I think it is a great opportunity to isolate and identify the personal emotional basis that underlies many Democratic arguments. They have been used so often, that they seem to be accepted by the public as a valid basis upon which to make decisions about public policy. (Ref. Nancy Pelosi evoking "the children" as a major theme in her swearing in ceremony.) It colors their rhetoric about the environment (speaking "for the environment",) often enters debate in the form of personal attacks and seems to justify action.
Public policy should be made based on body of clean, robust fact with any assumptions examined, with conclusions arrived at with logic and consistency. Further, the relationships of government to citizen and federal to state set forward in the Bill of Rights firmly in mind.
A physician does not operate on his own family members. A law makers does not make law about issues in which he has a personal stake. (Ethics and law in California dictate that you recuse yourself from the decision - particularly where your economic interest is at stake.)
I am very concerned about this trend, which is often evident in certain Democratic female legislators, to justify decisions and actions based on emotion - particularly nurturing emotion. In my opinion, this is not an acceptable basis upon which to make decisions about war, the commitment of troops and strategy.
Before you jump on me as anti-female, I am a female legislator on the local level.
You said:
I think it is a great opportunity to isolate and identify the personal emotional basis that underlies many Democratic arguments. They have been used so often, that they seem to be accepted by the public as a valid basis upon which to make decisions about public policy. (Ref. Nancy Pelosi evoking "the children" as a major theme in her swearing in ceremony.) It colors their rhetoric about the environment (speaking "for the environment",) often enters debate in the form of personal attacks and seems to justify action.
Public policy should be made based on body of clean, robust fact with any assumptions examined, with conclusions arrived at with logic and consistency. Further, the relationships of government to citizen and federal to state set forward in the Bill of Rights firmly in mind.
A physician does not operate on his own family members. A law makers does not make law about issues in which he has a personal stake. (Ethics and law in California dictate that you recuse yourself from the decision - particularly where your economic interest is at stake.)
I am very concerned about this trend, which is often evident in certain Democratic female legislators, to justify decisions and actions based on emotion - particularly nurturing emotion. In my opinion, this is not an acceptable basis upon which to make decisions about war, the commitment of troops and strategy.
Before you jump on me as anti-female, I am a female legislator on the local level.
I agree with your analysis with one exception - (Ref. Nancy Pelosi evoking "the children" . . . . Change to "child surviors of abortion".