Today, Army Private Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning came out as a transgender. She is asking everyone, including the press to refer to her as female. She said, "As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back."
There were many immediate attacks by the conservative press including this one from Laura Ingraham - Laura Ingraham tweeted "So Manning wants to live as a woman. Let me guess, we have to pay for it.” Yes - Laura - we do have to pay for it - if there is healthcare involved - when someone is in jail. Chelsea Manning should receive humane treatment during her incarceration.
Speaking of rights, why are the rights described in the Bill of Rights called negative rights by Thom and Obama among others? I plan to keep asking this question until I get an answer which at least makes as much sense as the one I came up with. I would state it, but I do not want to influence any responses.
I respect Manning for what (s)he revealed and I hope things go as well as possible for her from now on. I wish she had run to Barbados or somewhere nice instead of getting caught-up with the Fascist billionaires' puppet military. We have a right to know about the things that go on with our government; torpedoes be damned, full speed ahead.
Quote chuckle8:Speaking of rights, why are the rights described in the Bill of Rights called negative rights by Thom and Obama among others?
chuckle8 ~ You'll have to excuse my ignorance but I have no idea what you are talking about on both counts. I have never heard Thom or President Obama use that term--"negative rights"--to refer to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or anything else. Please, if you really want a serious response to the question provide a link to a speech or transcript with the term used in context; otherwise, I can't help you.
I consider Bradley Manning a hero and doesn't deserve the prison sentence he got...he should not have gotten any prison sentence! But, I've got to say that while there are so many "normal" people, who cannot even get decent healthcare in this country and who are dying from lack of health care, I cannot agree that Bradley Manning, or anyone for that matter, should soak up the resources of a defunct healthcare system for such unnecessary medical attention. Those who have the money and the mental aberration that induces them to seek such a medical change...by all means go for it! But even then I will always continue to think of them as the same gender they were born with. And I am sure not going to be manipulated..ie: drawn into someone else's deranged fantasy world...into calling him a her...and instead of calling him Chelsea...I'll either continue calling him either Bradley Manning or just Manning. A sex change operation is not medically necessary and should not tax an already overburdened system.
On the subject of Ms Manning... This revelation does nothing to sway my appreciation for her selfless service to her country and we, the American people. She, along with Snowden are modern patriots who should receive all of our gratitude and respect. I hope and pray her sentence is shortened and her experience incarcerated is somehow rewarding. Her disclosure is not a blemish on her reputation; but, rather it is a defining moment for the humanity and integrity that is representative of the dormant potential of the transgender community. Bravo for Ms Manning! She is a hero on many levels to many people for many reasons! Bravo!!
Palindromedary ~ We are what we are. That is no fault of our own. The richness of a society is expressed in it's diversity. Though I would consider such resources a waste for someone like you or I, I cannot deny anyone else the services that they see fit for themselves. It is after all their body. It is after all their life. Sexual or cosmetic enhancement for narcissistic reasons is one thing, sexual identity is something completely different. If Ms Manning committed an immoral crime such as murder in order to qualify for such treatments I would agree with you. However, she is a hero and martyr. If she/he wants to become a she/she with tax payer money I wish her the best of luck and offer up the first buck. That is but a pittance society owes this brave and noble individual. I wish she finds the peace that she has earned. She deserves every bit of it and more. If you can't agree with that, then you clearly contradict your posts from a few days ago. I'm sure you don't want me to repost them for you.
Oh so now I understand way the left wants there "fair share" of my hard earned money, so the can piss it away on bullshit this. I are you kidding me.
She will get her wish and be a big black guys bitch.
Akunard, that's scary. Can you imagine what green mile and his buddies will do to that poor guy after what he said. I sure hope the military prisons have protective custody.
Kend...... Dude, are you having a stroke?
I can't say I see anything wrong with calling Bradley Manning in accordance with his birth gender. Going by the anatomy is a lot more reliable than all that flaky psychological stuff. Plus it's not subjective so it is scientific. His opinion about himself may or may not be right, people do change their minds on things like that sometimes. So why should his subjective opinion trump anyone else's?
akundard, I have no idea what her wishes are, nor do you, but I'm pretty sure they separate the men from the women in jail.
