If I had died at the World Trade Center and my loved ones (and they know this is true) kept coming back to remember me on this date every year (rather than concentrating on how badly our government let us down and how we can avoid it happening again...without war) and they weren't all partying their asses off on 9/11, smiling (even if with a tear in their eye but damn you don't let it drop) and thinking happy thoughts about me, I'd seriously come back and haunt every damn one of them.
I'm just sayin'....
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Why doesn't Mohammad have a sense of humor?
Recently I received an email about a book available on Amazon:
"Did you know that Mohammad was a drunken, child molesting,cowardly pimp? The Ayatollahs and Terrorists do not want you to know the truthabout Islam and promise to harm you if you tell anyone. Fight back and readthis well written, totally funny, parody on the founding of the so-calledreligion."
"The good non-biased reviews on Amazon.com "How FatimaStarted Islam" are very accurate in describing this both laugh and insultper page well written novel featuring the always drunk proprietor of Mohammad'sSaloon & Brothel. Still, available from Amazon.com and 234 truly funnypages at only $9.99. You will not be sorry, but do not import this book to the MiddleEast. The Terrorists DO NOT want you or anybody to read, publicize, promote,orpurchase this book, they HATE the fact that this book exists and is beingread. Buying this parody is not only sticking up for American freedom itis sending a big message to Islam."
Use this link to go toAmazon.com: How Fatima Started Islam
There was also this Note in the email:
"There is aconcerted and subtle effort to manipulate Americans from buying or reading theparody. A foreign based group, I'll call them 'the friends of Islam'are pressuring Amazon.com to cease selling the book and also to floodAmazon.com with bogus 'reviews' to dissuade Americans from purchasingit. In a two week period 40 'reviews' rushed in, mostly withnon-Arab names, telling people how horrible, petty, stupid, poorlywritten etc. the book was and not to buy it. All 40 unanimously gaveit the absolute lowest rating. It was obvious that each of the'reviewers' had not bought or read the book, many proclaimed that they wouldnot under any circumstances read an anti-Islam tome. From George III toAdolf Hitler many foreigners have tried to limit what Americans should beallowed to read. Protect the First Amendment and do not be dictated bythe Ayatollahs of Damascus , Bagdad, and Tehran."
"Did you know that Mohammad was a drunken, child molesting,cowardly pimp? The Ayatollahs and Terrorists do not want you to know the truthabout Islam and promise to harm you if you tell anyone. Fight back and readthis well written, totally funny, parody on the founding of the so-calledreligion."
 |
| Noor Barack is an American Citizen |
Use this link to go toAmazon.com: How Fatima Started Islam
There was also this Note in the email:
"There is aconcerted and subtle effort to manipulate Americans from buying or reading theparody. A foreign based group, I'll call them 'the friends of Islam'are pressuring Amazon.com to cease selling the book and also to floodAmazon.com with bogus 'reviews' to dissuade Americans from purchasingit. In a two week period 40 'reviews' rushed in, mostly withnon-Arab names, telling people how horrible, petty, stupid, poorlywritten etc. the book was and not to buy it. All 40 unanimously gaveit the absolute lowest rating. It was obvious that each of the'reviewers' had not bought or read the book, many proclaimed that they wouldnot under any circumstances read an anti-Islam tome. From George III toAdolf Hitler many foreigners have tried to limit what Americans should beallowed to read. Protect the First Amendment and do not be dictated bythe Ayatollahs of Damascus , Bagdad, and Tehran."
Okay, that is all from the email I recieved.
Needless to say, when I first read it, considering all the things I've heard about how Muslim's react to things like publishing a drawing of a cartoon of Mohammad; and then there was the call to kill Salmon Rushdi, author of "The Satanic Verses", a book it would seem that did not have in it what they thought was so offensive and inflamatory; and the many who turned out to picket at the theaters when "The Last Temptation of Christ" was relased and most of those people hadn't even seen the show.
Well, we've all had knee jerk reactions against things that disturbed us before we actually investigated them, I suppose.
I just never threatened or killed anyone over it.
I have the same kind of thing in my own book, Death of Heaven, also on Amazon.com.
What is it about this kind of thing that makes God so angry? Or is He actually laughing about it, HimSelf? Is it just the lovely (lowly?) human beings, the Worshippers who are so angry?
If humor is a higher brain process;
and if sarcasm is an even higher level of humor;
and I would argue that it is, since it takes little thought and brain power to tell a rather base fart joke, but a good biting brand of sarcasm takes a much smarter person to conjure up;
and if God is a higher level of being from Human;
then doesn't it follow that God is probably cracking up about many of the jokes about him?
Especially, when they are funny?
I don't profess such cleverness or humor in my own book, though there is some in it. But I do believe we need to have a sense of humor about things we hold dear, especially when dealt out by outsiders, who possibly, simply, do not understand.
