracy (3.00 / 2) (#85)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 02:54:34 PM EST

Hmmmmm...I wouldn't necessarily call Frist a centrist

I agree. IMHO there are several basic constituencies in the GOP: Religious conservatives, PaleoCons(i.e. folks that are generally anti-immigration and take the constitution pretty seriously), Libertarian Ideologues and folks there pretty much to support corporate interests. I put Frist in the last category. Lott was much more a compromise between these various GOP constituencies.

The US sorta needs three parties: a Left party, a Right party, and a Center one...of course, both of the parties do function like that.

The problem in the US has to do in large part with the voting system. There are other possibilities here. Inherently, voting by large districts will tend to accentuate regional differences and will tend to create two large parties. The US has paid a rather high price here(i.e. had Stephen Douglas who was almost everyone's second choice been elected over Lincoln the Civil war could probably have been avoided).

Post Civil War, the two party system has generated into big money contests. The original constitution had allowances for possibility that states might choose representatives by means other than districts-no states ever did it and more recently courts have ruled out that possibiltiy(I personally agree with Lani Gunthier that was a bad decision and that the only way to achieve the results of the Voting Rights Act would be by using a system of proportional representation and getting away from election by districts). Huge blocks of the US public have no real voice in congress. Sure there is a need for a voice of compromise, but there is also a need for some folks to be heard directly and be able to speak honestly and openly.

I'm not a fan of Strom Thurmond in several dimensions. However, I honestly think the policies of that Mafia puppet Truman(look at who his mentor Pendergast was) and that other Mafia-connected politician Kennedy(remember who his daddy was-and look at who got him elected) have proven to be utter failures. Lott's real crime was to speak honestly about how he felt. The fact that is a crime in the Senate today is in my book a serious problem-it brings about government by mealy mouth weasels.



[ Parent ]

I agree whole-heartedly. (none / 0) (#102)
by artsygeek on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:47:55 PM EST

Lott at least had the guts to say what he really thought.  And his talk of "enemies" trying to bring him down...don't look at the democrats...look in his OWN party.  With "White House Senators" (Take George Allen of my home state of Virginia and Bill Frist as two republican examples) overtaking the spotlight of the Republican Party, the House and Senate both lose what gives them their constitutional purpose: to be a check against the Executive.

And yes, proportional representation, or at the very least, instant runoff would save our process not just from money, but from folks too scared to have positions of their own for fear of alienating voters.  

As for the basic constituencies of the Republicans, I agree.  I think Bill Schneider of CNN called them the "Anti-government party", being against a big federal government for whatever reason.  It's just that Republicans across the country need to see if their own constitutency matches with their candidates.  Just because it says Republican on the label, don't mean it's your brand of Republican.

As for your analysis of the Civil War and Post-Civil War voting schemes, I agree whole-heartedly.  However I'm not so sure about the mafia part or the part about non-districted proportional voting, it is feasible to have proportional voting from districts.  But, I think it would be most important that Americans have real dialogue on the issue.

[ Parent ]

Multi-ideology (none / 0) (#111)
by ensignyu on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 06:01:27 AM EST

I'm upset that there's no good way to pick and choose ideologies.

If you think the government should legalize guns and ban abortion, you're forced to also support an economic policy that you might think is disasterous. Unfortunately, it seems that enough believe strongly enough in particular issues like guns and abortion and ignore everything else.

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, (4.00 / 1) (#120)
by thejeff on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 09:00:26 AM EST

If you think the goverment should control guns and allow abortion, you're also forced to support pretty much the same economic policy.

[ Parent ]
May this also be Frist? (none / 0) (#63)
by theforlornone on Sat Dec 21, 2002 at 10:04:59 PM EST

http://www.ecbt.org/hill1202.html

--------------
It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!
-Nietzsche
What? (2.00 / 4) (#75)
by Djinh on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 06:55:11 AM EST

What country are you talking about?

Probably some tiny island-nation somewhere out in the sticks...

Why should anyone care?

--
We are the Euro. Resistance is futile. All your dollars will be assimilated.

Frist is pro-H1-b (3.50 / 6) (#81)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 10:50:43 AM EST

BetterImmigration.com gave Frist a D for his career and a C for this recent voting record(Trent Lott got a D+ and C+). Immigrationcontrol.com thought the difference was more striking, Frist got an F compared to Lott's B. This attitude on immigration could be one of the major ideological shifts that results from this particular changing of the guard. It is important to note the renewal of the H-1b program expansion will come up for a vote in the nextr congress.



You say that like it's a bad thing. (4.00 / 2) (#83)
by Lode Runner on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 01:40:55 PM EST

Dear paleocons,
You xenophobes are usurp'd!
by modernity.

