There has been talk in the UK about assisted suicide, or assisted death: in particular the cases of Kay Gilderdale and Frances Inglis. Also, Sir Terry Pratchett, fantasy author (the Discworld and Truckers series, amongst others), has announced that he has Alzheimers and wants assisted suicide. I think that if we can give my pet a humane and painless death, we should be able to allow a human the same courtesy.
Kay Gilderdale is now calling for a change in the laws regarding assisted death. This makes sense since those with money are already able to travel to Switzerland. This points out a disparity in the law that those with money can leave the jurisdiction to end their lives.
Similarly, laws against abortion only harmed the poor since the wealthy were able to find alternative sources to the illegal back alley abortions.
Assisted death should be a legal option for those who wish for it in a civilised country. That absolutely isn’t to say assisted death should be forced upon anybody, or even encouraged, merely that the option should be available to those who a) are suffering from a condition from which they cannot recover, and b) expressly desire it.
Some opponents of assisted death argue that man should not “play God”. As Sir Terry says, “the problem with the God argument is that it works only if you believe in God”. Legalising assisted death need have no impact on the lives of those who do believe in God: they can go on dying as naturally as God intended. But it should be there for those who don’t believe in God, and yearn desperately for the salvation of assisted death, a salvation that God tends not to offer.
ed. I had originally called him just plain old Terry Pratchett, but decided to call him SIR Terry Pratchett. Why not?
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
03 February 2010
08 December 2009
There is a God!
The Senate Tuesday afternoon voted 54-45 to kill Sen. Ben Nelson's amendment to the health-care overhaul legislation that would have banned the use of federal taxpayer money for abortions.
Thank you, Blue Gal for getting me the News about this!
Maybe the US isn't that far gone. Although, I have serious worries when I read the works of the keyboard warriors on the internet.
Thank you, Blue Gal for getting me the News about this!
Maybe the US isn't that far gone. Although, I have serious worries when I read the works of the keyboard warriors on the internet.
18 November 2009
I couldn't say it better myself..
I keep wanting to do a post on using "Wedge Issues" as a distraction. Then, this video turned up in some research I was doing for the previous post.
Song by Tommy Roz. From the description:
Song by Tommy Roz. From the description:
What makes a poor man vote for a rich polititian? All this and more are explored in a singing indictment of America Gone Wild! An entertaining yet forboding parody of the current political and social landscape which suggests that the only thing standing in the way of a second civil war is a third world war. So hold onto your helmets! It looks like it's time for Armegeddon again.
28 October 2009
Say what?
I have to admit being taken aback when I see someone arguing that you can be pro-life and pro-gun at the same time.
Well, I guess you need the guns to kill abortion doctors.
There is a serious problem with this position, but I don't expect that someone who is stupid enough to believe one can be pro-life and pro-gun would comprehend the disconnect.
First off, up to a point, the foetus is a speculative life. The foetus can miscarry. That seems a simple enough concept to grasp. Up until birth, there is the possibility that the foetus can miscarry. Modern technology has reduced the level of infant mortality, but birth also isn't a guarantee that a child will live.
On the other hand, those who have been born sacrifice their "innocence".
We can put a face on a foetus, but we make gun violence victims into statistics.
I know I sounded callous in my Bart Stupak post, but that is the type of disconnect I see in people who are pro-life and pro-gun. Even more disconcerting, is that Stupak's family suffered from gun violence.
People like Nicole Dufresne, BJ Stupak, Melanie Hain, and others are the real face of gun violence in America, not the overestimated and anecdotal DGUs the gun cretin crowd cite.
Another problem is that the assertion that guns are the only effective method implies that only deadly force is effective for self-defence. That deadly force is the only effective means of self-defence in of itself should be enough to make it ridiculous to assert that one is "pro-life".
Once people start rationalizing the deliberate taking of life, they are on a slippery slope. Before they know it, they are in a situation of having to destroy a village in order to save it, are in a plane over Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Could a person in an ICBM launch control center or on a submarine, ready and willing to turn the keys that would launch the missiles carrying nuclear warheads aimed to kill over 100 million people in half an hour, possibly be considered “pro-life”? If so, then it may be futile to seek limits to the killing in which one is willing to engage.
Personally, the lack of gun control impacts society in such a way, that one cannot possibly call themselves pro-life and pro-gun.
The problem is that more than 12,000 homicides by gun were reported in the United States in 2005. But the number who are wounded and survive gunshot assaults is much greater — nearly 53,000 were treated in emergency rooms in 2006, the same federal database shows.
A report in the journal Spinal Cord a decade ago estimated the direct lifetime charges for every shooting victim at $600,000, or nearly $800,000 in today's dollars. Some estimates put the indirect costs, including lost wages and productivity, at double that amount.
In a 1999 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Cook and his colleagues concluded that gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 produced $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs. Taxpayers footed half of that through Medicaid, Medicare, workers' compensation and other programs.
In a follow-up book, "Gun Violence: The Real Costs," published in 2000, Cook and Jens Ludwig estimated that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year, with medical costs only a small part of that.
This is just the financial cost, but there are other societal costs to gun violence in harm to families and destruction of neighbourhoods.
As I keep saying "Pro-life" society would work to make sure that basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.