And when they aren't outsiders, and they do understand, perhaps what they are saying really is of value, and we are just making fools of OUR selves?
It's something to consider. What if, every time anyone reacted to something with hate, anger, fear, or retribution, they simply held back, examined the situation more closely, and responded accordingly? Maybe, if the book really offends you THAT much, read it. THEN complain, because THEN, you have some ground to stand on and can argue (debate) with knowledge and information.
And a link to a trailer for the movie
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Bionic Olympian
I was recently watching "The Next Step" with Dr. Sanjay
Gupta on CNNHD cable channel.
Recently, we had the Summer Olympics in London, England. In
this Olympics, the runner known at the "Blade Runner" was allowed to compete. I said it
then and I'll say it again that I do not believe that should be allowed.
"Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius (born 22 November 1986)
is the South African sprint runner known as the "Blade Runner" and
"the fastest man on no legs". Pistorius, who has a double below-knee
amputation, is the world record holder for T44 in the 100, 200 and 400 metres
events and runs with the aid of Cheetah Flex-Foot carbon fibre transtibial
artificial limbs by Össur. He competes in T44 (single below knee amputees)
events though he is actually classified in T43 (double below knee
amputee)." - Wikipedia
"In the end, At the 2012 Summer Olympics on 4 August
2012, Pistorius became the first amputee runner to compete at an Olympic Games.
In the 400 meters race, he took second place in the first heat of five runners,
finishing with a time of 45.44 seconds (his best time of the season so far) to
advance to the semi-finals on 5 August. He ran in the second semi-final, where
he finished eighth and last with a time of 46.54 seconds." - Wikipedia
After I first heard the official consideration and reasoning, I
backed off on my contention that to allow him to run was unfair to the full
bodied runners. They decided that there as no advantage to his running with his
prosthetics, and in fact they were a slight disadvantage. If someone wants to
run with a disadvantage, that is their decision (within reason) and makes their
achievements all the more rewarding and laudatory. Right?
As long as competitors have 100% of their normal function,
but not as a "special" Olympian so that they should or could, be in the
"Para Olympics". That is, Olympians should not be using drugs,
hormones, prosthetics, or bionic devices.
When I watched the episode of "The Next Step"
about Dr. Hugh Herr, a double amputee himself, from MIT's Bioelectronics Group, I found it a fascinating report about an interesting researcher and a very important series of
inventions and discoveries through their very dedicated, hard works.
The decision of the Olympics seems to disregard certain considerations of elements of
the body under duress, its repair and damage. It is physically impossible for Pistorius
to ever have a torn ligament in his foot as he has no foot. He will never damage
his Achilles tendon, or have to try and heal it before a match, or to run with
it damaged to some degree. And if a runner were running with such damage, what
about running against someone like Pistorius who does not have that same risk
factors?
Pistorius will never pull a muscle in a race in a body part
that he no longer has. How is that at all fair to the other runners who are
taking that risk, who do have a chance of turning their ankle and falling in a
race, to be running against someone for whom that risk factor has been
completely eliminated?
I fear that in the attempt of the Olympic Committee to not seem
unfair to one individual, and in opening the door for others like him in the future,
they are being unfair to all the athletes who are competing and all those who
will never make it into the Olympics, who have tried so hard for so long, but
will never make it.
It was mentioned in the Dr. Gupta show about how we use
machines like bicycles and now there are competitions on bicycles. We may one
day have competitions with bionic individuals. But the main reason for the
Olympics is to take a fully complete, unextraordinarily enhanced, human being with all their natural functioning and
then to compete against another similar human being, to let nature as much as possible
take its course and in the end, to see one individual as victorious over another.
I truly believe we need to have individuals who are
using all their natural being as compared equally to the other contestants, and that means they
need to have all their body parts. There are other competitions they
can compete in if they do not have their original and natural parts. But we need to keep the Olympics as basic and as natural as
possible. There simply should be no question about the competitors.
I have always been forward looking and accepting in using new technologies
and in most areas, I would be all for bionics. I am all for people finding
their full potential and superseding that potential whenever possible. But in
an organization such as the Olympics, we should not be allowing individuals
who need prosthetics.
I would even argue possibly, against those who have to have
new cell tissue replacement (though I believe that may be a small enough issue as to not be a concern), muscle tissue, ligaments, etc., as these would be young elements,
newly defined within the body; while the others competing have had to work with
what they have had since birth, and that is after all, part and parcel of the
competitive experience. I would argue even against allowing competitors with bone replacements, if they put
in a different material than they were born with. I've heard that bone replacement materials actually do have a
different type of flexibility and density factor and that would be wrong. I don't think body element replacements should either enhance or detract from a potential competitor.
