12.12.2008

re: Money, Money, Money...


In response to Rebecca James' Money, Money, Money... Is that what it's all about?

Money is the root of all evil, right?

...and I'd reallyreally like to have more of it. Sigh.

Wouldn't it be totally bitchin' to go all Star Trek and abolish currency? But for that to work, a lot of people would have to stop being complete asshats, like the poeple Rebecca's talking about in her blog. Although, reading the article and even just the bits you quoted, I felt like it was a text version of a Lewis Black commentary. Bold and italics--much like wasabi or the excessive use of tongue when kissing--can be good, but should be used carefully, thoughtfully, and with precision. Combined with so much CAPSLOCKOMG!!11!!one!1 is a little too intense than is necessary... IMO. ::shrug:: Like I said. Intense Lewis Black is intense!

I do agree with everything though. Money blows, and the people who have most of it blow even more. (To put it in painfully simple terms, that is.) Money--and the greed that comes with it--is what's wrong with the world.

Well. That and stretch Hummers. ::shudder::

re: Political Bias Affects Brain Activity


Response to Le Teh's Political Bias Affects Brain Activity.

The title pretty much says it all. There are actual blockages in people's brains when they strongly believe in something. This was really interesting to read, even though it's not very surprising. I'd like to do this test on religiously rather than politically staunch people. This test already showed us that people are very politically biased and not likely to change their mind about their preferred candidate, no matter what facts are presented to them, so now I'd like to see if very devout people have the same brain blockages. (Not to harp on religiously devout people--I'd want to include hard-edged atheists in this test as well.) I've met more people who've converted religions before political views, so I just think that'd be something interesting to see...

However, this test does seem to show why negative attacks are so popular in campaigns--you will blatantly ignore inconsistencies on your side of the political coin, but they stick out like a sore thumb on your opponent's side.

11.26.2008

High ho, Controversy, away!


I'm just pulling out all the hot issues.

Guns! Bang bang!

So, guns. Some people love them. Some people think they are the scourge of the earth. Some people think that guns are sentient creatures that OHMIGOD KILL AT WILL!

Some people are... not so smart.

Maybe my Texan is showing, but I think the idea of strict gun control is ludicrous. And I'm kind of a hippy.

It probably has to do with the fact that I grew up around guns. My father is something of an aficionado, and I can't really remember not knowing what a gun was. Which means, I don't remember not knowing how to behave around guns, how to be smart around guns, how to treat guns as what they are--potentially dangerous weapons.

The thing is, rocks are potentially dangerous weapons, too.

The arguments that guns are BAD BAD VERY BAD:

1. Little kids can accidently kill themselves with guns!

It's always heartbreaking to hear about a child who accidently hurts or kills his or herself with a gun, but can't help but feel more angry than anything else. Because I must've been 3 or 4 when I first asked about Daddy's guns, and he sat me down and explained how dangerous they are, and how under no circumstances should I ever play with Daddy's guns. And when I was a little older, it was never play with Daddy's guns without Daddy's supervision and permission. Even now, at age 20, when I come to my parents house and I want to go shooting, I'm not going alone by God. There is no excuse for not educating your children about guns if you own even one. There is no excuse for leaving your guns within reach of children. They make gun cabinets and locks for a reason. It's a tragic accident, yes, but one that could have been avoided easily. That's not an argument for gun control, that's an argument for people being less stupid.

2. It's too easy for criminals to get guns!

It's true that the process for legally buying a gun is fairly straight forward: You go to a gun store/gun show, present proof of residency, and fill out a Little Yellow Form and answer "No" on all the questions ("Are you a convicted felon? Do you have a history of domestic abuse?" etc), and you may buy a gun.

"Too easy! Too easy to lie! Too easy!"