Of course, this is an effort to take seriously the possibility of a “pro-life” philosophy and to examine what that might entail other than opposition to abortion. Of course, another possibility is that antiabortion people are not really interested in developing a “pro-life” philosophy but rather are just using the “pro-life” label because it will enhance their political effectiveness. Labeling oneself as “pro-life” is a form of self-aggrandizement, in part because it casts aspersions on one’s adversaries, implying that these opponents are “anti-life.” It is very unlikely that anyone would willingly seek or accept the label of “anti-life.” In that respect, the situation may be similar to those created by the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and the National Right to Work Committee; who would volunteer to be the advocate of an “insane nuclear policy” or oppose the right of people to work?
But, why try to hide the fact, that this may not be a "pro-life" position, but one that is far more insidious.
Well, I guess you need the guns to kill abortion doctors.
There is a serious problem with this position, but I don't expect that someone who is stupid enough to believe one can be pro-life and pro-gun would comprehend the disconnect.
First off, up to a point, the foetus is a speculative life. The foetus can miscarry. That seems a simple enough concept to grasp. Up until birth, there is the possibility that the foetus can miscarry. Modern technology has reduced the level of infant mortality, but birth also isn't a guarantee that a child will live.
On the other hand, those who have been born sacrifice their "innocence".
We can put a face on a foetus, but we make gun violence victims into statistics.
I know I sounded callous in my Bart Stupak post, but that is the type of disconnect I see in people who are pro-life and pro-gun. Even more disconcerting, is that Stupak's family suffered from gun violence.
People like Nicole Dufresne, BJ Stupak, Melanie Hain, and others are the real face of gun violence in America, not the overestimated and anecdotal DGUs the gun cretin crowd cite.
Another problem is that the assertion that guns are the only effective method implies that only deadly force is effective for self-defence. That deadly force is the only effective means of self-defence in of itself should be enough to make it ridiculous to assert that one is "pro-life".
Once people start rationalizing the deliberate taking of life, they are on a slippery slope. Before they know it, they are in a situation of having to destroy a village in order to save it, are in a plane over Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Could a person in an ICBM launch control center or on a submarine, ready and willing to turn the keys that would launch the missiles carrying nuclear warheads aimed to kill over 100 million people in half an hour, possibly be considered “pro-life”? If so, then it may be futile to seek limits to the killing in which one is willing to engage.
Personally, the lack of gun control impacts society in such a way, that one cannot possibly call themselves pro-life and pro-gun.
The problem is that more than 12,000 homicides by gun were reported in the United States in 2005. But the number who are wounded and survive gunshot assaults is much greater — nearly 53,000 were treated in emergency rooms in 2006, the same federal database shows.
A report in the journal Spinal Cord a decade ago estimated the direct lifetime charges for every shooting victim at $600,000, or nearly $800,000 in today's dollars. Some estimates put the indirect costs, including lost wages and productivity, at double that amount.
In a 1999 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Cook and his colleagues concluded that gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 produced $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs. Taxpayers footed half of that through Medicaid, Medicare, workers' compensation and other programs.
In a follow-up book, "Gun Violence: The Real Costs," published in 2000, Cook and Jens Ludwig estimated that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year, with medical costs only a small part of that.
This is just the financial cost, but there are other societal costs to gun violence in harm to families and destruction of neighbourhoods.
As I keep saying "Pro-life" society would work to make sure that basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.
Of course, this is an effort to take seriously the possibility of a “pro-life” philosophy and to examine what that might entail other than opposition to abortion. Of course, another possibility is that antiabortion people are not really interested in developing a “pro-life” philosophy but rather are just using the “pro-life” label because it will enhance their political effectiveness. Labeling oneself as “pro-life” is a form of self-aggrandizement, in part because it casts aspersions on one’s adversaries, implying that these opponents are “anti-life.” It is very unlikely that anyone would willingly seek or accept the label of “anti-life.” In that respect, the situation may be similar to those created by the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and the National Right to Work Committee; who would volunteer to be the advocate of an “insane nuclear policy” or oppose the right of people to work?
But, why try to hide the fact, that this may not be a "pro-life" position, but one that is far more insidious.
27 October 2009
Bart Stupak--Sick Motherfucker!
It comes to my attention that Bart Stupak claims to be pro-Life. The origin of this rant is that this "pro-life" dickhead claims enough votes to stop health care bill over abortion.
Health care is a "pro-life" concept even if it has provisions for abortion on demand. As I said before:
Anyway, if you didn't know it, Stupak's son, BJ, killed himself with a firearm on May 14, 2000. Yet does this asshole do anything about trying to prevent gun violence? fuck no? In fact, the fucker blamed accutane rather than the gun.
I've got news for you, Dickhead, I've gone through two courses of accutane and only came out of it with a bad sunburn.
But I had two things going for me, I wasn't mentally ill and I didn't have access to a firearm.
Instead of trying to stop other senseless deaths, it seems that Stupak claims to be "pro-life". That means he works to curtail women's access to birth control and if they have a "whoops": safe abortions. That means they would ultimately have to find some illegal source to terminate the unwanted pregnancy which could result in serious injury or death.
I guess he's one of those "kill a doctor for life" crowd.
There is a really sick trend in the US to calling yourself "pro-life" yet instead of doing things that promote and work to make life better, they try to make life hard for people. They want to punish. Punish women for having sex.
