Let Barack Be Barack

Dvid Brooks deplores the recent Obama decision on forced contraception coverage and hopes the White House will let Barack be Barack:

Members of the Obama administration aren’t forcing religious organizations to violate their creeds because they are secular fundamentalists who place no value on religious liberty. They are doing it because they operate in a technocracy.

Technocrats are in the business of promulgating rules. They seek abstract principles that they can apply in all cases. From their perspective, a rule is fair when it can be imposed uniformly across the nation.

Technocratic organizations take diverse institutions and make them more alike by imposing the same rules. Technocracies do not defer to local knowledge. They dislike individual discretion. They like consistency, codification and uniformity.

Technocratic institutions have an unstated theory of how change happens. It’s the theory President Obama sketched out at the beginning and end of his State of the Union address: Society works best when it is like a military unit — when everybody works together in pursuit of a mission, pulling together as one.

But a realistic antipoverty program works in the opposite way. It’s not like a military unit. It’s like a rain forest, with a complex array of organisms pursuing diverse missions in diverse ways while intertwining and adapting to each other.

I wish President Obama would escape from the technocratic rationalism that sometimes infects his administration. I wish he’d go back to his community-organizer roots. When he was driving around Chicago mobilizing priests and pastors on those cold nights, would he really have compelled them to do things that violated their sacred vows?

I don’t think so. I think if that Barack Obama possessed the power he has today, he’d want to flood the zone with as much rich diversity as possible.

Interesting - I railed about the Obama's exortation that we're in the Army now, so I am delighted to see a real bigfoot pick up on it.

Meanwhile the Times reports that the White House is looking for a graceful way to cave in, or at least, defer a final decision until after the election:

The White House may be open to compromising on a new rule that requires religious schools and hospitals to provide employees with access to free birth control, a senior strategist for President Obama said on Tuesday morning.

David Axelrod, who serves as a top adviser to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program that the president would “look for a way” to address the vocal opposition from Catholic groups who say the rule forces them to violate their religious beliefs against contraception.

“We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions,” Mr. Axelrod said.

They certainy don't want to offend anyone, so they need to balance the concerns of religious leaders with the emotions of the godless haters that drive the Democatic left.  I think Obama should announce a Grand Conference to resolve this in December.

Comments

[narciso]

Mortimer Adler screams quietly from the 'Great Beyond' what part about 'bitter clingers' to their religion and their guns
did you miss, Dave,

[Melinda Romanoff]

Does he even realize he's getting licked on both sides, when he writes this stuff?

[Janet]

I think Obama should announce a Grand Conference to resolve this in December.

Get all the kids that went to the PC conflict resolution classes. That's the ticket!

[narciso]

Right,Brooksy, technocracy, thar's the reason;

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/07/army-chaplains-being-told-not-to-mention-letters-from-bishops-about-birth-control-controversy/

[Clarice]

Between the gal who moons of romney like a teenie bopper whose room is covered in her heart throb's publicity pics and Brooks' apologias for Obama I want to blow my brains out.

The move was to please Obama's leftist base.

The regs' implementation were delayed until 2013 obviously to preclude judicial challenge until after the election (check out "ripeness") and that didn't work.

The dope and his gal pal Sebelius are in a lose-lose situation--who will take a bigger bite out of his votes, he debates,the harridans of PP or those nasty Bishops?

[Danube of Thought]

Somebody tell me what Missouri means. Is it safe to say we are not yet in the grip of Mittmania?

Sara, you go first.

Then I want to go back to sunken ships....

[Clarice]

*WAS delayed*

[Threadkiller]

Maybe this is why Obama isn't shooting point on religious kerfuffles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2qulerCQ78

Iniquities, inequities, let's call the whole thing off.

[Gmax]

Now Minnesota called for Santorum. Can Colorado be right behind?

[Melinda Romanoff]

Sunk?

Or "Caput"?

Us amateur etymolygists want to know.

[Sara]

Did you expect Romney to win in MO? He was not expected to. Nor was he expected to win in MN, although the prediction was for Paul, not Santorum.

If Mitt loses Colorado, that would be very bad PR-wise.

But, I'm sure all the conservatives here will be celebrating that their fair-haired boy won.

[Gmax]

If you set the bar low enough, maybe even Mitt can get over it...

