...And nobody cared.
Well, that's not strictly true. The Republicans who won a couple of close elections cared. And both opponents and supporters of Maine's same-sex marriage law cared.
On that note, same-sex marriage is now 0-for-31 in popular elections across the country. Are people really that afraid?
What exactly is the deal here? I acknowledge that poll numbers are always inaccurate concerning this issue: nobody wants to appear intolerant over the phone three months before the election, but when they're by themselves in that voting booth appearances don't seem as important. That suggests that people really are that afraid, and that they are voting their fears on election day.
But is that enough to explain this phenomenon? 0-for-31 is shockingly bad! That's the kind of percentage that converts an outfielder into a pitcher. (Yes, I'm deliberately tying this in for fans of my other blogs:P) So why is the outcome so consistent? Is it really just latent fear? Or is it the result of someone stirring that latent fear; in some cases even someone turning that natural human fear of what's "different" into a frenzy of political outrage?
And who's behind this outrage? Religions.
Yes, you heard me correctly. The vast majority of contributions (monetary or otherwise) toward opposing same-sex marriage efforts comes from religious groups.
iBear will even go one step farther and give them an accurate name: Religious Lobbyists.
And yet these religious lobbyists are tax-exempt. Does that strike anyone else as odd?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
"Nobel jury speaks out in defense of Obama prize"
Link to an article from The Associated Press outlining a rare explanation of the Nobel Prize Committee's decision process.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irLyPrFK_rtRwMOsfjRBFjGDVZCgD9BAFHMO0
Of note:
Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.
"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said.
So while I may disagree on whether his efforts actually deserved a Nobel Prize, I am pleased to hear that the Committee based their decision on his efforts rather than his politics. I can't say that I would've awarded him a Nobel Prize for those efforts, but then I'm not on the committee:)
Sincerest apologies to the Nobel Prize Committee if they found my email disrespectful or condescending. (And they may have...) My thanks for making an effort to clear up the confusion. We've entered the realm of "Agree to Disagree", and it isn't my decision to make.
Peace.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5irLyPrFK_rtRwMOsfjRBFjGDVZCgD9BAFHMO0
Of note:
Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.
"All these things have contributed to — I wouldn't say a safer world — but a world with less tension," he said.
So while I may disagree on whether his efforts actually deserved a Nobel Prize, I am pleased to hear that the Committee based their decision on his efforts rather than his politics. I can't say that I would've awarded him a Nobel Prize for those efforts, but then I'm not on the committee:)
Sincerest apologies to the Nobel Prize Committee if they found my email disrespectful or condescending. (And they may have...) My thanks for making an effort to clear up the confusion. We've entered the realm of "Agree to Disagree", and it isn't my decision to make.
Peace.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Hillary was RIGHT!?
Stumbled across a very interesting Wall Street Journal article today.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574469203986653982.html
Perhaps the most memorable part for me was the deliberately drawn parallel between the words of the Nobel Prize Committee's Chairman and one of Hillary's Clinton'08 ads:
"It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military--someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world."--Hillary Clinton campaign ad, February 2008
"Traditionally, Nobel laureates are notified in advance but Thorbjoern Jagland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister who chaired the five-strong committee, decided against it. 'Waking up a president in the middle of the night, this isn't really something you do,' he said."--Times (London), Oct. 9, 2009
I kinda hope Hillary's reading this...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574469203986653982.html
Perhaps the most memorable part for me was the deliberately drawn parallel between the words of the Nobel Prize Committee's Chairman and one of Hillary's Clinton'08 ads:
"It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military--someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world."--Hillary Clinton campaign ad, February 2008
"Traditionally, Nobel laureates are notified in advance but Thorbjoern Jagland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister who chaired the five-strong committee, decided against it. 'Waking up a president in the middle of the night, this isn't really something you do,' he said."--Times (London), Oct. 9, 2009
I kinda hope Hillary's reading this...
