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; )
Friday, September 25, 2009
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; )
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
President Obama
Kinda' odd-sounding, but whatever:) The American people have spoken, and voted in Barack Obama for the next US President.
Not unexpected, and not a tragedy.
Americans proved last night that they were willing to gamble in the hope that change would be for the better. The GOP had been in power for too long; it was time for a change. It is essential that the government be swept clean every so often: stagnation leads to waste and corruption.
But by the same token, great care must now be taken by the incoming administration. With control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, we have removed one of our government's precious checks and balances. This means that policy will probably be made more swiftly--a good thing in a time of economic crisis--but also that it will be made more easily. So a note to the incoming President Elect and his newly-strengthened legislature:
DO NOT let your reach exceed your grasp. Start out slow. Our economy is struggling at the moment; don't immediately try to "fix" everything. Comprehensive health-care reform can wait a year or so. Even Energy Policy and Education Reform (see below) can wait. Get things back onto an even keel before you start rocking the boat again. The voters have basically written you a blank check. Spend it WISELY.
Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. With our support, some informed advice, and a dash of good luck he could do some good things for this country...IF he keeps his head about him.
Not unexpected, and not a tragedy.
Americans proved last night that they were willing to gamble in the hope that change would be for the better. The GOP had been in power for too long; it was time for a change. It is essential that the government be swept clean every so often: stagnation leads to waste and corruption.
But by the same token, great care must now be taken by the incoming administration. With control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, we have removed one of our government's precious checks and balances. This means that policy will probably be made more swiftly--a good thing in a time of economic crisis--but also that it will be made more easily. So a note to the incoming President Elect and his newly-strengthened legislature:
DO NOT let your reach exceed your grasp. Start out slow. Our economy is struggling at the moment; don't immediately try to "fix" everything. Comprehensive health-care reform can wait a year or so. Even Energy Policy and Education Reform (see below) can wait. Get things back onto an even keel before you start rocking the boat again. The voters have basically written you a blank check. Spend it WISELY.
Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. With our support, some informed advice, and a dash of good luck he could do some good things for this country...IF he keeps his head about him.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election Day Coverage
Today is, of course, Election Day. And that means that tonight iBear will be posting vote results just as soon as I get them. Stay tuned for breaking coverage with our imaginary-award-winning political analysis team:)
Results:
National Presidential Race:
McCain: 173/270 Electoral Votes
Obama: 365/270 Electoral Votes - PROJECTED WINNER!
Alabama: 9 Electoral Votes - McCain
Alaska: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Arizona: 10 Electoral Votes - McCain
Arkansas: 6 Electoral Votes - McCain
California: 55 Electoral Votes - Obama
Colorado: 9 Electoral Votes - Obama
Connecticut: 7 Electoral Votes - Obama
Delaware: 3 Electoral Votes - Obama
District of Columbia: 3 Electoral Votes - Obama
Florida: 27 Electoral Votes - Obama
Georgia: 15 Electoral Votes - McCain
Hawaii: 4 Electoral Votes - Obama
Idaho: 4 Electoral Votes - McCain
Illinois: 21 Electoral Votes - Obama
Indiana: 11 Electoral Votes - Obama
Iowa: 7 Electoral Votes - Obama
Kansas: 6 Electoral Votes - McCain
Kentucky: 8 Electoral Votes - McCain
Louisiana: 9 Electoral Votes - McCain
Maine: 4 Electoral Votes - Obama
Maryland: 10 Electoral Votes - Obama
Massachusetts: 12 Electoral Votes - Obama
Michigan: 17 Electoral Votes - Obama
Minnesota: 10 Electoral Votes - Obama
Mississippi: 6 Electoral Votes - McCain
Missouri: 11 Electoral Votes - McCain
Montana: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Nebraska: 4 Electoral Votes - McCain 1 Electoral Vote - Obama
Nevada: 5 Electoral Votes - Obama
New Hampshire: 4 Electoral Votes - Obama
New Jersey: 15 Electoral Votes - Obama
New Mexico: 5 Electoral Votes - Obama
New York: 31 Electoral Votes - Obama
North Carolina: 15 Electoral Votes - Obama
North Dakota: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Pennsylvania: 21 Electoral Votes - Obama
Ohio: 20 Electoral Votes - Obama
Oklahoma: 7 Electoral Votes - McCain
Oregon: 7 Electoral Votes - Obama
Rhode Island: 4 Electoral Votes - Obama
South Carolina: 8 Electoral Votes - McCain
South Dakota: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Texas: 34 Electoral Votes - McCain
Tennessee: 11 Electoral Votes - McCain
Utah: 5 Electoral Votes - McCain
Vermont: 3 Electoral Votes - Obama
Virginia: 13 Electoral Votes - Obama
Washington: 11 Electoral Votes - Obama
West Virginia: 5 Electoral Votes - McCain
Wisconsin: 10 Electoral Votes - Obama
Wyoming: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Results:
National Presidential Race:
McCain: 173/270 Electoral Votes
Obama: 365/270 Electoral Votes - PROJECTED WINNER!