Quote Fred Griswold:So why should his subjective opinion trump anyone else's?
Fred Griswold ~ His subjective opinion should trump anyone else's precisely because it is HIS opinion about HERSELF. Are you suggesting that you, I, or anyone else should decide for Chelsea Manning what her sexual identity should be? Then maybe you, I and everyone else should decide for Ms Manning what her political identity should be, what her social identity should be, perhaps even what her moral identity should be? Do we not embrace freedom of choice in this country? Do we not embrace the rights of the individual in this country? Do we not embrace freedom of expression in this country? Who are we to dictate the identity--sexual or otherwise--of any other person other than ourselves?
It might be hard for many to grasp but you can't judge a book by it's cover; and, you should never judge anyone other than yourself. Get over it!
akunard and Kend ~ Both of you should be ashamed of yourselves and really need to grow up!
historywriter ~ You are right on! Thank you for a most sobering post.
DAnne, seriously I am worried About this guy. This is prison. it's the real thing.
"Fascist Billionaire's Puppet Military [/Industrial/Congressional screw 'em all, we're getting ours and then some Complex]"
Thank you, Michael Moore.
Three months 'til the 50th Anniversary of JFK's assasination... ...almost a half century since the coup d'etat.
DAnneMarc: I don't care whether you call it " Sexual or cosmetic enhancement for narcissistic reasons" or "sexual identity" or "Gender Identity Disorder" or now.."Gender Dysphoria"....it doesn't matter...the bottom line is that if it isn't a real medical problem then public funds that would normally go towards those who really do have real (and far more urgent and necessary) medical problems should not be taken away from those who have real medical problems.
You would feel pretty bad if you knew that some child needing an operation that could save his/her life could not happen because some guy wanted to use those funds to morph into a woman..wouldn't you?
I'd say that "mental problems" or "mental disorder" is more in line to what plagues MR. Bradley Manning and anyone else with that "condition". Disclaimer: I'm not a shrink or a medical professional..and I am also not one of those whose profession depends upon being politically correct.
I don't buy it that people are born with their "sexual identity"... they learn those things as they grow up. I know... I know... some argue that the AMA and/or APA say it is a "medical" problem...but just imagine how many of those already with homosexual tendencies or have gender identity disorders are in high positions of power in those organizations that work to generate the politically correct hypothesis that may tend to support their "new" position.
They may argue... but have no real proof to support it... that because of hormones in the mother's womb when carrying the child..yada, yada, yada...and some other very vague insinuations...and they even don't entirely dismiss the part that it has something to do with a learning process, and/or parental upbringing, from childhood to adult...but they don't stress that very hard.
Take the cases where young children are exposed constantly to the emotional abuses of sexually hung-up parents (often very religious ones) who make children disgusted with their body parts...or even other adults..say teachers...make them feel guilty or ashamed about their sexual feelings or body parts. Under such conditions many children may very well grow up hating their body parts..hating their gender. On the other hand if young children were introduced to same-sex sex at an early age say...from pajama parties, for instance, ..they learn that too.
Again, if you have the money to spend for sex change operations then it is at your discretion. But, I got to tell you that...if you are a guy changing into a girl...you are usually not going to be any raving beauty..and that goes for a girl changing into a guy...ugliest girl/guy I've ever seen. And lots of people are just not going to be fooled like that...they'll know what gender you really are..even with an operation and hormone treatments..well...there may be a few exceptions. Generally, they look a lot better as their born gender than they do as their morphed genders.
What if some people thought that their right arm, even though it was functioning ok, was ugly and always in the way and had a very stressful mental angst over having to live with that right arm and decided that public funds should be used to have an operation to remove that right arm? Most people would agree that that person was not quite right in the head...needed a shrink...and they would also agree that it would be totally negligent to spend public funds to "disarm" someone (pun intended!)?