Yes, it's easy. But let's take a few seconds to think for a minute; Are the people who are looking to commit crimes with a gun they purchase going to purchase that gun legally? Where it will be registered? No. Maybe it should be harder to buy a gun--a waiting period perhaps. That doesn't sound terrible. But criminals will get a gun whenever they need it, wherever they can get it from. They won't have a waiting period if they want to get their hands on a gun. And criminals aren't going to gun shows, anyway.

Dr. Gary Kleck of the University of Florida researched that Americans use the threat or the mere presence of a weapon to stop 2.5 million felony assaults every year without firing a single shot.

FBI Crime Index Report states that the police have an arrest rate of 1.8 per 10,000 per year. That's two cops out of 10,000 getting arrested annually. The arrest rate of concealed carry permit holder is .09 per 10,000. A person with a concealed carry permit is twice as UNlikely to commit a crime as a police officer, and people seem pretty comfortable with police officers carrying a gun. They should be more comfortable with the idea of me carrying a gun. (I'm probably a better shot than a lot of cops, anyway...)

And setting strict gun control laws is about to get a helluva lot harder. Earlier this summer, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. That's right. Individuals. Not states. Not militias. Individuals.

Should it be more difficult to buy a gun? Maybe. Should you be required to go through a gun-safety course before owning a gun? Maybe. Should all the guns be taken away from the citizens of the United States? Absolutely not.

10.23.2008

Why I'm Pro-Choice. Logic.


You might be able to call me something of a "single issue voter." I admitted very openly that I have not been following the Presidential election closely at all, but decided to vote for Obama when I found out how radically anti-abortion Sarah Palin was. Needless to say, I am pro-choice. I feel bad being a "single issue voter" but I feel a little better knowing how many people are also single issue voters on the same issue.

So for my first original commentary, I'd like to try to use some logic to argue for abortion remaining legal.

I must admit, I drives me absolutely bat-shit when people call abortion murder. It was even once vehemently argued to me that abortion is so akin to murder that not only the mother, but also the physician who performed the procedure, should be tried on the same level as an actual any other murder case. She then proceeded to tell me that she believed the physician should actually get harsher punishments for breaking the Hippocratic Oath. (Which she actually referred to as "the oath or something." She was very intelligent. I hope my sarcasm is evident in my text.)

...ahem.

Right, then. Let's get the logic started, shall we? Everyone argues that you can't call abortion murder because we haven't defined when life starts yet. Does it start at conception? Birth? Somewhere between? But, since that's what everyone talks about, I say that's boring, and I'm gonna attack you with a different angle of logic.

First of all, the Degrees of Murder.

Murder in the First Degree is defined as:

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought.
Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or
any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
killing"..."or
perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously
to effect the death of any human being other than him who is
killed, is murder in the first degree."


In laymen's terms, what people generally think of as murder is first degree murder.

Murder in the Second Degree is defined as:

"Intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable 'heat of passion'
or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter."


For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car. The driver of the car has become a victim of second degree murder.

Then, of course, we have Manslaughter, defined as:

"Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice
. It is of two kinds:
-Voluntary: Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
-Involuntary: In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting
to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without
due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce
death."


Voluntary Manslaughter is intentional killing, but with no prior intent to kill. For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly. (This is where Larry The Cableguy's joke comes from. "Guns don't kill people, but husbands who come home early do.")

Involuntary Manslaughter is unintentional killing of a human being that results from recklessness or criminal negligence. For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.

So, with the logic that abortion be legally defined as murder (we will cover what degree of murder/manslaughter abortion would be soon), any woman who has had a spontaneous abortion, i.e. a miscarriage or a stillbirth, has committed involuntary manslaughter and should be charged thusly. Considering that 10%-50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, most of the time before the woman even knows she's pregnant, it is my suspicion that anyone would have a hard time bringing charges against them. (Many pregnancies end within hours of conception due to genetically inviable zygotes long before the woman is aware of her state. This makes numbers hard to pin down, thus the wide ranges in percentages.)