If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
An unborn baby is an "innocent life", yet Stupak's fucked up son wasn't worth putting his guns in a gun safe. Get the picture?
Naw, I'm not cynical or biased, these sick bastards will treat victims of gun death as scum the moment they get popped.
Remember Meleanie Hain?
Anyway, Stupak, call it like it is: you aren't pro-life. You're a fucked up, asshole and a piss poor father.
Your son deserved to die.
As the pro-choice crowd says, If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child.
In your case, it's if you aren't parent enough to keep your guns locked up in a safe, then your kid deserved to die.
It was his choice after all.
"Pro-life" my ass.
Punish your own sick ass, Stupak, not other people.
Health care is a "pro-life" concept even if it has provisions for abortion on demand. As I said before:
In a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay.
Anyway, if you didn't know it, Stupak's son, BJ, killed himself with a firearm on May 14, 2000. Yet does this asshole do anything about trying to prevent gun violence? fuck no? In fact, the fucker blamed accutane rather than the gun.
I've got news for you, Dickhead, I've gone through two courses of accutane and only came out of it with a bad sunburn.
But I had two things going for me, I wasn't mentally ill and I didn't have access to a firearm.
Instead of trying to stop other senseless deaths, it seems that Stupak claims to be "pro-life". That means he works to curtail women's access to birth control and if they have a "whoops": safe abortions. That means they would ultimately have to find some illegal source to terminate the unwanted pregnancy which could result in serious injury or death.
I guess he's one of those "kill a doctor for life" crowd.
There is a really sick trend in the US to calling yourself "pro-life" yet instead of doing things that promote and work to make life better, they try to make life hard for people. They want to punish. Punish women for having sex.
If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
An unborn baby is an "innocent life", yet Stupak's fucked up son wasn't worth putting his guns in a gun safe. Get the picture?
Naw, I'm not cynical or biased, these sick bastards will treat victims of gun death as scum the moment they get popped.
Remember Meleanie Hain?
Anyway, Stupak, call it like it is: you aren't pro-life. You're a fucked up, asshole and a piss poor father.
Your son deserved to die.
As the pro-choice crowd says, If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child.
In your case, it's if you aren't parent enough to keep your guns locked up in a safe, then your kid deserved to die.
It was his choice after all.
"Pro-life" my ass.
Punish your own sick ass, Stupak, not other people.
14 September 2009
Pro-Life????
I have long joked that the anti-abortion movement should adopt the motto "kill a doctor for life", but it seems they are now whining that Harlan Drake, an anti-abortion activist has been shot.
Of course, you can't ask for gun control. Nevermind the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the militia formed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution from being disarmed and no private purpose intended. Part of the use of abortion and gun control to keep the US political system as divisive as it is requires perpetuating the lie of an "individual right" (whatever that means) under the Second Amendment. And Heller didn't say shit since the holding said that Heller was able to register the gun provided he passed the registration requirements.
Donald Granberg said it pretty well in his post found at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1315.
What does that mean in practise?
Well, if you are truly pro-life, then you should be supporting health care and really concerned about gun control.
But the issue isn't really "pro-life" or Scalia wouldn't have put his name to that piece of shit called the Heller decision. It is anti-abortion.
So cut the crap folks: if you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.
BUT KEEP OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL DECISIONS: ESPECIALLY PERSONAL DECISIONS REGARDING MEDICAL CARE, WHICH ABORTION IS..
I have a serious problem with the US believing in gun rights, but denying the basic human rights of health care, housing, or education.
What is wrong with the situation where some asshole can show up at a rally where the president will be speaking with an assault rifle, scream tyranny and decry healthcare? Maybe we should send him to Iran or North Korea and learn about Tyranny.
Seriously, any other country and he would have been cuffed face down on the ground. In a tyrannical society they would have shot him without a by your leave.
That would have served him for being enough of an idiot to show up with a weapon. Maybe he will be more intelligent in his NEXT life.
Yanks are such cretins that they don't realise that a couple of people with the same type of rifle carried by the cretin in AZ held the US capitol hostage for a couple of weeks. There are people running around openly carrying guns. These people allow for the carnage at LA Fitness by blocking laws that would prevent access to firearms by psychos because they are Psychos who know they wouldn't be allowed firearms if registration were required.
Unfortunately, the US has this bizarre myth that requires them to attack and harm innocent people. On the other hand, there are people who go bankrupt from serious illnesses because the healthcare system in the states sucks. Yes, the US is #37 in the world as far as actual healthcare services go according to the World Health Organisation. Quote:
What is wrong with the picture of a person carrying an assault rifle to protest people having health care? Is it just me?
The US has some serious problems if the Second Amendment allows for George Sodini the firearms to kill and maim at LA fitness, yet Heather Sherba, one of Sodini's victims, has to have a car wash to pay for treatment.
Pro-life my arse.
Of course, you can't ask for gun control. Nevermind the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the militia formed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution from being disarmed and no private purpose intended. Part of the use of abortion and gun control to keep the US political system as divisive as it is requires perpetuating the lie of an "individual right" (whatever that means) under the Second Amendment. And Heller didn't say shit since the holding said that Heller was able to register the gun provided he passed the registration requirements.
Donald Granberg said it pretty well in his post found at http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1315.
In a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.