It isn't impossible to be born and grow through hard
work to become an Olympic competitor. Although certainly we cannot all make it. That could be considered as sad for
most of the people of the world who would want to compete, but really it's not. Rather it is celebratory for those who can achieve it, who can make it to that level and who can actually be accepted to compete. But those who are allowed to compete have to
be as basically normal as possible.
That being said, I also do not think that we need to turn it
into some kind of religion, or purist consideration; but to some degree, yes,
we do. If someone needed a ligament replaced, that may even be just fine. But if it has
a different flexibility, tensile strength, etc., we really do need to consider how fair that
is to those we know may damage their own ligament through the trials and
tribulations of competition.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Jon Huntsman on Stephen Colbert
Jon Huntsman was on Colbert last night and he was a far, far more plausible candidate for GOP Presidential candidate than Romney. AND he speaks Mandarin (and knows where China is) which would be so handy if you are President.
Huntsman believes Super Packs are a blight on our people and need to go away.
He was humorously speechless over the comment, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," this spoken by Romney pollster Neil Newhouse at a panel organized by ABC News.
Colbert brought that last issue up in regards to Ryan's speech at the RNC to which even FoxNews responded: "Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."
If in 2016 the Democrats had some idiot running and Huntsman was running on the GOP side, I would be heavily inclined, from what I saw last night anyway, to vote for Jon Huntsman. That being said (and noting that I'm not a Democrat), Mitt IS running this year, and against Obama and there is no way I'm going to vote for Mitt, or Ryan, or the platform that the GOP is pushing.
Mr. Huntsman also said that if [when] Mitt loses this election, it is going to cast the GOP into a tailspin that they will have to rebuild from. Thank God for that, as it's about time. The GOP (as it is) needs to die and make itself back into an actually viable political party, even if perhaps as a Phoenix rising.
We're trying to run a two party system that needs to have two parties and not just two parties who merely disagree with each other, but two parties who offer real and viable options and platforms. If or when, they agree too much then maybe they just happen to have the right ideas. Work with that then; don't simply try to make the other side look bad. We need a scientific approach to government. What works needs to be implemented, not just point fingers and say that the other side was wrong; they are bad, horrible people.
The parties will always differ in some ways and if they don't, then maybe there is a reason. However, when that happens they need to find real differences and where there aren't any, then face up to that. Don't do what they've been doing, lie, make things up, become deranged. When you hit a point that there is no different orientation between parties, then the one that is struggling for an identity has already stopped being a viable party. If at that point they continue on as the GOP has been doing, then they've just go bonkers, as they obviously have, having fallen into the "we're sooo different from them" mentality that is the first indicationg that it's broken beyond repair. Why do you think the Tea Party started up?
So perhaps we need Gov. Huntsman's predicted GOP tailspin.
Huntsman believes Super Packs are a blight on our people and need to go away.
He was humorously speechless over the comment, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," this spoken by Romney pollster Neil Newhouse at a panel organized by ABC News.
Colbert brought that last issue up in regards to Ryan's speech at the RNC to which even FoxNews responded: "Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."
If in 2016 the Democrats had some idiot running and Huntsman was running on the GOP side, I would be heavily inclined, from what I saw last night anyway, to vote for Jon Huntsman. That being said (and noting that I'm not a Democrat), Mitt IS running this year, and against Obama and there is no way I'm going to vote for Mitt, or Ryan, or the platform that the GOP is pushing.
Mr. Huntsman also said that if [when] Mitt loses this election, it is going to cast the GOP into a tailspin that they will have to rebuild from. Thank God for that, as it's about time. The GOP (as it is) needs to die and make itself back into an actually viable political party, even if perhaps as a Phoenix rising.
We're trying to run a two party system that needs to have two parties and not just two parties who merely disagree with each other, but two parties who offer real and viable options and platforms. If or when, they agree too much then maybe they just happen to have the right ideas. Work with that then; don't simply try to make the other side look bad. We need a scientific approach to government. What works needs to be implemented, not just point fingers and say that the other side was wrong; they are bad, horrible people.
The parties will always differ in some ways and if they don't, then maybe there is a reason. However, when that happens they need to find real differences and where there aren't any, then face up to that. Don't do what they've been doing, lie, make things up, become deranged. When you hit a point that there is no different orientation between parties, then the one that is struggling for an identity has already stopped being a viable party. If at that point they continue on as the GOP has been doing, then they've just go bonkers, as they obviously have, having fallen into the "we're sooo different from them" mentality that is the first indicationg that it's broken beyond repair. Why do you think the Tea Party started up?
So perhaps we need Gov. Huntsman's predicted GOP tailspin.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Let's re-label Pro-Lifers as the ARP!
Here's the thing, I wrote a blog this week saying that perhaps, as Pro-Life as an agenda title has already been absconded by the Right Wing, perhaps we need a correspondingly opposite title for an agenda that is opposed to theirs.