Now. By the definitions of murder, abortion is not murder. Plain and simple. According to the definitions, it just doesn't fit. You may not like it. I may not like it. Most of the world may not like it, but it is not murder. Because murder in the first and second degrees must have malicious intent, and I dare anyone to grow a big enough pair to accuse any woman who decides to have an abortion of doing so maliciously. Because, in fact, let's just define malicious real quick, while we're spelling things out logically:

1. full of, characterized by, or showing malice; malevolent; spiteful.
2. Law. vicious, wanton, or mischievous in motivation or purpose.


...yeah. Sure. Women who have abortions aren't scared, or distraught, or concerned, or guilty. They're not pensive and worried about their future, or sad and regretful.

They're malicious.

I wish you could see me raise my eyebrow scathingly.

Now, one may be able to argue that abortion is voluntary manslaughter, but I am doubtful the legal definition will be easily changed to: "Upon a sudden quarrel, heat of passion or abortion." It just... doesn't seem to fit. Especially that part about "no prior intent." Because I sure hope that a lot of thought goes into whether or not to have an abortion, so I suppose that qualifies as "prior intent," but that brings us back to malicious... It's quite the cycle.

However, another key phrase in all the definitions of murder and manslaughter is human being or human life, which does indeed bring us back to the Old Reliable Argument for keeping abortion legal. Because, the fact is, we haven't agreed on when life begins. Even religious people can't decide; some say conception, but the Bible says the soul comes with "the first breath of life." So until we legally nail down when life begins, charging abortions on the grounds of murder will just not hold water. And it needs to be left to the scientific community to define life, not the religious community, since in America we have this lovely little thing called Separation of Church And State.

And I don't think anyone is arguing that abortion is second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter (except in the cases of spontaneous abortions, which we've already talked about) so I don't think I need to delve deeper into either of those.

But what really made my brain hurt was when this little girl told me that she believed physicians should receive harsher punishments for performing abortions than the women having them because they were breaking the Hippocratic Oath, even though she admitted that she knew literally nothing about it, including what it was called.

First, and most importantly, the Hippocratic Oath isn't a law! It's no where close to being involved in the legal system! Unless you can sue him for malpractice, if a doctor "breaks" the Hippocratic Oath, there is nothing you can legally do! (I apologize for all the exclamation points, but I really wanted to throw something at this girl's head when I had the chance...)

The Hippocratic Oath: Widely believed to be written by Hippocrates sometime in the 4th century BCE, it invokes ancient Greek deities, and is, well... ancient. (If you would like to read it, you need simply to Google "Hippocratic Oath" and you'll get several hits. It took me all of 30 seconds to find it.)

"Many people argue that the original Hippocratic Oath is invalid in a society that has seen drastic socio-economic, political and moral changes in society since the time of Hippocrates. This has led to the modification of the oath to something better suited for our times. Four of the most widely used versions are the Declaration of Geneva, the Prayer of Maimonides, the Oath of Lasagna, and the Reinstatement of Hippocratic Oath. Although they differ in wording and content, the main tenets are the same - treat patients to the best of one's abilities, never cause intentional harm, and maintain patient confidentiality - although none of them call upon various deities to punish the physician if he transgresses from the oath, save for the Reinstatement!"

The Hippocratic Oath

While the original Hippocratic Oath (to reiterate: written in the 4th century BCE) spoke against abortion, things have changed. First of all, if women wanted to terminate unwanted pregnancies in THE FOURTH CENTURY BCE (have I sufficiently highlighted how old the original Hippocratic Oath was yet?) and still want to do the same today, don't you think we're doing something wrong? Seems to me that the problem isn't abortions; the problem is unwanted pregnancies. We need to focus on the problem, not the symptom.

However, as I was saying, the Hippocratic Oath is mostly just the phrase people recognize these days. What doctor's actually swear on varies from school to school.

"The Oath of Lasagna was written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, it is perhaps the one most commonly used in today's medical schools. Like the other versions, it stresses on the importance of treating patients as human beings and not medical cases."