On the matter of health, it almost goes without saying that the “pro-life” person would refrain from smoking, oppose government subsidy of domestic tobacco production and sale to overseas markets, encourage physical fitness, and donate blood for transfusions to people whose lives might thereby be saved. Also, insofar as a surplus existed, one might also expect the society to provide relief to needy people in other societies in the form of nonmilitary foreign aid, directly providing goods or teaching developmental skills.
The U.S. is a violent society, as reflected in the statistics showing the very high rate at which we kill each other and the frequency with which we go to war. We are a nation armed to the teeth, in terms of civilians owning guns and in terms of the amount we spend on the military.
At both levels there are sincere and well-intentioned people who believe that having more weapons makes for more safety, peace and security. Statistics, however, do not bear this out. There is no evidence that would indicate that a family is less likely to die from gunshot wounds if it keeps guns in the house. In fact, the contrary is true.
What does that mean in practise?
Well, if you are truly pro-life, then you should be supporting health care and really concerned about gun control.
But the issue isn't really "pro-life" or Scalia wouldn't have put his name to that piece of shit called the Heller decision. It is anti-abortion.
So cut the crap folks: if you don't want an abortion, then don't have one.
BUT KEEP OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S PERSONAL DECISIONS: ESPECIALLY PERSONAL DECISIONS REGARDING MEDICAL CARE, WHICH ABORTION IS..
I have a serious problem with the US believing in gun rights, but denying the basic human rights of health care, housing, or education.
What is wrong with the situation where some asshole can show up at a rally where the president will be speaking with an assault rifle, scream tyranny and decry healthcare? Maybe we should send him to Iran or North Korea and learn about Tyranny.
Seriously, any other country and he would have been cuffed face down on the ground. In a tyrannical society they would have shot him without a by your leave.
That would have served him for being enough of an idiot to show up with a weapon. Maybe he will be more intelligent in his NEXT life.
Yanks are such cretins that they don't realise that a couple of people with the same type of rifle carried by the cretin in AZ held the US capitol hostage for a couple of weeks. There are people running around openly carrying guns. These people allow for the carnage at LA Fitness by blocking laws that would prevent access to firearms by psychos because they are Psychos who know they wouldn't be allowed firearms if registration were required.
Unfortunately, the US has this bizarre myth that requires them to attack and harm innocent people. On the other hand, there are people who go bankrupt from serious illnesses because the healthcare system in the states sucks. Yes, the US is #37 in the world as far as actual healthcare services go according to the World Health Organisation. Quote:
In spite of improvements, on various measures of health outcomes the United States appears to rank relatively poorly among OECD countries. Health expenditures, in contrast, are significantly higher than in any other OECD country. While there are factors beyond the health-care system itself that contribute to this gap in performance, there is also likely to be scope to improve the health of Americans while reducing, or at least not increasing spending.
What is wrong with the picture of a person carrying an assault rifle to protest people having health care? Is it just me?
The US has some serious problems if the Second Amendment allows for George Sodini the firearms to kill and maim at LA fitness, yet Heather Sherba, one of Sodini's victims, has to have a car wash to pay for treatment.
Pro-life my arse.
05 September 2008
It's 9 O'Clock. Do you know where your daughter is Mr. and Mrs. Palin?
Now, I know everyone is saying: lay off poor Bristol Palin (editorial note: WTF did the Palins give their kid a name which means "breasts" in British slang?) and her parents, but these are people who purport to believe in family values. Despite Sarah's claim that she is against corruption, she did fire an Alaskan State Trooper because he was having custody problems with Ms. Palin's sister.
Now, why couldn't they have used the troopers to suss out the boy their daughter is dating? I mean, I don't run about saying "family values" like its a mantra, but I sure as hell would like to know about who is dating my daughter. I mean if the kid calls himself "a fucking redneck" who doesn't want children on his myspace, I sure as hell would like to know.
We can tell he is pretty irresponsible without him getting my daughter preggers.
Also, doesn't "family values" mean that you talk with your daughter about sex and the possibility of getting pregnant? Or are you hoping that your daughter will be abstainent?
OK, The Palins don't believe in abortion and poor little Bristol will now have a taste of responsibility, which isn't fair as she wasn't responsible in the first place. It's fine that the Palins don't believe in abortion for themselves, as I said in a previous post, they can have 100 children through rape, incest, irresponsibility, etcetera.
On the other hand, Choice means that one can make up their own mind whether or not to have an abortion. I would want my child to have the option of having an abortion. I can also afford to send my child somewhere it would be legal to have an abortion, but that is not an option for everyone.
If Ms. Palin believes that government should keep out of people's business, then she should believe that government has no right to dictate a person's personal choice, especially where having children is concerned.
On the other hand, Ms. Palin also believes in Censorship and caused the Wasilla Librarian to resign.
Now, I am pretty certain that the Palins subscribe to the Insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. This is the belief that armed resistance is acceptable against tyranny. I believe that the imposition of others' religious opinions and the violation of First Amendment rights falls square under the defintion of tyranny.
Additionally, I am not sure that Ms. Palin totally supports the US Constitution given her voicing support for the Alaskan Independence Party and dubious connections to that party. She may not have been a registered AKIP member, but she has made enough comments to make me wonder about her loyalty to the United, er Failed States of America.