The Frist (first?) haiku
in praise of diversity
deserves a sequel.

[ Parent ]

cute haiku-where's the beef? (3.66 / 3) (#84)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 02:07:46 PM EST

This thread is about a major political move in the US. Personally, I think it is a move away from men on principle in the US republican party towards firmer control of the Plutocrats/oligarchs. Do you have any reason to suggest otherwise?

[ Parent ]
that didn't scan... (4.00 / 2) (#86)
by Lode Runner on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 03:05:02 PM EST

Dinosaurs' lot(t): rots.
The hour's later than you think;
Neos won years back.

"Principle" for you
Is call'd by me "bigotry"
Pluto-archs welcome!

[ Parent ]

A+ for Artistry , C for analysis (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 03:35:42 PM EST

You really are good at Haiku-I really have to hand it to you there.

Still, the idea the the neo-cons have it in the bag hasn't really been tested. Wait until the next war with say at least 50,000 body bags coming home before you make that judgement. Might not be real soon, but sooner or later, that ideology will have its trial by fire.

Every time the US has fought a major war-the civil war, WW I, WW II there were major ideological shifts. So far, that has always been in the direction of increasing centralization of power and increased integration of the society-but the US has never had a serious military defeat yet. Viet Nam strained things a bit-and shook things up at the top quite a bit-Reagan could spin things so that Viet Nam could be seen as an part of the Cold War--and claim that was "won"

[ Parent ]

but the artistry is the analysis, man (4.33 / 3) (#90)
by Lode Runner on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 04:55:08 PM EST

Many thousands gone
in asymmetric warfare
are their boys, not ours.

The Neocon test
was, is, and again will be
debt mortality.

[ Parent ]

Neo-Cons (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by nomoreh1b on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 01:44:21 PM EST

Question: Do you actually personally identify as a neo-con or do you just prefer them to Paleocons?

As far as asymmetric warfare goes: Islamic cultures can afford to take substantial casualities over time if they achieve their main objectives. Several Islamic countries have absorbed substantial military casualities the last 50 years. The last substantial war the US fought, Viet Nam, almost tore the US apart. The US government has shown itself incapable of adequately responding to 911-over one year later and the US borders are still leaky and critical US infrastructure is still under control of foreign nationals.

Also keep in mind who holds the debt that props up the corrupt and decadent neo-con plutocrats: the large net creditor nations in the world include Islamic oil powers, far east manufacturing nations.



[ Parent ]

and so on and so forth (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by Lode Runner on Mon Dec 23, 2002 at 06:32:06 PM EST

I like neocons
but I could never be one
'cause I'm too well read.

The biggest lenders
aren't Riyadhis or Nips;
they're in line at Sears.



[ Parent ]

Frist post? (2.40 / 5) (#88)
by Silent Chris on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 04:28:10 PM EST

Isn't that what they use on Slashdot to avoid the filter?

Umm, more questions than answers (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Rogerborg on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 05:43:25 PM EST

Should I infer that Dr Frist is to become the "Senate majority leader"?

If so, what does that mean?  Does that put him in line to inherit the Presidency (can your be president in the US if your daddy wasn't?), or does he just get a better parking space?

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

Answer (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by pingflood on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 10:13:03 PM EST

From a purely legal standpoint, the ONLY perk the Majority Leader has is the 'right of first recognition.' All this means is that, should he stand up at the same time as another senator, he gets to speak first.

From a practical standpoint, he becomes the focal point and spokesperson for the party.

And could we please drop the 'can your be president in the US if your daddy wasn't' crap--it makes you look like a whiny jerk, which I'm sure you're not.
Sell fitness equipment, make bucks. Cool affiliate program.
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the info (3.00 / 1) (#134)
by Rogerborg on Thu Dec 26, 2002 at 03:52:07 PM EST

But can we please drop the defence of Bush II's fiat appointment by his father's Wise Men - it makes you look like a brainwashed sheep, which I'm sure you're not.

"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Obviously, I was wrong. n/m (none / 0) (#137)
by pingflood on Sat Dec 28, 2002 at 12:12:04 AM EST

x
Sell fitness equipment, make bucks. Cool affiliate program.
[ Parent ]
It means (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by nevertheless on Mon Dec 30, 2002 at 10:18:14 PM EST

he is in "operational control" of the Senate. He is the one who, for all practical purposes, decides what bills are and are not addressed on the Senate floor and what issues are given the most attention. The Senate can override him, of course, and most things that come to the floor get there in a compromise with the minority leader (Tom Daschle). He also gets to decide who is on what committee (at least for the Republican side). It is a very powerful position. It's sort of the Senate equivalent of Speaker of the House. (The actual Senate president is, of course, the Vice President, but that role is largely, although not exclusively, ceremonical.)