[narciso]

there was a time in the 90s, when I thought he was sane, how does the saying go, se la guerre;

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/02/07/even-chris-matthews-sees-danger-obama-after-frightening-birth-contro

[Threadkiller]

It is correct in the transcript:

"In the words of the book Isaiah: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”"

He must have been wing'n it.

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/19/remarks-president-easter-prayer-breakfast

[Danube of Thought]

"Us amateur etymolygists want to know."

That's not the one about bugs, is it?

[Melinda Romanoff]

Nope, even more nit-picky.

Word origins.

(More tomorrow, G'night all.)

[narciso]

that's entomologists, Danube.

[Threadkiller]

Wow!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gmVzbjxwl4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Wow!!

[Gmax]

Santorum pounding Zero over religious freedom. Pretty good speech. His seems to have honed his rhetorical skills as radio host for the last few years.

[Danube of Thought]

"He was not expected to. Nor was he expected to win in MN"

Ever wonder why not?

[Danube of Thought]

No kidding, Narc.

[Mad Jack]

David Brooks is beyond an embrassment. I keep thinking he can't possibly be that dumb and he keeps proving me wrong.

[Ignatz]

--Does he even realize he's getting licked on both sides, when he writes this stuff?--

Mel,
Do you mean licked or licked?

[Danube of Thought]

I'll go with this on "sunken":

"a past participle of sink
adj
1. (Medicine) unhealthily hollow sunken cheeks
2. situated at a lower level than the surrounding or usual one
3. situated under water; submerged
4. depressed; low sunken spirits"

In the instant case, I'm selecting (2).

[Danube of Thought]

Then there's this:

Definition of 'sunken' Random House Webster's College Dictionary 

1. (adj.) sunken
having sunk or been sunk beneath the surface; submerged.

2.  sunken
having settled to a lower level, as walls.

3.  sunken
situated or lying on a lower level:
a sunken living room.

4.  sunken
hollow; depressed:
sunken cheeks.

Etymology:  (1350–1400)

Definition of 'sunken' Princeton's WordNet 

1. (adj) deep-set, sunken, recessed
having a sunken area
"hunger gave their faces a sunken look"

Definition of 'sunken' Webster Dictionary 

1. (adj) sunken
lying on the bottom of a river or other water; sunk

2.  sunken
of Sink

[Danube of Thought]

If Mitt is the nominee and loses in November, Sara will console herself by pointing out that he wasn't expected to win.

[Captain Hate]

Nope, conservatives will get all the blame. And Bill Kristol.

[Dave (in MA)]

Somebody tell me what Missouri means

"People who have wooden canoes", in the native Niutachi language.

Oh, that's not what you were asking?

[Walter]

I saw no adds whatsoever in MO.

Also, the HHS decision has been getting _huge_ play here. Whether you credit Mitt!'s business experience or Newt!'s balanced budget experience from a fiscal perspective, there is no doubt that Santorum owns the social conservative field. I am surprised (and pleased) to see that evangelicals can come together behind a catholic. Who says Obama cannot unite the country?

Voting-wise, the polls were empty. They gave me three 'I voted today' stickers just to get rid of a few more of their overstock.

OTOH, Santorum gave a great speech glossing over controversial points tonight.

I'm tempted to buy into the theory that Romney Inc. jumped on the chance to keep Santorum in the race to split the 'true conservative' vote between the other two without a large delegate cost.

[Walter]

Oh, and Newt! Was not on the ballot and there was no write-in option.

[Threadkiller]

Here is Congressman Hank Johnson using capsize in conversation:

"Johnson: This is a[n] island that at its widest level is what ... twelve miles from shore to shore? And at its smallest level ... uh, smallest location ... it's seven miles between one shore and the other? Is that correct?

Willard: I don't have the exact dimensions, but to your point, sir, I think Guam is a small island.

Johnson: Very small island, about twenty-four miles, if I recall long, twenty-four miles long, about seven miles wide at the least widest place on the island and about twelve miles wide on the widest part of the island, and I don't know how many square miles that is. Do you happen to know?

Willard: I don't have that figure with me, sir, I can certainly supply it to you if you like.

Johnson: Yeah, my fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize"

I hope that clears thing up.

[Danube of Thought]

Obama will be re-elected.