I would like to focus on one of Lasagna's points:

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.


My friend Carly, a pre-Med, took a Medical Terminology class last semester. The point which Lasagna is highlighting is called "prophylaxis," specifically defined in Carly's class's textbook as "a process or measure that prevents disease." Therefore, if a prophylactic (known in laymen's terms as birth control) is something that prevents disease, then apparently physicians define pregnancy as a disease.

For examble: A woman goes to the hospital with the following symptoms: troublesome digestive track including vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and slight symptoms of malnutrition. The doctors remove a 12 inch mass from her body, and all the symptoms go away. What was removed? A fetus.

Or a tapeworm. Either way...

As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:

par·a·site (pār'ə-sīt')
n. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.


Sounds a lot like pregnancy, no? No wonder prophylactics prevent disease.

Now, even I admit that this argument is something of a stretch. But seriously? Pregnancy is no picnic. If one is not emotionally, mentally, physically, and monetarily stable and ready to deal with it, it's even worse. I feel bad for any woman who is pregnant before she's ready, but I feel even worse for a child born to a mother who's not ready to by a mother.



To add to my claim that abortion should remain perfectly legal, I bring the issue of prostitution in the United States, something else that is also frowned upon by many.

Prostitution is quoted as the oldest profession; the first You-Give-Me-Money-Or-Goods-For-The-Service-I-Render job. Obviously, a very desirable service to have survived so long. In certain counties of the state of Nevada, prostitution is legal. (Gasp!) Prostitutes are licensed, and regularly screened for diseases. Including pregnancy. The act can be taxed, regulated, and generally made safer. In fact, brothel owners can be criminally charged if someone contracts HIV from one of their prostitutes when they have been tested positive for it. This is to prevent the spread of harmful STDs. What happens if someone contracts HIV from a prostitute in California? Or New York? Or Florida? Nothing can be done because the act in which they contracted HIV was illegal to start with. There is no way to regulate the prostitutes when the services they give are all under the table. So in Nevada, the prostitutes are clean, and the state receives the taxes from the services they regulate.

This clearly demonstrates that making something like prostitution, abortion, or even drug use illegal (sure marijuana is illegal--and that stops everyone from smoking it, right?) doesn't stop it from happening, it simply serves to drive it underground. (Perfect example: prohibition. That worked so well. /sarcasm.) Outlawing activities such as these makes them illicit, dirty, and dramatically unsafe. And I don't know about you, but I would rather have things like these legal and safe, than illegal and dangerous.

I would rather see an abortion clinic on every street corner, than see it be made illegal and hear stories of women throwing themselves down flights of stairs, or using clothes hangers or bike spokes in some shady apartment because they're desperate and scared and have no place else to go.

If abortion remains legal, we can continue to regulate it, putting forth laws, conditions, and terms under which abortion is acceptable. The most obvious being the instruments involved must be sterile and the procedure performed by a licensed professional. This may grow to included laws that limit how far into the pregnancy abortions can be preformed. For example, a fetus could potentially survive outside the womb after approximately 32 weeks of development. In my opinion, abortions performed this late into the pregnancy are unacceptable, unless carrying the fetus to term and/or birth would be detrimental to the fetus and/or carrier. But making abortion illegal will never make it go away. It's not something that makes me happy, but it is a fact I have accepted and so I want to make the best of it.

Instead of spending time and money trying to abolish abortion, I suggest that those who are pro-life spend time and money raising awareness on birth control--which includes scrapping "Abstinence Only" sex education in public schools, because that obviously doesn't work, Governor Palin--, or setting up safe-houses for single mothers.

Instead of making abortion illegal, make abortion unnecessary.


Sources:
Definitions of Murder/Manslaughter
The Hippocratic Oath And Wikipedia






Pro-Choice
Pro-Child

10.17.2008

"Two Candidate Walk into a Bar..."