But perhaps I was wrong. In rethinking about this just now, it occurred to me that perhaps what we need is to re-label the Right Wing's own agenda.
What is it that all people, everywhere, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or religious persuaision, have in common? Flesh and bone. We are all sacks of water, meat and calcium. Now we can add all that crap that religion and politics steeps upon us.
Being "Pro" Life sounds like a good idea, right? We're all "Pro" Life. But not unlike an eight year old, they are pushing that agenda as the end all, be all of a very complicated situation. As I indicated in my previous blog, there are two aspects to any Life. There is the element of living, and there is the element of quality of Life. Something the Right Wing has pushed down our throats for years regarding Right to choosing our time of death (suicide, physician assisted suicide).
There is one more element we need to face down.
Humans, are not all that great. We are not so wonderful that we should never be killed, right? Law enforcement, military, even the judicial branch of governments (capital punishment) kill pepole all the time and with good reason.
Police typically kill to save lives. As we have limitednon lethal effective deterrentswhen dealing with situations where someone has overwhelming lethal force, killing them, to save innocent lives, is sometimes the only thing to do. Military, similar but somewhat indirect situation much of the times, but basically the same concept; and where it's not, we just start wars and kill people; or we allow other people in other countries to slaughter their own citizens without lifting a finger to stop it, thus somewhat at least, condoning it.
Why is abortion such a big deal, but there has been 2,000 young American military lives lost in the war in Afghanistan, and there is no moral outrage, certainly not like there is over aborting fetuses, about these also, innocent young people dying, and for what? As Bill Maher pointed out on his Friday night show, the first 1,000 deaths had a reason and he was for our going into Afghanistan, where those who attacked us on 9/11 were and not Iraq; but what did the second 1,000 die for? Where is the moral outrage in the Republican party, their candidate, his running mate, and the "Pro-Lifers"?
Again it is so much that disparity between sex and violence, like in films. You can show someone's brains being blown out, but don't show a woman's vagina. What is it these people are so fearful of when it comes to sex, especially sex for pleasure (or Cannabis for pleasure and not only medical purposes, and the whole "War on Drugs" which is a war on American citizens)? What is it about these right wing theists that is so fearful about pleasure? Because abortion only for "Forcible Rape" is all about no abortion if sex was for the pleasure of the woman. Obviously, rape is about the pleasure of the man, albeit for control/power purposes and not so much for sexual gratification, typically.
Okay and finally, Capital Punishment, some higher concept countries have outlawed it as inhumane. Okay, they may even be right on that. It IS the moral highground.
However, I do believe that there are times when someone should be killed, with prejudice, and on the spot; to be put down like a rabid dog. We are not God's gift to this planet, regardless of what you think. All religion aside, this planet would do far better without us.
We also still have issues of world population to deal with that we still need to get under control.
So basically, from our own actions, people dying is really not that big of a deal to us. So, why are some making such a big deal over abortion? Why is killing a zygote or a fetus, such a big deal? Why? Wny isn't the mother any real concern to these people? Do you have any idea (men) what it would be like to have something growing in you from a horrific event that you know you will have to suffer great pain and years after of dealing with the result of a rape?
Non-forcible rape, includes not only statutory rape, but others. For instance:
Gross Sexual Imposition – Unlike the common law, the Model Penal Code does not provide for rape on the basis of fraud. However, such conduct does constitute the offense of gross sexual imposition. Subject to the marital immunity exemption, a male is guilty of gross sexual imposition if he has sexual intercourse with a female in any one of three circumstances:
As we heard in the news recently, a mentally challenged ten year old girl would have been forced to have a child as she had not been "forced" ("Should a 10-Year-Old Mentally Disabled Victim of Incestuous Rape Be Required to Carry a Fetus to Term?" - check it out, good article). As the article indicated: "In Kansas...a doctor may lose her license for allowing a mentally-ill 10-year old girl who was raped by her uncle to get an abortion." Really?
Dr. Neuhaus’ rebuttal to the charges against her:
We don't have much trouble with killing a big, fat, greasy, grizzly old child serial murderer.
But if we are so upset over killing a pre(non) child, how is the greasy old murderer's life worth so much less? No. Seriously, you have to apply your logic cleanly and across all circumstances. Right? It was conjectured somewhere, if a rape victim births her child, then five years on decides the child looks too much like her rapist, does she have the right to kill it then? This, following though on my theory, basically. Obviously, no. It is even a stupid question. She has options, she can put it up for adoption, for instance. She will need counseling and obviously would have already been needing it. She probably should have had the abortion to begin with and proper therapy may have shown that in the first place.