You can argue..." It is after all their body. It is after all their life."
But it is taking away from those who really do have real medical problems. Sex change operations are discretionary and not necessary medically.
Quote article:For years advocates have lobbied the American Psychiatric Association to change or remove categories labeling transgender people in a psychiatric manual, arguing that terms like “Gender Identity Disorder” characterize all trans people as mentally ill. Based on the standards to be set by the DSM-V, individuals will be diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria for displaying “a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender.”
Because of constant pressure from those among us, and spread throughout all the institutions of the land, they are changing the terminology...not because it wasn't originally medically correct but because it is politically incorrect.
Any medical operation that is done for the purpose of making a person feel better about themselves is a cosmetic operation. Some, who have been horribly disfigured have a case for medical operations to correct the condition. They are the ones who cannot hide their disfigurement. Otherwise, it is purely a cosmetic operation. And it is no wonder that most medical insurance companies don't cover that kind of thing. Oh, I think I need a face lift to look better...and feel better about myself...or, maybe a tummy tuck! Yeah, that's right....let the taxpayers pay for it all.
Quote Palindromedary:You can argue..." It is after all their body. It is after all their life."
But it is taking away from those who really do have real medical problems. Sex change operations are discretionary and not necessary medically.
Palindromedary ~ By and large I agree with you 100%. However, the case of Bradley Manning is different. Obviously, he enlisted in the military to achieve a high paying career. What he discovered as an enlistee is a conflict of interest with his moral identity. He acted on those conflicting interests and encountered harsh opposition to his goals. Now, we as a nation, have benefited from his opposition and therefore owe him a debt of gratitude. What is so wrong with compensating him with his psycho/sexual needs in exchange for his service to his country? If he lost a leg in combat you would have no problem. If he lost his arm in combat you would have no problem. If he lost his mind in combat you would have no problem. Why? Because he was serving his country.
Wasn't he serving his country when he ended his career? Why can't we pay for his needs now that he is incapable of doing so himself. He wanted to do that originally himself; yet now he is stripped of the means by the cabal that controls this country. He is a victim of combat as much as any other solder--probably more. I say give him/her anything she wants in the name of freedom. Chelsea Manning isn't the only one who will benefit from that--so will we all.
Well, I guess I would have to tend to agree with you here. What Mr. Manning did for the country was pretty awesome...he is a hero. And if he ran for President...I'd even vote for him. And you are right...in this one case...we owe Manning a great deal...a sex change operation would not be too much to ask. But, I certainly don't think that setting this kind of precedence for everyone else so inclined is a good idea. After all, all those dying children, who can't get operations, because of lack of funding may not be heroes in the sense that Manning is but all those sexually confused people wanting sex changes are certainly not heroes either. I don't know if I could ever get over feeling like I was being tugged to accept something that I felt was against my nature...ie: pretending a man was a woman...by calling him a her...but then I haven't spent any time in prison either....yet, anyway! ;-O
Let's see, if Manning had that sex change operation and managed to get elected President...I guess we'd have to call him...Madam President? Oh, what the heck...let's do it...let's get Manning what he wants and then we'll all elect him President to the United States...that'll really tick off the Republicans. note: hopefully, he won't run as a Republican.
Gender Identity Disorder is a condition that many people in society suffer from. It is reasonable to expect these people to finance their own medical solution to the problem. Most do. However, if you incarcerate someone suffering from this condition without any means to correct the problem you are creating a condition that could easily qualify for cruel and unusual punishment. After all, you are imposing 35 years of additional "suffering" on someone without means of helping themselves. Ms Manning doesn't even deserve 35 years of incarceration. Let's face it, she is a casualty of war; regardless of what the DOJ says.
Palindromedary ~ Thank you!
Quote Kend:DAnne, seriously I am worried About this guy. This is prison. it's the real thing.