[BR]

So funny the telepathy that goes on between JOMers - just about the time up thread when you guys were joking about etymology and entomologists, I was apologizing to all entomologists for taking away their profession, after deciding there'll be no more bugs on the planet :)

[BR]

I mean the pesky, pesty kinds that have no useful purpose.

[MarkO]

You know, when I started this it was mostly in jest, but now it's serious doom.

[glasater]

Alcohol can be a depressant, DOT :-)

Last checked it sounded like the vote tallys in CO are being done by amateurs so we won't know who won until tomorrow.

[Sara]

If Mitt is the nominee and loses in November, Sara will console herself by pointing out that he wasn't expected to win.

Good grief, that is just an asinine comment. I do expect him to win. If he doesn't I'll be pissed off and also disgusted. So what? Should I be jumping for joy? Or do you confuse me with someone who skulks away and cries? I don't get emotionally invested in a candidate. I'm way too pragmatic to waste the energy. I don't care who someone votes for as long as it is an informed vote. I've made my choice and it should be respected just as I respect yours. Just don't lie about my candidate. None of them are perfect. Some are better than others in different areas. I happen to think Mitt is in a league of his own on the skillset needed to turn this country around. Newt is way out there in his ability to insult the media that gets everyone to laugh. Santorum gets the prize for being the best at talking conservative. Weighing my options, I see it as biz vs bs vs buzz. I prefer the biz.

[MarkO]

I heard Ron Paul talk about liberty, freedom, individuality, fiscal resonsibility and Obama's failures. Could not disagree with a word.

I don't think he will win, but he is not a big government acolyte, like Santorum or Newt and he's clear about his beliefs, unlike Romney's frequent ambiguity.

As long as we agree that electability is irrelevant, I want him. Otherwise, the only one with any chance--and it is ever darkening--is Romney.

There aren't enough raw-boned conservatives to vote anyone else in and, for better or worse (take that 9th Cir.) the independents are unlikely to carry Rick or Newt.

Did I mention doom?

[bgates]

"People who have wooden canoes", in the native Niutachi language.

And so I begin to suspect Dave in MA is really Alice Cooper in Wisconsin.

[Cecil Turner]

There aren't enough raw-boned conservatives to vote anyone else in and, for better or worse (take that 9th Cir.) the independents are unlikely to carry Rick or Newt.

I completely disagree. If conservatives don't show up, the GOP loses. You're not going to elect a Republican on the strength of people like Appalled. Trying to pick the candidate just one millimeter to the right of Barack Obama just ensures your base stays home on election night.

Bottom line is that if there are no principles in the upcoming election, the only thing that matters is narrative. And Obama's is at least as good as Romney's.

There's still time to choose somebody else.

[Thomas Collins]

Before we give up on the GOP taking over the ship of state (sunken or in some other relationship to the water), it might be helpful to remember that at about this time in 2008, the Dems were engaged in a bloody primary scuffle in which adherents of the two combatants were threatening to jump ship if their candidate didn't prevail.

[Porchlight]

True, TC. And Obama didn't even make much of an effort to bring Hillary's people onboard after he beat her. He took them for granted, and they still turned out for him.

Then again, they're Dems.

[Thomas Collins]

In any event, the big loser last night was the Newtster, not the Mittster. Paul still has his niche campaign and Romney is still the frontrunner. Newtster had better recover fast or Santorum will be the alternative to Romney.

[Thomas Collins]

Teddy K was very helpful in bringing Dems behind Obama, Porchlight. Although the GOP doesn't have the type of figure as beloved in the party as Kennedy was in the Dem Party, ABO will be the unifying force.

[Janet]

Although the GOP doesn't have the type of figure as beloved in the party as Kennedy

Hah! All our drunks that leave their mistresses for dead in a river get drummed out of our party.
This also shows why the new JFK intern mistress story is important. Is it getting any play in the MFM? I'm tired of the phony heroes of the left.

[Porchlight]

TC, I can think of one or two folks who could make a difference in unifying the party when the time comes. And perhaps the nominee will make a judicious VP choice a la Reagan/Bush.

Zing, Janet!

[Extraneus]

Just because it isn't getting much play and bears repeating, let's not forget that JFK asked his 19-yr-old girlfriend - whom he had deflowered, btw - to service his little bro Teddy while he watched. That's the one time we know of that she refused such a presidential request.