Or would you be saying that it's all more complicated than that? Are you now arguing on the side of killing a human being? If it's between killing an unborn child, or not even a human yet, but a zygote, the life form that exists before a baby becomes a baby, or a greasy old child serial murderer, you'd choose the child. Right?
But, shouldn't you have chosen not to kill either? See the imbalance? We're Human, yes, but we're screwed up. And we're not so God awful important, we just have huge egos and like to think we are so important. Therefore, we like to raise ourselves up on high and say we can't kill children, or pre-children, or pre-pre-children. This week it was proposed in the media by one group that women's eggs should be legally considered a life form. When they are NOT, they are cells. They do NOT become remotely human until conception, or sometime pre birth, or at the point of birth, depending upon your conception of the situation, or the legal definition you go by.
All things mentioned above considered, abortion really, is not therefore that big a deal. We just make it a big deal.
And is that right?
We should be careful in legally considering ending life of any kind. But it doesn't mean we can act like children by being thoughtless, in being knee-jerk reactive, gut feeling responsive, and make it illegal in any situation. To some degree I do think as Humans we should make it a big deal about killing people. But there is a limit. At some point, we should just stop talking and realize that life is complicated and that we do not and should not always have the say, and we should not have the say legally, or morally/ethically about certain situations and about certain people. We stick our noses too much now a days into too many things that should be personal and private decisions.
Old or terminally ill people have their own right to life, or death. If we have a God given right to life, it follows that we have a God given right to death, too. How do I know that? Becuase, right now, I can shoot myself in the head and end things. THAT, is a God given right. Because I can do it. And no, it's stupid to think that I also have the God given right to kill someone else. Or maybe I do, but I decide it more reasonable not to be that way, because then people might want to kill me. We do need laws, we need to protect those who cannot speak for themselves, but how much at the cost of those who can speak for themselves but we will not allow them to speak, or to decide? Mother's have their own right to the life of their children, at very least, before the third trimester. What is the cutoff then?
My argument would be when it resembles an actual human being. When it can conceive of pain and death. Because Human is not Human simply at a certain stage of life, a chronologically set time frame, but by conception; not just the brain formation but the information contained within that brain that can conceive of itself as life and that, in some form, doesn't happen until some time after birth. In some cultures they don't even consider children as Human until they hit a certain age. And there is something to be said for that, there is an argument for that. It's not my argument, surely it has a basis in reality.
Something the Right Wing (typically Republicans) don’t have a clue about. Because it's not a quick comment, it's not a sound bite sized position. Life, is complicated. Ending life is just as complicated.
At some point we need to realize that and back off some.
So, "Pro-Life" is a misnomer. Which is the point of this entire article. I'm not trying to sell a position on any of what I was just talking about. I'm just trying to point out that "Pro-Life" is wrong. I am Pro-Life. These Right Wing mental midgets, aren't. Because first of all, they only are arguing half the subject. Second, they are selling the cute factor in abortion as to what is important. But women, the vessels of who is carrying the child, is also important. The quality of her life is also important.
Otherwise what are you doing? You are trying to be another version, a "Christian" version of, wait for it... the Taliban.
No, I'm not joking. Think about this, think about it very carefully. Because if you are a Paul Ryan, Todd Akin type Pro-Lifer, then you are not very different than the Taliban in wanting to force religious oriented beliefs onto others; only in this case, it's not just others of your same religion.
Much in the same way that Mark Twain referred to Congress as that, "Grand Old Benevolent National Asylum for the Helpless", I think we can come up with another name for "Pro-Lifers" as well. To dwell a moment longer on another comment by that Grand old Genius Mr. Twain, again about Congress, he said: "Imagine, that you are an idiot. And then imagine that you are a member of Congress. What a minute, I repeated myself."
So I guess what I'm saying is, we should start calling hardline "Pro-Lifers", something else. And I would suggest the American Religious Persecutors, or ARP.
So Ladies and open minded Gentleman, I give you the newly rebranded "Pro-Life" movement, or the ARP!
And please, feel free to come up with your own, more clever moniker. Because if we can't make fun of this, if we cannot have a sense of humor about it while trying to put it in it's proper place, that is, in the receptacle next to your desk, then we will only succeed in making our life as miserable and lifeless as those who designate themselves so incorrectly as being Pro-Life.
But perhaps I was wrong. In rethinking about this just now, it occurred to me that perhaps what we need is to re-label the Right Wing's own agenda.
What is it that all people, everywhere, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or religious persuaision, have in common? Flesh and bone. We are all sacks of water, meat and calcium. Now we can add all that crap that religion and politics steeps upon us.
Being "Pro" Life sounds like a good idea, right? We're all "Pro" Life. But not unlike an eight year old, they are pushing that agenda as the end all, be all of a very complicated situation. As I indicated in my previous blog, there are two aspects to any Life. There is the element of living, and there is the element of quality of Life. Something the Right Wing has pushed down our throats for years regarding Right to choosing our time of death (suicide, physician assisted suicide).