Alabama: 9 Electoral Votes - McCain
Alaska: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Arizona: 10 Electoral Votes - McCain
Arkansas: 6 Electoral Votes - McCain
California: 55 Electoral Votes - Obama
Colorado: 9 Electoral Votes - Obama
Connecticut: 7 Electoral Votes - Obama
Delaware: 3 Electoral Votes - Obama
District of Columbia: 3 Electoral Votes - Obama
Florida: 27 Electoral Votes - Obama
Georgia: 15 Electoral Votes - McCain
Hawaii: 4 Electoral Votes - Obama
Idaho: 4 Electoral Votes - McCain
Illinois: 21 Electoral Votes - Obama
Indiana: 11 Electoral Votes - Obama
Iowa: 7 Electoral Votes - Obama
Kansas: 6 Electoral Votes - McCain
Kentucky: 8 Electoral Votes - McCain
Louisiana: 9 Electoral Votes - McCain
Maine: 4 Electoral Votes - Obama
Maryland: 10 Electoral Votes - Obama
Massachusetts: 12 Electoral Votes - Obama
Michigan: 17 Electoral Votes - Obama
Minnesota: 10 Electoral Votes - Obama
Mississippi: 6 Electoral Votes - McCain
Missouri: 11 Electoral Votes - McCain
Montana: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Nebraska: 4 Electoral Votes - McCain 1 Electoral Vote - Obama
Nevada: 5 Electoral Votes - Obama
New Hampshire: 4 Electoral Votes - Obama
New Jersey: 15 Electoral Votes - Obama
New Mexico: 5 Electoral Votes - Obama
New York: 31 Electoral Votes - Obama
North Carolina: 15 Electoral Votes - Obama
North Dakota: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Pennsylvania: 21 Electoral Votes - Obama
Ohio: 20 Electoral Votes - Obama
Oklahoma: 7 Electoral Votes - McCain
Oregon: 7 Electoral Votes - Obama
Rhode Island: 4 Electoral Votes - Obama
South Carolina: 8 Electoral Votes - McCain
South Dakota: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Texas: 34 Electoral Votes - McCain
Tennessee: 11 Electoral Votes - McCain
Utah: 5 Electoral Votes - McCain
Vermont: 3 Electoral Votes - Obama
Virginia: 13 Electoral Votes - Obama
Washington: 11 Electoral Votes - Obama
West Virginia: 5 Electoral Votes - McCain
Wisconsin: 10 Electoral Votes - Obama
Wyoming: 3 Electoral Votes - McCain
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
"Redistribution of Wealth"?
That's what Barack Obama said in a radio address in 2001: he praised the work of the Supreme Court in the civil rights movement, but lamented that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth".
Is this really the "Change We Can Believe In" that has been (loudly) touted for nearly a year? That we rob from the rich and give to the poor? Is this kind of governmental "Robin Hood-ism" a good thing? Isn't this an attempt to institute a society with no poor and no rich? No Lower Class and no Upper Class?
Hasn't that been tried already? I'm almost sure I read about that once or twice. Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung...yeah, I thought so. The central tenant of Socialism (and therefore Communism) is the elimination of the classes.
From the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:
"All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly".
From Obama's (very) widely-publicized conversation with "Joe the Plumber" a few weeks ago:
"When you spread the wealth around it's a good thing for everybody."
A lot has been made of McCain's ads calling Obama a Socialist. But in reality, these ads are completely accurate. If voters want socialist reform, then Obama is obviously their man...but let's call things as they are, okay? The heart of Obama's "redistribution of wealth" statements are the tenants of socialism. And I'm done for now...my game's on:)
Is this really the "Change We Can Believe In" that has been (loudly) touted for nearly a year? That we rob from the rich and give to the poor? Is this kind of governmental "Robin Hood-ism" a good thing? Isn't this an attempt to institute a society with no poor and no rich? No Lower Class and no Upper Class?
Hasn't that been tried already? I'm almost sure I read about that once or twice. Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-tung...yeah, I thought so. The central tenant of Socialism (and therefore Communism) is the elimination of the classes.
From the Wikipedia entry on Socialism:
"All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly".
From Obama's (very) widely-publicized conversation with "Joe the Plumber" a few weeks ago:
"When you spread the wealth around it's a good thing for everybody."
A lot has been made of McCain's ads calling Obama a Socialist. But in reality, these ads are completely accurate. If voters want socialist reform, then Obama is obviously their man...but let's call things as they are, okay? The heart of Obama's "redistribution of wealth" statements are the tenants of socialism. And I'm done for now...my game's on:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)