[Janet]

Yeah Extraneus...mansion trash.

[Appalled]

If conservatives don't show up, the GOP loses. You're not going to elect a Republican on the strength of people like Appalled.

Ideally, you want your candidate to fire up the right, and get people like me to vote for them. That's a pretty delicate balance that neither Romney or Newt are accomplishing, right now. Newt is a polarizer -- and easy to demonize among the lightly informed voters who tend to be Independents. Mitt just has a problem that seems unsolvable at this point with Conservatives. Hopefully, the turnaround expert can fix it, because of the candidates now running, I think he is ther most likely to be able to govern, and concentrate on the problems the country has right now.

[Thomas Collins]

Unfortunately, not gonna happen, Janet and Porchlight. Palin is not as beloved with the whole GOP as Teddy K was in the Dem cosmos. That says it all about the current attitude of the Dems (and for that matter about the "I need to be led by a credentialled pseudo-elite college grad" wing of the GOP). However, it is a reality that must be faced.

My hope is that a GOP Prez Elect would make Palin his special advisor for energy policy.

[Thomas Collins]

As for JFK, I read the NY Post article. To me, it wasn't very interesting. It told me nothing I didn't already know about JFK. We may not know all the details and all the women, but we do know that to call JFK recklessly incontinent in matters erotic would be a substantial understatement.

[Thomas Collins]

"mansion trash"

Yes, trash is trash no matter what one's net worth, elite prep school background, exclusive college eating club or other elite indicia may be.

[Clarice]

I hope the latest story will finally put to rest Camelot and with it the unending stream of numbskull, reckless progeny from that family free sacrificin' for us in "public service".

[Cecil Turner]

Ideally, you want your candidate to fire up the right, and get people like me to vote for them.

Right. Like you voted for McCain because he was such a centrist.

We lost the last one because of turnout:

Turnout in last week's election increased from four years ago but fell far short of some forecasts largely because many Republican voters either stayed home or left blank the presidential section of their ballots.

This year it's the left that's demoralized; all conservatives have to do is show up.

Which, so far, they're not doing for Mitt:

Newt is a polarizer -- and easy to demonize among the lightly informed voters who tend to be Independents.

Actually, the less well-known candidate is the one particularly prone to negative advertising, and in this case that's Mitt. Moreover, Newt's already absorbed decades worth of negative press coverage, and only gets better with a second look. (The bad news for Newt is that he actually has to change minds, as opposed to getting a chance to set an initial impression.)

[Neo]

It's interesting that The Obama Administration makes these ridiculous demands then asks that we love them when they try to be reasonable.

They knew that this contraceptives language was going to be a problem when ObamaCare first passed. Two years later, they do the equivalent for "it needs more study." That's pure out and out BS. This is the same story with the Keystone XL pipeline .. it needs more study, after three years of study.

The real problem here is that the more this Administration "studies" the stupider it becomes. Hmm. This might explain why we never saw those college transcripts.

[Appalled]

Cecil:

McCain, like Newt, in my view, does not have a personality I ever want to see in the Oval Office. So, moderate or not, I wasn't likely to vote for him.

You and I are never going to come to a meeting of the minds re Newt. I would argue, though, that Florida indicates that negative advertising is very effective against Newt in a large, media heavy campaign, and that Newt is surprisingly bad at responding to such a campaign in a way that does not sabotage himself.

I understand your argument that the GOP can nominate just about any respectable conservative, and win. I tend to agree with that, to be honest with you, to the extent the GOP candidate does not display disqualifying flaws. The problem is that all the candidates -- from a strictly conservative pov are really, really, flawed in some way or other. One of them can't govern, two of them aren't conservative, and last of them lost big in his last election and concentrates on the wrong stuff.

[Thomas Collins]

Clarice, I would also hope this puts the end to Camelot, but I doubt it. If Teddy K's leaving a woman to die while scheming to come up with a story to save his sorry political ass didn't bust the Camelot lie, this one won't.

[Clarice]

It is I suppose a matter of public interest that Santorum's critics tried to harm him some years ago by disclosing that one of his key staffers was gay. (Dems are for gays unless they can "out" someone as gay to their advantage.) Santorum replied that he knew it when he hired the man, that while he disagreed with his employee's choice the man was good as what he did and he had no intention of firing him.