I mean, I should run for president if this woman is running for vice-president and I make no bones that the US government is illegitimate as it was based upon a rebellion that was not supported by all the citizens. Additionally, as is the case with these fake elections, the political system has failed.
I owe allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain.
So, Sarah, come out of the closet and show your true colours, which are Navy and Gold, not red, white and blue.
You have nothing in common with those citizens of the "lower 48".
Now, why couldn't they have used the troopers to suss out the boy their daughter is dating? I mean, I don't run about saying "family values" like its a mantra, but I sure as hell would like to know about who is dating my daughter. I mean if the kid calls himself "a fucking redneck" who doesn't want children on his myspace, I sure as hell would like to know.
We can tell he is pretty irresponsible without him getting my daughter preggers.
Also, doesn't "family values" mean that you talk with your daughter about sex and the possibility of getting pregnant? Or are you hoping that your daughter will be abstainent?
OK, The Palins don't believe in abortion and poor little Bristol will now have a taste of responsibility, which isn't fair as she wasn't responsible in the first place. It's fine that the Palins don't believe in abortion for themselves, as I said in a previous post, they can have 100 children through rape, incest, irresponsibility, etcetera.
On the other hand, Choice means that one can make up their own mind whether or not to have an abortion. I would want my child to have the option of having an abortion. I can also afford to send my child somewhere it would be legal to have an abortion, but that is not an option for everyone.
If Ms. Palin believes that government should keep out of people's business, then she should believe that government has no right to dictate a person's personal choice, especially where having children is concerned.
On the other hand, Ms. Palin also believes in Censorship and caused the Wasilla Librarian to resign.
Now, I am pretty certain that the Palins subscribe to the Insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. This is the belief that armed resistance is acceptable against tyranny. I believe that the imposition of others' religious opinions and the violation of First Amendment rights falls square under the defintion of tyranny.
Additionally, I am not sure that Ms. Palin totally supports the US Constitution given her voicing support for the Alaskan Independence Party and dubious connections to that party. She may not have been a registered AKIP member, but she has made enough comments to make me wonder about her loyalty to the United, er Failed States of America.
I mean, I should run for president if this woman is running for vice-president and I make no bones that the US government is illegitimate as it was based upon a rebellion that was not supported by all the citizens. Additionally, as is the case with these fake elections, the political system has failed.
I owe allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain.
So, Sarah, come out of the closet and show your true colours, which are Navy and Gold, not red, white and blue.
You have nothing in common with those citizens of the "lower 48".
09 April 2008
Abortion
It totally bothers me that the US is so obsessed with abortion. While they have no qualms about using deadly force for self-defence, they don't mind bringing unwanted children into the world. Something about a "right to life".
Nevermind that the unborn child is a speculative life.
Nevermind that unwanted children contribute to the world's ills.
Paraphrasing the bumpersticker: if you can't trust a woman with a reproductive choice, how can you trust a person with a firearm?
Anyway, it seems that this fanatic hatred of abortion has led to the blocking of the word abortion from a database used by researchers. The restriction was put in place because of articles from an abortion advocacy magazine available on the site. The issue in question focused on abortion as a human rights issue and profiled abortion rights advocates around the world.
"We are disappointed," Anu Kumar, the executive director of Ipas (an international reproductive rights organization) said, "We know that 40 million abortions take place every year and nearly 20 million of them are unsafe. Women are literally dying while we're dithering about these words."
The problem is that the lives of real, living women are being harmed by a lack of access to abortion. On the other hand, some fanatics are worried about some "unborn" who may not survive term to actual life. What's wrong with this picture? I mean, why can't you pay to raise the children you bring into the world with education, housing, health care, and proper nutrition? No, it's cheaper to put them in prison.
Now, I would tend toward the opposite extreme as far as "reproductive rights" go, given that there are too many people in the world. Most of these people are idiots, in particular, the RKBA crowd. I would reinstitute the "Mississippi appendectomy" which was a clandestine hysterectomy for welfare mothers. While we're at it. We can do something similar with the criminal population and give them forced vasectomies.
Fuck, sterilise the population at large. The wrong people are breeding and the world is full of idiots.
The RKBA crowd don't want laws to protect us from unsafe guns: So, sell them exploding firearms and ammunition. Maybe the RKBA will empirically prove that David Hemenway is correct while killing themselves off. Florida is already seeing a rise in gun crime due to the lax gun laws.
Of course, illegal abortion and legal guns is the sort of screwed up logic I've come to expect from the American public.
Nevermind that the unborn child is a speculative life.
Nevermind that unwanted children contribute to the world's ills.
Paraphrasing the bumpersticker: if you can't trust a woman with a reproductive choice, how can you trust a person with a firearm?
Anyway, it seems that this fanatic hatred of abortion has led to the blocking of the word abortion from a database used by researchers. The restriction was put in place because of articles from an abortion advocacy magazine available on the site. The issue in question focused on abortion as a human rights issue and profiled abortion rights advocates around the world.
"We are disappointed," Anu Kumar, the executive director of Ipas (an international reproductive rights organization) said, "We know that 40 million abortions take place every year and nearly 20 million of them are unsafe. Women are literally dying while we're dithering about these words."