Friday, October 9, 2009
Wait...a Nobel Peace Prize?
Everyone who has the slightest interest in politics--and that probably includes you since you're here:P--knows by now that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize today.
But why?
No one seems able to answer this question. The committee chairman, former Norwegian prime minister Thorbjorn Jagland, claimed that the award was not for future actions, but for "what he has done in the previous year." Here at the blog we are attempting to get details on exactly what accomplishments Mr. Jagland was referring to, and if and when I receive a response to my email I will try to clear that up.
Of course conservative critics were quick to accuse the Nobel Prize committee of rewarding Obama for being more in line with their own political and idealogical leanings. And unfortunately, until I hear more specifics from the committee themselves I'm forced to agree. Has the Nobel Prize really been reduced to nothing more than a seal of political approval?
Details if/when I get them.
But why?
No one seems able to answer this question. The committee chairman, former Norwegian prime minister Thorbjorn Jagland, claimed that the award was not for future actions, but for "what he has done in the previous year." Here at the blog we are attempting to get details on exactly what accomplishments Mr. Jagland was referring to, and if and when I receive a response to my email I will try to clear that up.
Of course conservative critics were quick to accuse the Nobel Prize committee of rewarding Obama for being more in line with their own political and idealogical leanings. And unfortunately, until I hear more specifics from the committee themselves I'm forced to agree. Has the Nobel Prize really been reduced to nothing more than a seal of political approval?
Details if/when I get them.
Friday, September 25, 2009
1st post in a while. (Stocking up for the weekend:P)
G20 summit in Pittsburgh. A sign of communication and cooperation among world leaders. An excellent chance for the city of Pittsburgh to show off its makeover: gone is the hellish, smog-ridden industrial furnace. In its place is a new, revitalized, beautiful city doing what it can to lead the way into tomorrow. (But the Steelers still thrash people, right? Okay good...just checking:P)
Props for the city of Pittsburgh, but one question: Does anybody know what that maniac with the bullhorn was shouting on the evening news last night? Honestly, the punk could've been reciting Shakespeare for all I know.
"But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?"
"What!? Did I not put plywood over that one!?"
Take it easy; )
Props for the city of Pittsburgh, but one question: Does anybody know what that maniac with the bullhorn was shouting on the evening news last night? Honestly, the punk could've been reciting Shakespeare for all I know.
"But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?"
"What!? Did I not put plywood over that one!?"
Take it easy; )
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Been thinking about this for a few weeks now.
And I think I've decided to put it on both my Political Blog AND my Ex-Mormon Blog. Either one seemed appropriate, so I'll double up.
I'm talking, of course, about the recent shooting of Dr. George Tiller, famous performer of late-term abortions. He was fatally shot while attending his church services on Sunday, May 31st.
His death--or rather the CIRCUMSTANCES of his death--once again forced me to consider my own views on this topic. And once again, I find myself arriving at the very same quandary.
Dr. Tiller's death was, without doubt or qualification, a cold-blooded murder. No matter how much "good" the shooter believed he was about to accomplish, there is NO justification for gunning down an unarmed man as he passes out programs at his church services.
But that isn't the topic I mentioned. I was referring to abortion.
I am more than familiar with the standard arguments: "No one has the right to take away a woman's control over her own body!" vs. "No one has the right to kill a healthy, viable unborn baby just because it's an INCONVENIENCE!"
Both arguments have some merit. The libertarian in me believes that an individual's rights can only be curtailed in cases where another individual's rights are being violated. So women DO and SHOULD have control over their own bodies. However, the other side of that argument is that a fetus IS potentially another individual, and therefore an abortion IS violating someone's rights: specifically the right to life.
This is certainly a subject that deserves consideration. But consideration has never been something that iBear shies away from, and with my experience in/around the medical field and my own areas of specialized study, I believe myself more capable than the average layperson of rendering that consideration.