There is one more element we need to face down.
Humans, are not all that great. We are not so wonderful that we should never be killed, right? Law enforcement, military, even the judicial branch of governments (capital punishment) kill pepole all the time and with good reason.
Police typically kill to save lives. As we have limitednon lethal effective deterrentswhen dealing with situations where someone has overwhelming lethal force, killing them, to save innocent lives, is sometimes the only thing to do. Military, similar but somewhat indirect situation much of the times, but basically the same concept; and where it's not, we just start wars and kill people; or we allow other people in other countries to slaughter their own citizens without lifting a finger to stop it, thus somewhat at least, condoning it.
Why is abortion such a big deal, but there has been 2,000 young American military lives lost in the war in Afghanistan, and there is no moral outrage, certainly not like there is over aborting fetuses, about these also, innocent young people dying, and for what? As Bill Maher pointed out on his Friday night show, the first 1,000 deaths had a reason and he was for our going into Afghanistan, where those who attacked us on 9/11 were and not Iraq; but what did the second 1,000 die for? Where is the moral outrage in the Republican party, their candidate, his running mate, and the "Pro-Lifers"?
Again it is so much that disparity between sex and violence, like in films. You can show someone's brains being blown out, but don't show a woman's vagina. What is it these people are so fearful of when it comes to sex, especially sex for pleasure (or Cannabis for pleasure and not only medical purposes, and the whole "War on Drugs" which is a war on American citizens)? What is it about these right wing theists that is so fearful about pleasure? Because abortion only for "Forcible Rape" is all about no abortion if sex was for the pleasure of the woman. Obviously, rape is about the pleasure of the man, albeit for control/power purposes and not so much for sexual gratification, typically.
Okay and finally, Capital Punishment, some higher concept countries have outlawed it as inhumane. Okay, they may even be right on that. It IS the moral highground.
However, I do believe that there are times when someone should be killed, with prejudice, and on the spot; to be put down like a rabid dog. We are not God's gift to this planet, regardless of what you think. All religion aside, this planet would do far better without us.
We also still have issues of world population to deal with that we still need to get under control.
So basically, from our own actions, people dying is really not that big of a deal to us. So, why are some making such a big deal over abortion? Why is killing a zygote or a fetus, such a big deal? Why? Wny isn't the mother any real concern to these people? Do you have any idea (men) what it would be like to have something growing in you from a horrific event that you know you will have to suffer great pain and years after of dealing with the result of a rape?
Non-forcible rape, includes not only statutory rape, but others. For instance:
Gross Sexual Imposition – Unlike the common law, the Model Penal Code does not provide for rape on the basis of fraud. However, such conduct does constitute the offense of gross sexual imposition. Subject to the marital immunity exemption, a male is guilty of gross sexual imposition if he has sexual intercourse with a female in any one of three circumstances:
| 1.) | the female submits as the result of a "threat that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution," e.g., if the woman is threatened by a supervisor with loss of employment. [MPC § 213.1(2)(a)] | |
| 2.) | a male has sexual relations with a female with knowledge that, as the result of mental illness or defect, she is unable to appraise the nature of his conduct. [MPC § 213.1(2)(b)] | |
| 3.) | a male knows that the female is unaware that a sexual act is being committed upon her or that she submits because she mistakenly believes that he is her husband. [MPC § 213.1(2)(c)] |
As we heard in the news recently, a mentally challenged ten year old girl would have been forced to have a child as she had not been "forced" ("Should a 10-Year-Old Mentally Disabled Victim of Incestuous Rape Be Required to Carry a Fetus to Term?" - check it out, good article). As the article indicated: "In Kansas...a doctor may lose her license for allowing a mentally-ill 10-year old girl who was raped by her uncle to get an abortion." Really?
Dr. Neuhaus’ rebuttal to the charges against her:
“To even claim that isn’t medically necessary qualifies as gross incompetence,” said Neuhaus. “Someone’s 10 years old, and they were raped by their uncle and they understand that they’ve got a baby growing in their stomach and they don’t want that. You’re going to send this girl for a brain scan and some blood work and put her in a hospital?” (for more clarity on this, please see the article)Well, if you consider someone killing a shark that has been killing cute little seals, many people have no issues with it. If someone tries to kill the cute little seals, there is an uproar.
We don't have much trouble with killing a big, fat, greasy, grizzly old child serial murderer.
But if we are so upset over killing a pre(non) child, how is the greasy old murderer's life worth so much less? No. Seriously, you have to apply your logic cleanly and across all circumstances. Right? It was conjectured somewhere, if a rape victim births her child, then five years on decides the child looks too much like her rapist, does she have the right to kill it then? This, following though on my theory, basically. Obviously, no. It is even a stupid question. She has options, she can put it up for adoption, for instance. She will need counseling and obviously would have already been needing it. She probably should have had the abortion to begin with and proper therapy may have shown that in the first place.