The problem is that the lives of real, living women are being harmed by a lack of access to abortion. On the other hand, some fanatics are worried about some "unborn" who may not survive term to actual life. What's wrong with this picture? I mean, why can't you pay to raise the children you bring into the world with education, housing, health care, and proper nutrition? No, it's cheaper to put them in prison.
Now, I would tend toward the opposite extreme as far as "reproductive rights" go, given that there are too many people in the world. Most of these people are idiots, in particular, the RKBA crowd. I would reinstitute the "Mississippi appendectomy" which was a clandestine hysterectomy for welfare mothers. While we're at it. We can do something similar with the criminal population and give them forced vasectomies.
Fuck, sterilise the population at large. The wrong people are breeding and the world is full of idiots.
The RKBA crowd don't want laws to protect us from unsafe guns: So, sell them exploding firearms and ammunition. Maybe the RKBA will empirically prove that David Hemenway is correct while killing themselves off. Florida is already seeing a rise in gun crime due to the lax gun laws.
Of course, illegal abortion and legal guns is the sort of screwed up logic I've come to expect from the American public.
22 March 2008
Why none of the "public interest groups" want a definitive answer on Heller.
Quite frankly, if the SCOTUS does the sane and sensible thing by reiterating US v. Miller in idiot proof, plain English, then there will be an end to the interminable fund raising letters, e-mails, etcetera I receive. Not to mention the road will be indeed cleared for the possibility of a gun ban. Perhaps we will see much needed talk of gun responsibilities, rather than fictitious "gun rights".
On the other hand, finding "an individual right" outside of militia service will guarantee that there will be loads of litigation. We'll see loads more trash written about the "individual right". It'll be the gravy train for "Second Amendment" lawyers and scholars. Someone reading these blogs might offer me a lucrative job, especially if whatever opinion generated is not unanimous.
On the other hand, probably not since I would much prefer that my real Second Amendment right of being free from standing armies were implemented rather than some nonsensical right which never was intended to be part of the whole shebang. I would want to see an end to this and make the Second Amendment the dead letter it is for firearms ownership once and for all.
To be quite honest, I don't mind expanding rights in a Roe v. Wade fashion if it truly impinges upon something which affects only a person and his/her personal life. I do mind when the right leads to high social costs which is undeniable about "gun violence".
The RKBA crowd has a sticker which says "fear the government that fears your gun".
I say "fear the government which tells you how to run your personal life and doesn't care about the welfare of its citizens".
I don't want the government telling someone that she can or cannot have children. Worse, forcing children into this world without parents who want them. Especially if that government is unwilling to shoulder the burden of raising those children. Even more so when it is all too willing to pay to incarcerate those children rather than pay to properly educate them.
The government has no business telling me what I should believe as far as religion goes. Even more so since the Constitution says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means public officials should keep their arses out of proselytising.
I agree with Justice McReynolds when he said the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included an individual's right "to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
This means that I can do what I will if it doesn't lead to harming others. Unfettered firearms ownership does harm others. The cost of gun violence in terms of law enforcement, legal process, health care, etcetera is astronomical. Firearm ownership also makes no sense in a city for a multitude of reasons. And if a legislature also reaches that conclusion, it is not the place of the courts to come and second guess the legislative process.
On the other hand, finding "an individual right" outside of militia service will guarantee that there will be loads of litigation. We'll see loads more trash written about the "individual right". It'll be the gravy train for "Second Amendment" lawyers and scholars. Someone reading these blogs might offer me a lucrative job, especially if whatever opinion generated is not unanimous.
On the other hand, probably not since I would much prefer that my real Second Amendment right of being free from standing armies were implemented rather than some nonsensical right which never was intended to be part of the whole shebang. I would want to see an end to this and make the Second Amendment the dead letter it is for firearms ownership once and for all.
To be quite honest, I don't mind expanding rights in a Roe v. Wade fashion if it truly impinges upon something which affects only a person and his/her personal life. I do mind when the right leads to high social costs which is undeniable about "gun violence".
The RKBA crowd has a sticker which says "fear the government that fears your gun".
I say "fear the government which tells you how to run your personal life and doesn't care about the welfare of its citizens".
I don't want the government telling someone that she can or cannot have children. Worse, forcing children into this world without parents who want them. Especially if that government is unwilling to shoulder the burden of raising those children. Even more so when it is all too willing to pay to incarcerate those children rather than pay to properly educate them.
The government has no business telling me what I should believe as far as religion goes. Even more so since the Constitution says that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means public officials should keep their arses out of proselytising.
I agree with Justice McReynolds when he said the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included an individual's right "to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
This means that I can do what I will if it doesn't lead to harming others. Unfettered firearms ownership does harm others. The cost of gun violence in terms of law enforcement, legal process, health care, etcetera is astronomical. Firearm ownership also makes no sense in a city for a multitude of reasons. And if a legislature also reaches that conclusion, it is not the place of the courts to come and second guess the legislative process.
20 March 2008
frustrate their navish tricks.
I-95 has been closed for the past three days due to structural problems. Americans believe they are entitled to free highways and cheap petrol. Unfortunately, somebody has to pay to maintain the infrastructure.
As long as it's the other person.
The revolt was due to the fact that the Crown finally sent the Colonists a bill for their defence. Not just an army, but a navy to protect trade on the seas. Nevermind the taxes weren't as high as they were back in Blighty, it's being told they had to pay taxes.