Kend ~ I'm glad to hear that. I too am worried about Ms Manning. However, all jokes aside--and I can think of at least a hundred such jokes; but, have the compassion and maturity to refrain from using them--Ms Manning is not only an American Hero but an example to future generations on how to stand up to preserve our sacred traditions and principles that this country is founded on. I would refrain from commenting on her gender issues and focus on her political dilemma. She is a hero and an example to everyone that anyone can make a difference as long as they believe in themselves. We need to make sure that her example shines brightly for posterity and is not extinguished and forgotten in prison. Free Chelsea Manning NOW!!!
however....here is the conclusions of a long-term study that might seem to indicate they would be doing Manning no favors by giving him an operation.
Quote study:Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden.
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.
DAnneMarc: #24...Well said! And I agree! What we need to do is get Manning out of prison. Manning doesn't deserve to be there...a victim of empire building criminals that unfairly exploits us all.
Oh no she ditn' ask the government to pay for her hormone treatment and surgery. Oh, no. You have got to be kidding. This is not a medical disorder, it's elective surgery. Come on, you think they give all the depressed incarcerted women that want bigger breasts implants to make them feel better in jail? You think they prescribe viagra to guys in jail so they can relieve their anxiety by masturbating? No way, hey, I support anyone that wants to have elective surgery to do anything they want. Let them have a foot grafted onto the top of their head.
But the taxpayers shouldn't pay for it. Sheesh.
It all makes perfect sense. Being a transwoman myself I know it is all about honesty and authenticity. Chelsea has chosen the path of truth once more! Good for her! She has all my support!
"Kend," just another ignorant hayseed that can't even read and write, so worried about someone spending a few tax dollars on something that would help another human being, but of course has no problem with crooked Americans wasting millions and billions of dollars on uselessly killing people. The stupid Dixie leftover hicks of America need to be canned as food to feed feril cats.
Funny how I never see a hayseed like "Wendalore" having anything to say about all our tax dollars being spent on stupid red states that don't even provide most of the taxes that people in blue states provide for their redneck arses. Stupid old bats with horn rimmed glasses should keep their ignorant mouths shut more often.
DAnneMarc -- I have all the podcasts of Thom, so I'll try to find it. I think they never refer to the constitution as having negative rights, it is just the "Bill of Rights". Thanks for responding.
Quote Johnnie Dorman:The stupid Dixie leftover hicks of America need to be canned as food to feed feril cats.
Johnnie Dorman ~ You must be a comedian! Please stop. You're cracking me up and I can't breath. However, you are so right!
Erna Pachulke ~ Right on! Thanks for your two cents. I'm glad you found an answer to your problem. Thanks for sharing.
Quote Wendalore:This is not a medical disorder, it's elective surgery.
Wendalore ~ This is a medical disorder. It is a psychological disorder. Quite frankly Wendalore, I am surprised that someone who suffers from Depression could be so insensitive to someone else suffering from a similar disorder. Perhaps your medication has made you forget just what Depression is capable of doing. This disorder has lead people into mutilating their own bodies. Surely you can be a little more sympathetic considering your own personal experiences. Mental disorders are real and serious.
Wanting bigger breasts is not a mental disorder--it's just silly.
Laura Ingram should be denied access to the commons for which OUR taxes have paid
Kendalore et al. In fact, it IS a medical condition. I recommend you read my earlier post. I also suggest you read up on chromosome errors that happen in the first days after conception. I suggest you talk to some transsexual people, and you have that resource right here, in Ema (if she'll converse with you). I strongly recommend that you and all of the others who are so judgmental and worried about your tax dollars read up on these errors.
And that if you are worried about all of us taxpayers, you have a much richer lode concerning our subsidies for the oil and gas industries, especially, as well as for some other industries (which are making enormous profits), or for our refusal to increase the minimum wage and thus allowing workers to be paid $7.25 an hour, a wage that no one can live on--so it then falls to TAXPAYERS to pay for their needs like health care and even food banks. If you think this is a small business issue, some 60% + of minimum wage workers work for large corporations who are making big profits. And many work for the government. Or for those companies who have a post office box in Aruba or some place as a headquarters to avoid paying taxes at all.