[Clarice]

**good aT what he did***

[Porchlight]

McCain, like Newt, in my view, does not have a personality I ever want to see in the Oval Office. So, moderate or not, I wasn't likely to vote for him.

So it's all about personality? It doesn't matter what horrific positions a candidate takes, as long as they have the "temperament" to be Prez?

No wonder you support Romney and voted for no-drama Obama.

[Clarice]

TC--Don't forget the entire Kennedy machine and media worked together at that critical juncture to cover up Ted's lies in the Kopechne death,

Someone noted with displeasure that Santorum worked as a "lobbyist" after he left govt. If I may, I'd like to point out some facts of life. Almost every ex-Senator and many ex-Congressmen, still need to make a living after they leave office. If they have law degrees they are figurehead members of law firms making lots of money for doing virtually nothing. They come out at critical times to shake hands with clients and potential clients and show up at political events.

Those who aren't lawyers and who have had no other real job except for politics can write, lobby or sit on the front porch.

[Dave (in MA)]

I hope the latest story will finally put to rest Camelot and with it the unending stream of numbskull, reckless progeny from that family free sacrificin' for us in "public service".

If only.

"Pretty amazing, I think we have a new Kennedy. He hit that one right out of the ballpark. ... Another historic speech from another Kennedy." --MA Senate President Therese Murray, about a year ago after the latest Kennedy kid gave some speech.

[Janet]

Ugh, Dave. Sometimes there aren't enough pink feathers. :(

[Appalled]

Porchlight:

I don't think I'm a sucker for a calm, placid Adolf Hitler. Obama generally falls short of horrific, settling instead for ill advised, or WTF.

As for the other -- yes, I consider the man when I vote along with the ideology. And I prefer people who have control over themselves -- something McCain never seems to had. (McCain, for example, complaining that the folks of SC voted on the basis of anti-Mormon prejudice, is an example)

[Extraneus]

You still think Obama is some sort of centrist at heart, Appalled? That this left-wing ideologue stuff is just a bad rap?

[cathyf]

There is the whole lame duck issue. I think that there is now no way that a prudent supporter of religious liberty can vote for Obama no matter what he does, no matter how much he appears to back down. Because, re-elected or not, Nov 2012 is the last time the Barack Obama will run for any office. If he is re-elected then he will have complete impunity to act however he wants -- and we can expect the re-imposition of the mandate in Dec, 2012, with the original implementation date of Aug, 2013.

I'm kind of intrigued by the fact that creating a regulation in violation of the First Amendment is clearly a "high crime or misdemeanor" within the plain meaning of those words, but in our modern polity it would be unthinkable to impeach a president for it. What was the "original intent" of the Founders, do you think?

[Extraneus]

Most people prefer a flexible interpretation of the Constitution, Cathy.

A narrow majority, 54%, favors flexibility, while 41% favor strict constructionism.

Again, opinions split by party:

• 62% of Republicans are "strict constructionists"
  
• 67% of Democrats favor "flexibility."
  
• Independents favor a flexible approach, 58% - 40%.

[Clarice]

Ext--I have no idea what the hell that means and expect the people polled don't either.

cathyI have no idea what the Founders meant by "high crimes and misdemeanors" but I think using a difference of opinion about the Constitution to institute impeachment proceedings would be a dreadful precedent.

OTOH if you put together a pattern and practice of constitutional overreaching, you might get my okay..

[Extraneus]

Here are the actual poll questions. For this one:

Q8. SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT THE COURTS SHOULD STRICTLY FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS... THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO DO ONLY WHAT'S EXACTLY SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION OR WAS THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION. OTHERS SAY THAT TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND THAT THE COURT SHOULD INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION BASED UPON CHANGES IN SOCIETY, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE U.S. ROLE IN THE WORLD. WHICH COMES CLOSEST TO YOUR VIEW IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE - ONLY WHAT'S EXACTLY SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION OR INTREPRETATIONS BASED ON CHANGES IN SOCIETY?