Or would you be saying that it's all more complicated than that? Are you now arguing on the side of killing a human being? If it's between killing an unborn child, or not even a human yet, but a zygote, the life form that exists before a baby becomes a baby, or a greasy old child serial murderer, you'd choose the child. Right?
But, shouldn't you have chosen not to kill either? See the imbalance? We're Human, yes, but we're screwed up. And we're not so God awful important, we just have huge egos and like to think we are so important. Therefore, we like to raise ourselves up on high and say we can't kill children, or pre-children, or pre-pre-children. This week it was proposed in the media by one group that women's eggs should be legally considered a life form. When they are NOT, they are cells. They do NOT become remotely human until conception, or sometime pre birth, or at the point of birth, depending upon your conception of the situation, or the legal definition you go by.
All things mentioned above considered, abortion really, is not therefore that big a deal. We just make it a big deal.
And is that right?
We should be careful in legally considering ending life of any kind. But it doesn't mean we can act like children by being thoughtless, in being knee-jerk reactive, gut feeling responsive, and make it illegal in any situation. To some degree I do think as Humans we should make it a big deal about killing people. But there is a limit. At some point, we should just stop talking and realize that life is complicated and that we do not and should not always have the say, and we should not have the say legally, or morally/ethically about certain situations and about certain people. We stick our noses too much now a days into too many things that should be personal and private decisions.
Old or terminally ill people have their own right to life, or death. If we have a God given right to life, it follows that we have a God given right to death, too. How do I know that? Becuase, right now, I can shoot myself in the head and end things. THAT, is a God given right. Because I can do it. And no, it's stupid to think that I also have the God given right to kill someone else. Or maybe I do, but I decide it more reasonable not to be that way, because then people might want to kill me. We do need laws, we need to protect those who cannot speak for themselves, but how much at the cost of those who can speak for themselves but we will not allow them to speak, or to decide? Mother's have their own right to the life of their children, at very least, before the third trimester. What is the cutoff then?
My argument would be when it resembles an actual human being. When it can conceive of pain and death. Because Human is not Human simply at a certain stage of life, a chronologically set time frame, but by conception; not just the brain formation but the information contained within that brain that can conceive of itself as life and that, in some form, doesn't happen until some time after birth. In some cultures they don't even consider children as Human until they hit a certain age. And there is something to be said for that, there is an argument for that. It's not my argument, surely it has a basis in reality.
Something the Right Wing (typically Republicans) don’t have a clue about. Because it's not a quick comment, it's not a sound bite sized position. Life, is complicated. Ending life is just as complicated.
At some point we need to realize that and back off some.
So, "Pro-Life" is a misnomer. Which is the point of this entire article. I'm not trying to sell a position on any of what I was just talking about. I'm just trying to point out that "Pro-Life" is wrong. I am Pro-Life. These Right Wing mental midgets, aren't. Because first of all, they only are arguing half the subject. Second, they are selling the cute factor in abortion as to what is important. But women, the vessels of who is carrying the child, is also important. The quality of her life is also important.
Otherwise what are you doing? You are trying to be another version, a "Christian" version of, wait for it... the Taliban.
No, I'm not joking. Think about this, think about it very carefully. Because if you are a Paul Ryan, Todd Akin type Pro-Lifer, then you are not very different than the Taliban in wanting to force religious oriented beliefs onto others; only in this case, it's not just others of your same religion.
Much in the same way that Mark Twain referred to Congress as that, "Grand Old Benevolent National Asylum for the Helpless", I think we can come up with another name for "Pro-Lifers" as well. To dwell a moment longer on another comment by that Grand old Genius Mr. Twain, again about Congress, he said: "Imagine, that you are an idiot. And then imagine that you are a member of Congress. What a minute, I repeated myself."
So I guess what I'm saying is, we should start calling hardline "Pro-Lifers", something else. And I would suggest the American Religious Persecutors, or ARP.
So Ladies and open minded Gentleman, I give you the newly rebranded "Pro-Life" movement, or the ARP!
And please, feel free to come up with your own, more clever moniker. Because if we can't make fun of this, if we cannot have a sense of humor about it while trying to put it in it's proper place, that is, in the receptacle next to your desk, then we will only succeed in making our life as miserable and lifeless as those who designate themselves so incorrectly as being Pro-Life.
Writing faux pas
A spy goes through hell to get a name, he finally gets it and then has a firefight, which he survives and at the end help arrives by helicopter. He goes up to his commander and says, "He gave me the name, I'll be right back," and he heads away from the extraction point.