And why not go after big corporations who, now that we are getting Affordable Care, are cutting hours for their workers and putting them on part time so they don't have to pay ANY BENEFITS? We taxpayers make up ALL THE DIFFERENCE.
Why don't you go after those who are REALLY, TRULY SCREWING the taxpayers?
What is wrong with you? Off your meds or just drunk?
Why are you throwing racism in here? Why are you being so offensive? Let's not add to the hate pot--sexism, racism, anti-government but pro-military. Just stop hating.
People who "change" gender do not do so lightly; it is not a cosmetic change. It is to restore to the individual the sexuality he/she believes is her rightful identity.
"Gender Identity Disorder is a recognized medical condition by the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. It is considered a birth defect, which occurs about five weeks after conception. The brain does not match the physical sex of the body. The reason for it is thought to be a biochemical mistake in the formation of the brain. The result is that the individual has the psychological and chemical brain of one gender but the body of the other. "Most individuals learn to cope and often act in a way that exaggerates their physical gender to compensate. Males with a female brain join the military or take up hazardous activities."
This is not the only sexual “mistake” that happens at birth. Often genitalia are “ambiguous” so a doctor and/or the parents make a decision about what sex the child is, and they are often wrong. All kinds of things, sexually speaking, can go wrong.
Quit being judgmental, especially if you know nothing.
/* Style Definitions */
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
/* Style Definitions */
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
I know very little about mental illness. I suffered for about 6 months from manic depression as an adolescent. From what I've learned almost everyone has at some point in their life. It almost cost me my life. It was the most painful and disruptive condition I have ever experienced. It was so profound that I selected psychology as an elective in both high school and college. As a result I have undergone extensive official learning about sexual identity disorder. As I understand, it is a very painful condition that is well beyond the control of the person suffering from it. I can't say for sure whether or not if it is the responsibility of society or the individual for paying to treat this disorder. However, it is my personal experience that I believe that manic depression is the responsibility of the society to treat. It is as much a life threatening condition as cancer.
With that, I cannot honestly say that I believe sexual identity disorder is not also the responsibility of the society to treat. As the Declaration of Independence states, everyone is entitled to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In that case, treatment of sexual identity disorder is implied to be covered by the general welfare intent of our countries foundation. Moreover, it is required by human decency and human compassion. How can we as a people allow our fellow citizens and human beings to suffer needlessly and still consider ourselves civilized?
Bradley Manning is an exception. He/She has earned his/her treatment as an American Hero. However, after careful thought I have concluded that anyone in such mental turmoil should be eligible for public assistance. If not so, then why have a suicide hot line that is publicly funded. It is our duty as a civilized society to offer any assistance necessary to ensure every citizen has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Trivial cases aside. We as a people are only as good as we treat the least amongst us. Bradley/Chelsea Manning has shown that fact to us in a most spectacular way.
If the hand of God is visible in anything we do it certainly shows in the fact that this brave soul has the name, MANning. What better way to appeal to people that the transsexual is an oppressed, yet important and acceptable part of their society then to orchestrate the heroic outing of someone named MANning who really is a female. Hmmmm? Go figure!
DAnneMarc -- I assume not many people read Thom's blog after 48 hours. We are probably the only people now in the discussion; especially the discussion about negative rights. First, I would like to say I think the discussion of negative rights is a very positive thing. The reason I think this is because it illuminates, in neon lights, are most fundamental right from which all the liberty in the constitution flows. That fundamental right is that all laws that apply to us, the 99%, are derived democratically from us, the 99%. A right can then be viewed as negative if it takes more than a majority to overrule, like everything in the "Bill of Rights".
My current search for Thom and Obama talking about negative rights has led me to two places to study. Obama talked about them in 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio. The right wing was all over that interview, and IMO not understanding a thing he said. Based on a comment on Thom's blog on Nov 24, 2010, by another RWNJ, I think Thom's radio show on Nov 22, 2010 must have talked about negative rights. I downloaded from the White Rose society, but I have not had time to listen to it yet.