By Steven Weber.

My favorite kind of insult is a backhanded compliment. And Steven Weber's post is just one big backhanded compliment to John McCain. On a left-wing blog, you wouldn't normally expect to find a blog entry about how very well McCain did at the Al Smith dinner compared to Obama, who did "just okay." Except that the unwritten sentence after every compliment is, "Too bad the Good came too late for McCain and the rest of his campaign is shit."

Obviously, posting to The Huffington Post, Weber's targeted audience is fellow liberals. As far as I know, apart from starring in truly epic movies (Reefer Madness? Brilliance.) and graduating from SUNY Purchase, he's not some other kind of authority on politics, but neither am I, and I want people to agree with me, so I guess I can't really judge him to harshly there.

But I do like his style. Well, let me rephrase: I like his idea. I have some beefs with his final draft, but that's because it was beaten into my head at a young age that run on sentences are in fact made of hate and pain. And Weber is somewhat... verbose. Verbose to the point of annoying. So, yes, I definitely like the idea of insulting McCain with compliments, I just wish he'd had an editor. Or a pickier editor. Like me!

Again, since I didn't actually watch the Al Smith dinner, what with the lack of cable and all, I can't agree or disagree with Weber. But, apart from some grammatical faux pas, I think he presented his opinion in a delightfully snarky way. He managed to insult and compliment both candidates without stooping to low brow humor or below-the-belt jibes (which would have been unsurprising coming from a comedian).

All in all, it gets a thumbs up from me. (I'm still kind of annoyed with all the run ons, though...)

10.03.2008

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse...


Clearly, I do not like Sarah Palin. So no one should really be shocked that the editorial I decided to critique is about her. You may roll your eyes now and get over it.

Everyone knows that the Vice-Presidential Debate was last night. I was so excited for it that I went to go see Jeff Dunham instead. (Which was awesome, by the way.) But I will admit that I was very curious to know how the debate raged. (Not that I would have been able to watch it if I'd stayed home--I can haz cabl? No.) So when I realized that Blog Stage 3 was due today and I hadn't done it yet (oops), I thought it would be very appropriate to look for an editorial about the debates.

Oh, boy.

Since I didn't actually see the debates, I can't technically agree with the editorial, but I reallyreally want to, so I'll try not to let that interfere with my evaluation.

First, I'd like to commend the author of this piece for never once referring to Sarah as a woman, unless he was using pronouns. Her sex shouldn't play any part in her role as wanna-be Vice-President, and I'm very glad that, at least in this editorial, it's not. I don't see why it's so hard to just ignore her uterus especially since she doesn't care about anyone else's. So plus 5 points for that.

However, I'm gonna have to say minus 2 or 3 points for lack of Biden information. This editorial was entitled "The Vice-Presidential Debate," so one would expect to read about both candidates. I'm all for ragging on Palin, and there was some information on Biden, but it was definitely leaning hard on how lousy Palin did. Maybe that's what the debate was actually like--Palin was terrifying and Biden wasn't particularly amazing or awful--but I didn't see it, and so I would have liked to know more specifics about what Biden had to say, rather than that he simply, "did well," and "left Ms. Pailn way behind on most issues."

From a purely English Teacher standpoint (not that I'm an English teacher...) I'd have to say plus 3 points. It was written in a very clear manner; maybe not so that every random Tom, Dick or Harry from off the street would follow, but the people who care enough to be informed will have no problems understanding. The title is somewhat misleading, ("The Vice-Presidential Debate" instead of "How Sarah Palin Epically Failed The Vice-Presidential Debate") but that's not too terrible.

All in all, this editorial gets the stamp of approval from me, and not just because it criticized Sarah Palin.

9.14.2008

Brilliance!


Unrelated to any of the assignments, but I saw this and just had to post it just in case people still haven't seen it:

Saturday Night Live does Palin and Hilary.

One of the funniest things I've seen in a long time, especially considering it's SNL.