NO. A pro wouldn't and shouldn't do that.
At this point after all they've been through and as important as the name is, you share that name with as many people as possible withint limitations of security parameters. You tell the commander, they immediately call it in to headquarters or SOMEone if possible. But you get the intel off the single point of possible failure, you. You do NOT keep it to yourself no matter how secret it is. You share it accordingly and appropriately but for the initial agent to keep it to himself one second longer than absolutely necessary is a breach of sanity if nothing else. After all, if you die all you have done to get the intel has been wasted.
This is what I call poor writing for the sake of tension. I would call it Hollywood writing except that this scene was from the British show, Strike Back. I really like this show but they make the same mistake after a fairly well written episode just to throw in that final tension at the end.
So, should you do it? Well, obviously, I would argue, NO.
As writers we do need to write, we do need to create tension. But we also need to know when we are overstepping the bounds of not good taste, perhaps, but definitely operational protocol and really people, sanity if nothing else.
[Postscript: I should mention that the issue about the tension at the end, does almost sound like someting a producer would push onto a writer. So that perhaps the writer had done a good job, but then at the last minute some outside force had "asked" for a change and so a previously well drawn screenplay can hit the screen with "issues" that weren't originally designed into the screenplay. Also, even when you do have to write a scene that is "cheesy", if you write it properly, it can still be so enjoyable as to not bother almost anyone.]
NO. A pro wouldn't and shouldn't do that.
At this point after all they've been through and as important as the name is, you share that name with as many people as possible withint limitations of security parameters. You tell the commander, they immediately call it in to headquarters or SOMEone if possible. But you get the intel off the single point of possible failure, you. You do NOT keep it to yourself no matter how secret it is. You share it accordingly and appropriately but for the initial agent to keep it to himself one second longer than absolutely necessary is a breach of sanity if nothing else. After all, if you die all you have done to get the intel has been wasted.
This is what I call poor writing for the sake of tension. I would call it Hollywood writing except that this scene was from the British show, Strike Back. I really like this show but they make the same mistake after a fairly well written episode just to throw in that final tension at the end.
So, should you do it? Well, obviously, I would argue, NO.
As writers we do need to write, we do need to create tension. But we also need to know when we are overstepping the bounds of not good taste, perhaps, but definitely operational protocol and really people, sanity if nothing else.
[Postscript: I should mention that the issue about the tension at the end, does almost sound like someting a producer would push onto a writer. So that perhaps the writer had done a good job, but then at the last minute some outside force had "asked" for a change and so a previously well drawn screenplay can hit the screen with "issues" that weren't originally designed into the screenplay. Also, even when you do have to write a scene that is "cheesy", if you write it properly, it can still be so enjoyable as to not bother almost anyone.]
Thursday, August 23, 2012
What's next? Slavery?
I've been becoming more aware of what the founding fathers set up for this country. In some respects, it was slavery for those who aren't landowners. Slaves were eventually freed, but never fully, there were merely mixed in with the masses, those others who were not Landowners.
Landowners from back then have morphed into the privileged classes of today. Face it, that was meant to happen.
As Landowners back at the birth of our nation, without a real middle class back then, we have been directred to end up where we are today; all the while thinking it was good and just, and right; and it's not. While it is reasonable considering how things were set up, it is not acceptable.
For our nation to survive we need to evolve and we are not seeing the Republican party do that, they actually seem to be devloving; nor is the Democratic party picking up the reins and leading from their side. They have both fallen into a loop of continual disagreement rather than progressive change for the better... for all.
That leaves things to the voters, but as we all saw in 2000 (and in consideration of the electoral college), even that does not work correctly.
Which leaves only one thing....
Action, from thought.
Thought, from information.
Information from accurate sources.
And that means a media who are there to support the people and therefore the country.
Because those who are leading now, so incorrectly, are not the country.
They are there to lead and support the country.
And the country, are the People.
Occupy, your Nation.
Landowners from back then have morphed into the privileged classes of today. Face it, that was meant to happen.
As Landowners back at the birth of our nation, without a real middle class back then, we have been directred to end up where we are today; all the while thinking it was good and just, and right; and it's not. While it is reasonable considering how things were set up, it is not acceptable.
For our nation to survive we need to evolve and we are not seeing the Republican party do that, they actually seem to be devloving; nor is the Democratic party picking up the reins and leading from their side. They have both fallen into a loop of continual disagreement rather than progressive change for the better... for all.
That leaves things to the voters, but as we all saw in 2000 (and in consideration of the electoral college), even that does not work correctly.
Which leaves only one thing....
Action, from thought.
Thought, from information.
Information from accurate sources.
And that means a media who are there to support the people and therefore the country.
Because those who are leading now, so incorrectly, are not the country.
They are there to lead and support the country.
And the country, are the People.
Occupy, your Nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)