Quote chuckle8:A right can then be viewed as negative if it takes more than a majority to overrule, like everything in the "Bill of Rights".
chuckle8 ~ I'm still not sure that I get it. A negative right. I don't understand the correlation between the word "negative" and what it takes to overrule it. The Bill Of Rights is basically set in stone as far as I am concerned. It was the fundamental selling point that mad ratification of the Constitution possible in the first place. It is the fundamental principle behind the sacred traditions of this country that we honor above all. These rights were never intended to be "overruled." Are you suggesting that some dialogue took place involving Obama and Hartmann where these rights were being viewed somehow in a "negative" way?
Please simply state what you wish to imply. Right now, to me, it sounds like you are implying that both Obama and Hartmann are expressing subversive opinions about our Constitution. If so, I would be most interested in hearing exactly what was said by both--especially, Obama.
If you need more time to dig up such info I might suggest we simply move this conversation to a more current blog so that others may benefit from it. That way you can take your time.
DAnneMarc -- The "Bill of Rights" sold the constitution because too many people feared the "tyranny of the majority (AKA the 99%)" and the "Bill of Rights" protected those rights from the majority. That plan did not work. The right to free speech was overrode for saying fire in a crowded theater and for child porn. However, I guess it is fine that consensus is better than the 67% to amend the constituton.
I am trying to keep my comments from a current blog because I do not want my opinion to influence what people think when Thom mentions negative rights.
chuckle8 ~ Thank you for clarifying that. I think I see what you are saying. "Negative" Rights are The Bill Of Rights as seen from the perspective of the 1%. They are the stumbling block that prevents total control over the 99%. No less now than it was 237 years ago... if I read you right.
However, I still have no idea what you mean when you refer to Thom mentioning negative rights.
Please forgive me. I used to listen to Thom religiously at work in the morning. Recently his show was shifted till after working hours and the best I can do is sometimes listen to his webcast at night. That works maybe two of three times a week. What he has been saying recently is not always available to me.
What is going on with this idea of "negative" rights? I must know.
Kend, like everyone, you are entitled to your own set of values. But I would like to hear you come right out and say, "I'm fine with spending trillions of dollars on war, but it bothers me to think that tax dollars could go to giving Manning some fifty cents apiece pills."
You joke about Manning being some big guy's bitch.
About forty years ago I was in jail for not paying a speeding ticket. There were five guys in my cell. About an hour after lights out, I was laying there, unable to sleep, when I heard one of the other guys whisper, "I get him first."
Another guy whispered, "Like hell you do- you got the last one first."
Another guy said, "Look we really should draw straws or something, to make this fair. Because I am so tired of going third."
All of them were bigger than me. And having experienced the guard's sadistic attitudes, I really doubted that they would help me if I yelled for help. I considered my choices: I could try to kill the first guy who touched me and possibly earn the other guys' respect so they would leave me alone, with the understanding that if I only injured him, he could press charges and get me sent to prison with the other guys testifying that I attacked him with no provocation, and if I killed him I would have that on my conscience and would probably get sent to prison. And even if I did fight back, I might just get the crap kicked out of me and then get raped anyway. Or I could just let it happen, with the understanding that if I let it happen once, it would surely happen again.
Akunard, it's easy to sound real macho sitting at your computer talking about Manning getting raped. I wonder how macho you would be if you were in his position.
Palindromedary, I have to disagree with you in both general terms and in the specific case of Manning.
Sex is an incredibly complex issue, made even more so by shame, fear, transference, and ignorance of what other people are going through in their own hearts as they come to terms with their own sexuality. You quoted the American psychiatric association, which is a bunch of highly educated but still fallible people who, as a group have made massive mistakes. A cousin of mine was committed to one of the largest state-run mental institutions in the state of Washington, where the psychiatrists and nurses used drugs, physical restraint, starvation, deprivation of water, and other means to torture the inmates. Literally torture them. If you think One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest was bad, well, the reality of what they did to my cousin was worse. So if you want credibility for your position that people are not born with gender identity, I would prefer that you quote someone other than a psychiatric association. And even if you do quote some other "authority," at its root your attitude is still psychological xenophobia, because you are not transgender. The only way I could accept that you have an informed opinion as to whether it is necessary for Manning to get gender-change medical care, would be if you had spent many hours talking with a transexual person.