ALL
RESPONDENTS
===========

ONLY EXACTLY WHAT'S 41%
SPELLED OUT IN THE
CONSTITUTION

INTERPRET CONSTITUTION 54%
BASED ON CHANGES

NO ANSWER/REFUSED 4%

[SWarren]

I've been watching Santorum for a while, and I really like that he's not beating up fellow candidates but smashing Obama.

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum told a small group of people in an Iowa coffee house that:

“Barack Obama is not incompetent, ladies and gentleman. He knows exactly what he’s doing and why he’s doing it. He sees America differently than you see America.
[Obama] has gone out of his way to divide this country in a way I haven’t seen since the Great Depression when Franklin Roosevelt went around to divide his country. That’s his hero. What makes America great [in Obama’s mind] is that the government takes money from somebody and gives it to somebody else. No, that’s what makes America, France.”

and

SANTORUM: "What we need to look at is why is the President of the United States taking the area of the budget that is not growing and targeting that as the only place he's willing to cut? The only place he's willing to aggressively go after? About a half a trillion dollars so far, and now another half a trillion dollars he has proposed. He's proposed shrinking the Marine Corps, shrinking the Army, cutting back on weapons systems. He is trying to manage the decline of the American military. Why? Because he doesn't think America is a source for good in the world. He wants America to pull back because he believes, as he did on his apology tour, he believes America is not a positive influence in the world and that we would be better off and the world, more importantly would be better off without America as a major player in the world affairs. That's what the President's policies indicate. And what he does believe is that the welfare state should get bigger and bigger and bigger. And you can't have a big military and a big welfare state. If you want to look at that, look at Europe. 100 years ago the British empire, the sun did not set. And look at the British empire - quote, empire - today. Why? Because just like so many countries, where you have leaders who have lost faith with the people we start to look inwardly instead of understanding how great we are and project out. This is Barack Obama not managing the decline of the defense department as much as managing the decline of this country. It's not wealth redistribution, it's poverty redistribution."

[Clarice]

ext--I meant what I said--the question is utterly theoretical and without examples is meaningless.

I suppose if you asked strict constructionists what high crimes and misdemeanors mean the answers would be all over the place. If things were that cut and dried we could all be admitted to the bar after kinergarten.

ANyway

NEW THREAD

[Extraneus]

I understand. My point is that the poll indicates that a majority of people don't believe in original intent. And we know there are millions who despise the Founding Fathers, as our children are often taught to do. 50 years ago, that poll wouldn't have been close.

[Cecil Turner]

No wonder you support Romney and voted for no-drama Obama.

It's important to note, he supports Romney in the primary. Most lefties/Democrats do.

I would argue, though, that Florida indicates that negative advertising is very effective against Newt in a large, media heavy campaign, and that Newt is surprisingly bad at responding to such a campaign in a way that does not sabotage himself.

Except it was only large and media heavy on one side :

A new study out today by the Wesleyan Media Project shows Romney and his allies, particularly the Restore Our Future super PAC, have aired 12,768 ads in Florida compared with 210 for Gingrich and his allies.

I think the main lesson is that negative ads work, provided you have deep enough pockets. And the turnout suggests they successfully depressed the conservative vote.

[jorod]

Why are they trying to ram this kind of stuff down people's throats? You have to understand the socialist mind. Socialists are mainly comprised of elites who consider themselves above the rules. They set the rules for everyone else. To do this and achieve complete political control, the elites have to eliminate morality as that would be too confining to their plan of action since a lot of what they do would be considered immoral or at last amoral. To do this they have to of course eliminate individual rights. But that's another story. Now it can get messy when you eliminate morality since not everyone is as smart as you (the elite). Morality helps keep a lot of stupid people out of trouble. Now female socialists in particular want to eliminate morality because they consider morality to be part of the male domination system as most moral rules were developed by men. So they must develop substitutes for morality. Socialists consider individuals to be nothing more than economic units anyway. So, the perfect substitute for sexual immorality is abortion. Not only does it eliminate the result of immoral behavior, pregnancy, it also allows the female elites to exercise their power of control over reproductive maters and sexual relations. The resulting action of pushing the abortion agenda is just one of many battle that the elites are waging. And religious beliefs are just one battlefield where the socialist elites are waging war.

[gadget]

I think technocratic view is good, because only this way you can see the big picture. When you care to much about individuals and small problems you can hurt the majority very much, so I think Barrack is not wrong in this.