--
This whole "being at work" thing just isn't doing it for me. -- Phil the Canuck


[ Parent ]
Frist's CV (3.25 / 4) (#92)
by cp on Sun Dec 22, 2002 at 06:19:21 PM EST

Frist's CV is a good example of how not to write your CV. Honestly, listing your high school awards? As a Senator, Frist clearly considers it important that in 1970, he won the William Martin Award for best all around boy in the school.

As for being a moderate, Frist is none. Hypocrite, though, he is.

Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by nitinjulka on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 04:16:44 AM EST

I can't believe people are claiming that Frist is a hypocrite. Most these complaints are based on his family connection to HCA. The fact is that he has no managerial commitment to the company. "Frist owns $10 million or more of HCA shares held in a blind trust, but has never worked for the company or held an office. The blind trust means he's not certain how much stock he owns." CBS Marketwatch. Frist has gone to Africa to treat AIDS patients, has resuscitated fallen senators, and been a leader on many health care issues. He seems like a reasonable, refreshing new face for the Republican party. I think that trying to pin him as a hypocrite or racist is wrong, unbased, and immoral.

[ Parent ]
hardly a blind trust (5.00 / 3) (#126)
by cp on Wed Dec 25, 2002 at 02:41:14 PM EST

If you know which stocks your trust fund is invested in, then it's not a blind trust at all. Not knowing their exact quantities is grossly insufficient.

[ Parent ]
Who is Bill Frist really? (3.00 / 6) (#113)
by nomoreh1b on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 01:31:26 PM EST

Sounds to me like this guy is a hypocrite-with a very, very large gap between what he says in public and what he says in private. That has been a loosing position since the day of Richard Nixon. Al Gore, damned scalawag that he is, is at least consistent in his position. He talks integration, and his daughter marries into a family of different ethnic background. I may not agree with this set of policies, but at least I know who the real bosses are that situation.

Bill Frist seems to think that white guys like him can run around lying and still win in the end. It causes lots of problems for the rest of us. Trent Lott at least showed a little bit of backbone even if he caved in with just a little pressure. I think that Strom Thurmond has a mean spirited streak-which was a major cause of the political problems that he had-still when you are at someones 100th birthday party-you downplay their limitations and focus on the good things.

I agree with Lott that many of us-white and black-would be much better off in the rather unlikely event Thurmond had gotten elected. Despite mean spirited rhetoric, Thurmond wouldn't have promoted the immigration policies that have had rather dramatic effect on the black middle class that the mafia stooge Truman put in place. I really doubt that the Yankee Imperialists in places like New York and Southern California would have prospered as they did in a government in which someone like Thurmond played an important role. Folks that seriously oppose multi-culturalism have got to learn that if we are ever to get anywhere, we are going to have to learn to be more genorous than are the liberals--and that we can be genorous with the wealth of interests operating out of places like New York, LA and Miami-since at this point the white constituency of folks like Thurmond just doesn't have much left in the way of wealth.

Where is really matters, I think that Bill Frist is a far more negative racist than is someone like Thurmond or even David Duke(not someone of whom I really a fan). Thurmond and Duke are relatively honest about their positions. Frist seems to have the image that policies like H-1b serfdom and mass immigration are good for guys like him. Frist has already shown with his autism record that he will sell out the weakest of his "friends" for reasons of political expedience.

The negative racism of guys like Frist will come out when they feel the heat and feel personally threatened by factors like immigration and demographic changes in the US. Guys like Frist will pretend to support an agenda like civil rights-but their word really means nothing in the end.

Ultimately though, what guys like Frist really need to fear is that the white constituency that they take for granted to figure out a way to cut a deal that bypasses men like them. Black leaders like Marcus Garvey and Min. Louis Farrakhan have never really had much time for men like Frist. Anti-multicultural forces should regard the assets of the supporters of men like Frist as lost assets-something that can be bargained away when the collapse of the United States comes to a head.



Who is Senator Bill Frist? (3.00 / 2) (#115)
by AzTex on Tue Dec 24, 2002 at 04:13:55 PM EST

There are a number of threads following this story in which people are attempting to discredit him with the usual racist witch hunt.  But who is he, really?

He's an intelligent man, a somewhat honest politician (whatever honesty means to a politician, I guess), and a good leader.  And although I certainly don't agree with all his views, he's also the guy I voted to represent me in the Senate not long ago.



solipsism: I'm always here. But you sometimes go away.
** AzTex **

Who is Senator Bill Frist? | 140 comments (89 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!