First: in my considered opinion, a fetus at 8.5 months of pregnancy IS a human being, and is therefore entitled to basic human rights. Therefore, terminating the pregnancy at this point is effectively killing another human being, and therefore qualifies as a form of homicide. Of course there ARE sometimes extenuating circumstances--for example when the mother's life is in danger--and in those circumstances it is certainly acceptable to abort a pregnancy.
But on the other hand, a zygote at 8.5 DAYS of pregnancy is NOT a human being. It is simply a cluster of cells, and a cluster of cells is NOT entitled to human rights. Indeed, at 8.5 days the vast majority of women would have no idea that they were pregnant yet. Terminating the pregnancy at THIS point is NOT a form of homicide, as no human being has been injured. Life DOES NOT begin at conception.
So this is the formation of the quandary. A late-term fetus IS a human being, and DOES have rights. A cluster of stem cells is NOT a human being, and does NOT have rights. So at some point between conception and birth, the embryo becomes a person. Before this point, it has no rights. After this point, it does. But no one knows where this point is.
Currently, there are two controversial rules-of-thumb for locating the point when a zygote becomes a "person."
The first is the common pro-life suggestion that life begins at conception. They claim that a zygote itself fits the basic definition of biological life and therefore human rights attach from the moment of conception. But I've already addressed this point, and in my considered opinion this is simply not the case. My STOMACH LINING fits the basic definition of biological life. But no one in their right mind would suggest that the rapidly-reproducing cells in the epithelial wall of my digestive tract constitute their own legal individual. So simply meeting the biological requirements of "life" is not enough.
The second is the equally-common pro-choice suggestion that life doesn't start until birth. But this strikes me as black-and-white thinking in a gray world, and once again I'm forced to disagree. At 9 months, even an unborn fetus is alive. It has a heartbeat, brain activity, and all other medical requirements to meet that standard. The differences between a fetus one hour before birth and a baby one hour after birth are negligible. There is no miraculous transformation that suddenly makes this one a human being and that one NOT a human being.
So I don't know. And unlike the first 20 years of my life, that doesn't really bother me anymore. As a Mormon, I would have been informed by priesthood leaders what I was to believe. Now I get to figure it out on my own. It's a very freeing sensation, and yet a difficult dilemma. I look forward to trying to get a handle on it.
Tune in later:)
I'm talking, of course, about the recent shooting of Dr. George Tiller, famous performer of late-term abortions. He was fatally shot while attending his church services on Sunday, May 31st.
His death--or rather the CIRCUMSTANCES of his death--once again forced me to consider my own views on this topic. And once again, I find myself arriving at the very same quandary.
Dr. Tiller's death was, without doubt or qualification, a cold-blooded murder. No matter how much "good" the shooter believed he was about to accomplish, there is NO justification for gunning down an unarmed man as he passes out programs at his church services.
But that isn't the topic I mentioned. I was referring to abortion.
I am more than familiar with the standard arguments: "No one has the right to take away a woman's control over her own body!" vs. "No one has the right to kill a healthy, viable unborn baby just because it's an INCONVENIENCE!"
Both arguments have some merit. The libertarian in me believes that an individual's rights can only be curtailed in cases where another individual's rights are being violated. So women DO and SHOULD have control over their own bodies. However, the other side of that argument is that a fetus IS potentially another individual, and therefore an abortion IS violating someone's rights: specifically the right to life.
This is certainly a subject that deserves consideration. But consideration has never been something that iBear shies away from, and with my experience in/around the medical field and my own areas of specialized study, I believe myself more capable than the average layperson of rendering that consideration.
First: in my considered opinion, a fetus at 8.5 months of pregnancy IS a human being, and is therefore entitled to basic human rights. Therefore, terminating the pregnancy at this point is effectively killing another human being, and therefore qualifies as a form of homicide. Of course there ARE sometimes extenuating circumstances--for example when the mother's life is in danger--and in those circumstances it is certainly acceptable to abort a pregnancy.