And specifically as far as Manning goes, as you yourself said, she is a hero. She demonstrated astounding courage in revealing crimes that our government has committed. Without people like Manning, America would just be another cheap-shot dictatorship. Manning should receive the Congressional Medal of Honor and a public apology, be given several million dollars for her service to America, and have a national holiday named after her.
Our government- including Obama!- insists on spending at least $50,000 a year for Manning to be in prison. There's your waste of money, right there. Transgender medical care costs almost nothing compared to that, and it's the least that Manning should receive from her ungrateful government.
DAnneMarc --- Noboby ever accused me of clarifying anything. If the "Bill of Rights" were as you describe neither Thom or Obama would call them negative. With my sophomoric understanding of history, I think when our country started, every other country in western civilization was run by the 1% or less. It was the opinion of the rest of the world that if the 99% were running government it would not work because they would take all the goodies for themselves and there would be no productionof value. This is the currect view of Fox News when they talk about the 47%. I think some of this view rubbed off on our founders. They wanted to protect certain rights from the democratic process of the simple majority and require a super majority. Remember all my discussion is trying to determine why Thom and Obama call them negative rights. I want to restate that all our liberty flows from we the people deciding laws based on a simple majority.
I used to listen to Thom on my way to work -- a 10 minute drive. I missed a lot. When I retired I listened while walking at the beach for 2 hours. I heard a lot more. Then, Thom left LA and I subscribed to his podcasts. Podcasts have no commercials, so during a 2 hour walk I can hear everything he says. Of the 60 hours a month of Thom I would say he mentions "negative rights" for 10 seconds.
Quote David Abbot:
Without people like Manning, America would just be another cheap-shot dictatorship. Manning should receive the Congressional Medal of Honor and a public apology, be given several million dollars for her service to America, and have a national holiday named after her.
I sure agree with you there! And you are right...I really don't know anything about transgender people...although I do have acquaintances who are gay. And as a straight person, I am not really very comfortable about the subject.
chuckle8 ~ Very well! At this time I feel certain that you are confusing apples and oranges. The founding fathers did perceive the common people as unable to participate in Government due to lack of education and information. They were right in many respects. Despite the current electronic information age coupled with free public education for everyone a very serious argument can still be made that the 'commoners' are not educated enough to participate in governmental decisions. However, that is not the argument at hand.
The argument at had is whether or not We the People are deserving of the Bill of Rights. That is another argument altogether. Lets stick to that one. In that respect I must assert that the intent of the founding fathers was beyond a reasonable doubt to insure that every aspect of the Bill of Rights be applied to every American. In fact, despite the fact that African Americans were denied such rights at the time the Bill of Rights was written, I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that they too were intended to be covered by these rights as well. The founding fathers simply wrote what they perceived to be the best plan for everyone and silently decided to let future generations figure it out.
As far as "negative rights" are concerned, I am certain this a red herring created by a select few to confuse the general masses into accepting the concept that human rights are inherently bad and don't serve the common good. In this respect I have to say without any hesitation that the entire concept of "negative rights" is a bogus attempt to attack the Constitution by the 1%. You've stated that this concept comes from the Obama Administration and Thom Hartmann and yet have provided no reference, quotes, or evidence whatsoever. You've taken a term completely out of context without any definition. Without such sources this subject is merely hearsay and completely dead in the water.