"Tax and spend" is used as a criticism of "liberals", but we are finding the national debt is being increased since it is spend like a drunken sailor by "conservatives". More is spent on the pointless invasion of Iraq than the United States. Damn any source of revenue.
But, debt makes the world go 'round, which is a criticism of most of the world's governments since we are facing a crisis based upon massive lending without any consideration of who will eventually pay the bill.
OPM--Other People's Money
On the other hand, most currency has the words "will pay on demand the sum of" the note's denomination. So, really, we have debt. The War for Independence was based upon debt. Trash paper which was worthless, but was forced upon people to show their patriotism. The British paid in gold.
Of course, The citizens of the United States have gun control, abortion, prayer in school and other wedge issues trotted out so that nothing is done until a crisis arises. Even then, nothing gets done. Something might actually get done if the wedge issues were removed. On the other hand, why bother since it is easier to keep peoples' minds on other things than really deal with serious problems.
Let's have elections which take forever, but don't result in proper representation of the people. George Bush didn't win the last two popular elections, but he won in the electoral college. of course, a parliamentary system would result in new governments every two weeks. Either that, or people would be forced to work together.
The problem is that we have leaders who don't lead, they follow. They follow polls. They follow the money of special interests which pay for their campaigns. Special interests which are at odds with the interest of the American people.
As long as it's the other person.
The revolt was due to the fact that the Crown finally sent the Colonists a bill for their defence. Not just an army, but a navy to protect trade on the seas. Nevermind the taxes weren't as high as they were back in Blighty, it's being told they had to pay taxes.
"Tax and spend" is used as a criticism of "liberals", but we are finding the national debt is being increased since it is spend like a drunken sailor by "conservatives". More is spent on the pointless invasion of Iraq than the United States. Damn any source of revenue.
But, debt makes the world go 'round, which is a criticism of most of the world's governments since we are facing a crisis based upon massive lending without any consideration of who will eventually pay the bill.
OPM--Other People's Money
On the other hand, most currency has the words "will pay on demand the sum of" the note's denomination. So, really, we have debt. The War for Independence was based upon debt. Trash paper which was worthless, but was forced upon people to show their patriotism. The British paid in gold.
Of course, The citizens of the United States have gun control, abortion, prayer in school and other wedge issues trotted out so that nothing is done until a crisis arises. Even then, nothing gets done. Something might actually get done if the wedge issues were removed. On the other hand, why bother since it is easier to keep peoples' minds on other things than really deal with serious problems.
Let's have elections which take forever, but don't result in proper representation of the people. George Bush didn't win the last two popular elections, but he won in the electoral college. of course, a parliamentary system would result in new governments every two weeks. Either that, or people would be forced to work together.
The problem is that we have leaders who don't lead, they follow. They follow polls. They follow the money of special interests which pay for their campaigns. Special interests which are at odds with the interest of the American people.
07 March 2008
Sex and the Old Testament
Changing the subject back to something much more fun: Today's Independent has an article titled "What they don't teach at Sunday school: the joy of Old Testament sex". There is an anecdote about Evelyn Waugh who was trapped in the company of Randolph Churchill, the son of the prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a shit!'."
Of course, that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who has read (or seen) A Clockwork Orange in which Alex starts reading the bible for the same things that the younger Churchill discovered: that there are some very dark passages in the Old Testament, stories of lust and cruelty that have no obvious moral. Incest, bigamy, rape, mutilation, deceit, loyalty and love can all be found in the Good Book.
A professor at Bangor University, Nathan Abrams, has put together a book about the sexy bits in the Bible called Sex and the Jews in which he comes up with some pretty interesting observations.
I have found that Judaism is a whole lot more liberated about sex than its bastard progeny, Christianity. For example, abortion is not a problem for Jews who do not believe in life beginning at conception. In fact, the Jewish perspective is closer to the medical perspective which is that the unborn infant's life is purely speculative, but the mother is a living person whose life and well being should be considered.
Written by different authors, possibly at very different times, the Old Testament can be self-contradictory. The story in 1 Samuel of the friendship between David, the handsome young warrior who has just killed Goliath, and Jonathan, son of King Saul, is often interpreted as a tale of gay love. In one verse, it says: "And it came to pass... that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." If they were gay lovers, there is no indication that the God of the Old Testament disapproved, a reaction that fits comfortably with modern enlightenment culture.
In other passages, God's attitude to sex seems shockingly repressive, as when, for instance, he pronounces a death sentence on Onan, for pleasuring himself in a way that denied his wife the chance to become pregnant. Hardline theologians might like the idea that all sex is sinful other than for the purpose of procreation, but for the more liberal-minded, it is a tricky story. It arises from a culture in which a woman's standing in the community and sense of self-worth depended heavily on her capacity to produce children.
Dr Abrams, who comes from a Jewish family, was also struck by the curious morality of the Old Testament, as displayed by Lot, a righteous man who offers hospitality to travellers passing through Sodom, and when a mob gathers wanting to rape the men, offers his virgin daughters instead. It is as if the girls' virginity belongs to their father, who is so good that he is prepared to sacrifice this precious possession for the sake of his guests. Later, when the going gets rough, Lot is seduced by those same daughters – another tale of the desperate lengths women went to achieve motherhood.