But on the other hand, a zygote at 8.5 DAYS of pregnancy is NOT a human being. It is simply a cluster of cells, and a cluster of cells is NOT entitled to human rights. Indeed, at 8.5 days the vast majority of women would have no idea that they were pregnant yet. Terminating the pregnancy at THIS point is NOT a form of homicide, as no human being has been injured. Life DOES NOT begin at conception.
So this is the formation of the quandary. A late-term fetus IS a human being, and DOES have rights. A cluster of stem cells is NOT a human being, and does NOT have rights. So at some point between conception and birth, the embryo becomes a person. Before this point, it has no rights. After this point, it does. But no one knows where this point is.
Currently, there are two controversial rules-of-thumb for locating the point when a zygote becomes a "person."
The first is the common pro-life suggestion that life begins at conception. They claim that a zygote itself fits the basic definition of biological life and therefore human rights attach from the moment of conception. But I've already addressed this point, and in my considered opinion this is simply not the case. My STOMACH LINING fits the basic definition of biological life. But no one in their right mind would suggest that the rapidly-reproducing cells in the epithelial wall of my digestive tract constitute their own legal individual. So simply meeting the biological requirements of "life" is not enough.
The second is the equally-common pro-choice suggestion that life doesn't start until birth. But this strikes me as black-and-white thinking in a gray world, and once again I'm forced to disagree. At 9 months, even an unborn fetus is alive. It has a heartbeat, brain activity, and all other medical requirements to meet that standard. The differences between a fetus one hour before birth and a baby one hour after birth are negligible. There is no miraculous transformation that suddenly makes this one a human being and that one NOT a human being.
So I don't know. And unlike the first 20 years of my life, that doesn't really bother me anymore. As a Mormon, I would have been informed by priesthood leaders what I was to believe. Now I get to figure it out on my own. It's a very freeing sensation, and yet a difficult dilemma. I look forward to trying to get a handle on it.
Tune in later:)
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Proposition 8 upheld: same-sex marriage still illegal in CA.
Having waded my way through the bandwidth problems on the CA Supreme Court website, and then burrowed my way through the legal brief accompanying the Court's opinion, I am now one of the first to officially announce the news: Proposition 8 WAS ruled a valid amendment, and no more same-sex marriages are to be performed in CA.
HOWEVER, the court ruled that the amendment was NOT retroactive, and so the approximately 18,000 couples married last year are STILL married.
Both of these were absolutely forseeable: the court was not expected to overturn a direct ballot initiative. The line between "amendment" and "revision" is very blurry in CA, and there was no way to convincingly argue that this was one rather than the other. And the CA constitution bans retroactive lawmaking, so iBear - if no one else - expected that the 18,000 couples would remain married.
The people of CA have spoken, and their judges have listened. In reading over the opinions, I understand that the court believes that this places greater emphasis on ensuring that civil unions are equal to marriage. Still reading, so more details if/when they develop.
All the best, and tune in later.
HOWEVER, the court ruled that the amendment was NOT retroactive, and so the approximately 18,000 couples married last year are STILL married.
Both of these were absolutely forseeable: the court was not expected to overturn a direct ballot initiative. The line between "amendment" and "revision" is very blurry in CA, and there was no way to convincingly argue that this was one rather than the other. And the CA constitution bans retroactive lawmaking, so iBear - if no one else - expected that the 18,000 couples would remain married.
The people of CA have spoken, and their judges have listened. In reading over the opinions, I understand that the court believes that this places greater emphasis on ensuring that civil unions are equal to marriage. Still reading, so more details if/when they develop.
All the best, and tune in later.
Monday, May 25, 2009
And we're back! :)
Politics have been slow for the last few months, and I've been busy with other things. (Check my other blogs...) But tomorrow the CA State Supreme Court rules on Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage. And iBear will be reporting on and analyzing that decision as soon as it becomes available.
Tune in tomorrow; )
Tune in tomorrow; )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)