These "negative rights" as YOU call them should be called "Super Rights." They should never be challenged by any form of our legislative system. When elected all legislators from Congress to the Executive branch swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath leaves no room for tampering with any part of our fundamental Constitution--including The Bill of Rights. It is The Bill of Rights first and foremost that must survive any legislative actions. It is possible that the current President is attacking The Bill of Rights because he certainly has demonstrated little intent on following through with his oath of office. However, Thom Hartmann is another story altogether. He has sworn no oath of any kind and has nothing to gain from treason. Perhaps he mentioned some ridiculous catch phrase the Administration is or has attempted to throw out; but, I feel confident that he is not promoting such a malicious unconstitutional agenda. If you feel he is, please provide your links and quotes. Otherwise, I am through with this topic. Please excuse me; but, I must move on to bigger, better and more tangible topics. See you next week.
Palindromedary, as uncomfortable as you- as a straight person- are with the subject of transgender medication/surgery, imagine how uncomfortable it could be for a man to stand up in today's homophobic America (and as if that wasn't enough, he makes his stand in a military prison, which is an even more frantically homophobic environment), and say that in his heart he has always been a woman, knowing that hundreds of millions of people all over the world will hear his statement. I was already incredibly impressed with Manning's courage before this, but now even more so.
And yet, similar to you, I feel personally uncomfortable around people like Manning. What has changed in recent years, however, is that- like you- I freely admit to the discomfort I feel, and I don't try to justify or excuse it. I will know that I have made significant progress when I feel the same toward transgender people as I do toward everyone else.
A Chinese doctor told me, "Everything in this universe is a direct result of the interaction of yin and yang. Most women are more yin than most men, but some women are very yang. And most men are more yang than most women, but some men are very yin. Sometimes these differences play out in the sexual arena, but even when they do, it's still just yin and yang."
As an environmentalist, I would dearly love to see all hormone-disrupting chemicals banned, because they make an already complex and difficult situation, more complex and more difficult to understand clearly.
DAnneMarc -- Thank you for discussing the topic. I will continue to research the subject since I cannot think of a more important topic than the will of the people to determine the rules we live by. I think the words "We the People" in the preamble are more important than anything else in the constitution or its amendents.
chuckle8 ~ You are welcome for the discussion. By the way, I did some research of my own. Negative rights are not necessarily a bad thing. They are defined as rights that protect people from the actions of other people. Definition per wikipedia:
On Negative Rights vs Positive Rights:Quote wikipedia:Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to be subjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder. In the framework of the Kantian categorical imperative, negative rights can be associated with perfect duties while positive rights can be connected to imperfect duties.
Belief in a distinction between positive and negative rights is usually maintained, or emphasized, by libertarians, who believe that positive rights do not exist until they are created by contract. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists both positive and negative rights (but does not identify them as such). The constitutions of most liberal democracies guarantee negative rights, but not all include positive rights. Nevertheless, positive rights are often guaranteed by other laws, and the majority of liberal democracies provide their citizens with publicly funded education, health care, social security and unemployment benefits.
Negative rights tend to protect individuals from bullies like corporations, religious institutions, mafia, unfair employers and each other. Negative here is a noun and not an adjective. I admit very confusing, but nothing to be wary of.
How about Human? Can I refer to the beautiful army private Manning as a Human? I too am a human. That's kinda how I'm being. Just like all of you who know how to reading. We all be being Human Beings. tat tat ?! - ?! - nothing? air ball. no cymbal, no glass breaking, nothing. Yeah, I was kinda hoping for a better bang there myself but whadaya know, being a human being ain't much a big shocker after all. ?! ?! UNLESS your name is Laura Ingraham!! That's my lil white girl crush. She ain't human you know, uh-huh, she be delicious. Now er'ybody know why I'm always in this here towel. Hey, LAURA! Check it out! I's got the last erectorial vote you's ever gonna need right here, baby! ChaChing!! I know you ain't all conservative inbetween the sheets with that fine proGressive bod of yours!! You know where to find my Man-sion whenever you tired of dem phony guppy boy-friends of yours keep coming up short, Hey! All you got to do is pick up the phone, make like a crow, and KAA KAA the Thom Hartmann program! Where despair is not an option, unless that's our safe word, butt, you know me, baby, I rather use them Engish Po-nouns just to kick it up another element. remember the safe word we picked last time? o'BAMa o'BAMa !!!