"I think the lesson to be drawn from this story is about what can happen sometimes when people are set obsessively on a certain path, even if it is the right path," Dr Abrams said. He is now bracing himself for the reaction he can expect to his book, either from traditional Jews or, at the opposite extreme, from people who will see the book as food for their anti-Semitic prejudices.
"I'm not a theologian, and I don't speak for any organisation or community. I just want to start a discussion on issues that might not have been discussed in this detail before. These are serious essays by people who have been studying these subjects for a long time ... These essays haven't been written to shock and they're not sensationalist or purely prurient.
"There are parts of the Jewish community that don't like us airing our dirty laundry in public ... and there are anti-Semites who will like what we are doing. They will say it justifies their view of Jews as sexually corrupting. I don't think these people should stop us having a healthy debate."
On the other hand, I question where Christian theology has come up with its perspectives upon the Bible which vary greatly from Jewish scholars. Talmud scholars spend most of their time debating the fine points of the Bible, and have been doing so for long before most Christian scholars ever knew Hebrew. I mean it IS the Jewish holy book which has had extra texts added on to it.
This isn't the essay to get into what parts of the "New Testament" are valid or not, but there are apocryphal texts out there which have a different take on Christianity (e.g., the Gospel of Mary Magdalen). The Baptists criticise the Mormons for adding on texts to a perfect Bible, but who decided which of these texts were valid? Was the Council of Nicea divinely inspired or politically motivated? Likewise, who is to say that texts which go against Judaism are valid?
Whatever the case, Judaism has a totally different attitude toward sex and Childbearing than does Christianity. An attitude which is much more tolerant toward sex.
Of course, that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who has read (or seen) A Clockwork Orange in which Alex starts reading the bible for the same things that the younger Churchill discovered: that there are some very dark passages in the Old Testament, stories of lust and cruelty that have no obvious moral. Incest, bigamy, rape, mutilation, deceit, loyalty and love can all be found in the Good Book.
A professor at Bangor University, Nathan Abrams, has put together a book about the sexy bits in the Bible called Sex and the Jews in which he comes up with some pretty interesting observations.
I have found that Judaism is a whole lot more liberated about sex than its bastard progeny, Christianity. For example, abortion is not a problem for Jews who do not believe in life beginning at conception. In fact, the Jewish perspective is closer to the medical perspective which is that the unborn infant's life is purely speculative, but the mother is a living person whose life and well being should be considered.
Written by different authors, possibly at very different times, the Old Testament can be self-contradictory. The story in 1 Samuel of the friendship between David, the handsome young warrior who has just killed Goliath, and Jonathan, son of King Saul, is often interpreted as a tale of gay love. In one verse, it says: "And it came to pass... that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." If they were gay lovers, there is no indication that the God of the Old Testament disapproved, a reaction that fits comfortably with modern enlightenment culture.
In other passages, God's attitude to sex seems shockingly repressive, as when, for instance, he pronounces a death sentence on Onan, for pleasuring himself in a way that denied his wife the chance to become pregnant. Hardline theologians might like the idea that all sex is sinful other than for the purpose of procreation, but for the more liberal-minded, it is a tricky story. It arises from a culture in which a woman's standing in the community and sense of self-worth depended heavily on her capacity to produce children.
Dr Abrams, who comes from a Jewish family, was also struck by the curious morality of the Old Testament, as displayed by Lot, a righteous man who offers hospitality to travellers passing through Sodom, and when a mob gathers wanting to rape the men, offers his virgin daughters instead. It is as if the girls' virginity belongs to their father, who is so good that he is prepared to sacrifice this precious possession for the sake of his guests. Later, when the going gets rough, Lot is seduced by those same daughters – another tale of the desperate lengths women went to achieve motherhood.
"I think the lesson to be drawn from this story is about what can happen sometimes when people are set obsessively on a certain path, even if it is the right path," Dr Abrams said. He is now bracing himself for the reaction he can expect to his book, either from traditional Jews or, at the opposite extreme, from people who will see the book as food for their anti-Semitic prejudices.
"I'm not a theologian, and I don't speak for any organisation or community. I just want to start a discussion on issues that might not have been discussed in this detail before. These are serious essays by people who have been studying these subjects for a long time ... These essays haven't been written to shock and they're not sensationalist or purely prurient.
"There are parts of the Jewish community that don't like us airing our dirty laundry in public ... and there are anti-Semites who will like what we are doing. They will say it justifies their view of Jews as sexually corrupting. I don't think these people should stop us having a healthy debate."
On the other hand, I question where Christian theology has come up with its perspectives upon the Bible which vary greatly from Jewish scholars. Talmud scholars spend most of their time debating the fine points of the Bible, and have been doing so for long before most Christian scholars ever knew Hebrew. I mean it IS the Jewish holy book which has had extra texts added on to it.
This isn't the essay to get into what parts of the "New Testament" are valid or not, but there are apocryphal texts out there which have a different take on Christianity (e.g., the Gospel of Mary Magdalen). The Baptists criticise the Mormons for adding on texts to a perfect Bible, but who decided which of these texts were valid? Was the Council of Nicea divinely inspired or politically motivated? Likewise, who is to say that texts which go against Judaism are valid?
Whatever the case, Judaism has a totally different attitude toward sex and Childbearing than does Christianity. An attitude which is much more tolerant toward sex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
