lady_songsmith: owl (Default)

My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Sister/Brother Dagger of Reasonable Debate.


Get yours.

lady_songsmith: owl (Default)

My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Sister/Brother Dagger of Reasonable Debate.


Get yours.

lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
MSNBC on in the next room, and I can hear the Congressional debates. Someone just said "of all the Constitutional rights, none is more precious than the right to life." I don't know for certain who; by the time I got in there it might have been a different speaker, but the voice sounded the same. So probably Sensenbrenner (R, Wisconsin), but don't quote me on that.

Now, call me crazy, but I happen to have a copy of the Constitution here -- *holds up a very big book on Constitutional cases* -- and nowhere can I find a right to life. People have a right 'to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches and seizures", not to be "twice put in jeopardy of life and limb" for the same offense, and not to be "deprived of life... without due process of law." That last one, I guess, is the closest you're gonna come to a 'right to life', unless you want to argue that it's in the 9th amendment. (Enumeration of rights not to be construed as denying others.)

Or you can say that it's an 'inalienable right' as in the Declaration of Independence, but that's not what the good Congressman said, and one hopes that elected officials have some passing familiarity with two of the founding documents of this nation.

In any event, I would argue that free will trumps life, on a personal level. (i.e. one person's will to kill someone doesn't trump the other person's right to live. Which will, I suppose, open up the abortion can of worms, but that's another post.) Suicide shouldn't be a crime; no one should be forced to continue living. It seems fairly straightforward to me. Free will is an essential human quality, and life is the most personal possession we have. If one is forcibly denied the exercise of free will over one's own life, doesn't that make one, on some level, a prisoner?

I am not going to get into the further ramifications of the case, which the commentators are still going in circles about. I just wanted to post a little musing on that one comment.
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
MSNBC on in the next room, and I can hear the Congressional debates. Someone just said "of all the Constitutional rights, none is more precious than the right to life." I don't know for certain who; by the time I got in there it might have been a different speaker, but the voice sounded the same. So probably Sensenbrenner (R, Wisconsin), but don't quote me on that.

Now, call me crazy, but I happen to have a copy of the Constitution here -- *holds up a very big book on Constitutional cases* -- and nowhere can I find a right to life. People have a right 'to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches and seizures", not to be "twice put in jeopardy of life and limb" for the same offense, and not to be "deprived of life... without due process of law." That last one, I guess, is the closest you're gonna come to a 'right to life', unless you want to argue that it's in the 9th amendment. (Enumeration of rights not to be construed as denying others.)

Or you can say that it's an 'inalienable right' as in the Declaration of Independence, but that's not what the good Congressman said, and one hopes that elected officials have some passing familiarity with two of the founding documents of this nation.

In any event, I would argue that free will trumps life, on a personal level. (i.e. one person's will to kill someone doesn't trump the other person's right to live. Which will, I suppose, open up the abortion can of worms, but that's another post.) Suicide shouldn't be a crime; no one should be forced to continue living. It seems fairly straightforward to me. Free will is an essential human quality, and life is the most personal possession we have. If one is forcibly denied the exercise of free will over one's own life, doesn't that make one, on some level, a prisoner?

I am not going to get into the further ramifications of the case, which the commentators are still going in circles about. I just wanted to post a little musing on that one comment.
lady_songsmith: owl (sg1)
Old news. I'm late in jumping on the bandwagon; it's been beaten to death and beyond already. I will now stop mixing my metaphors. I could go on at some length about this subject, but it has been covered and then some, so I'll just pick my favorite part to mock. Anyway, from this report on abstinence-only education:
One book in the "Choosing the Best" series presents a story about a knight who saves a princess from a dragon. The next time the dragon arrives, the princess advises the knight to kill the dragon with a noose, and the following time with poison; both of which work but leave the knight feeling "ashamed." The knight eventually decides to marry a village maiden, but did so "only after making sure she knew nothing about nooses or poison." The curriculum concludes:
Moral of the story: Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess.


Once upon a time... )
lady_songsmith: owl (sg1)
Old news. I'm late in jumping on the bandwagon; it's been beaten to death and beyond already. I will now stop mixing my metaphors. I could go on at some length about this subject, but it has been covered and then some, so I'll just pick my favorite part to mock. Anyway, from this report on abstinence-only education:
One book in the "Choosing the Best" series presents a story about a knight who saves a princess from a dragon. The next time the dragon arrives, the princess advises the knight to kill the dragon with a noose, and the following time with poison; both of which work but leave the knight feeling "ashamed." The knight eventually decides to marry a village maiden, but did so "only after making sure she knew nothing about nooses or poison." The curriculum concludes:
Moral of the story: Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess.


Once upon a time... )
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
MSN has a set of three links to news/opinion articles on the front page of the Hotmail inbox. Mostly I ignore them, but occasionally one catches my eye. Today the top one was

Are teachers overpaid?

Naturally this sent me shrieking off to read it with a scowl... but as the eventual conclusion was "no, and why aren't we paying them more?", it's ok. ^_~

That article linked to this one, which was quite cool. I wanna see the set-up for the Civil War lesson mentioned.
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
MSN has a set of three links to news/opinion articles on the front page of the Hotmail inbox. Mostly I ignore them, but occasionally one catches my eye. Today the top one was

Are teachers overpaid?

Naturally this sent me shrieking off to read it with a scowl... but as the eventual conclusion was "no, and why aren't we paying them more?", it's ok. ^_~

That article linked to this one, which was quite cool. I wanna see the set-up for the Civil War lesson mentioned.
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
REPUBLICANS!

I know you're out there.

Would one or more of you explain to me why you supported Bush (if you did)? Preferably in clear, simple language and without referencing 'divine will', 'mission of God' or similar phrases. (Your religion is your business, of course, and if you like Bush because he's a Christian, power to you, but I want to know what the American people think about Bush, not what they think God thinks about him.) And yes, this is an honest question, not a rant.
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
REPUBLICANS!

I know you're out there.

Would one or more of you explain to me why you supported Bush (if you did)? Preferably in clear, simple language and without referencing 'divine will', 'mission of God' or similar phrases. (Your religion is your business, of course, and if you like Bush because he's a Christian, power to you, but I want to know what the American people think about Bush, not what they think God thinks about him.) And yes, this is an honest question, not a rant.

Well?

Nov. 2nd, 2004 07:41 pm
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
Did you vote today?

Well?

Nov. 2nd, 2004 07:41 pm
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
Did you vote today?
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
More quizzy stuff, just because I couldn't resist this one. Especially since if I change my answer to question number #2 or #4, I get different answers, and the combination is just very fun. :-)

In which I discover that I am a Morally Deficient Democratic Atheist )
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
More quizzy stuff, just because I couldn't resist this one. Especially since if I change my answer to question number #2 or #4, I get different answers, and the combination is just very fun. :-)

In which I discover that I am a Morally Deficient Democratic Atheist )
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
... I spent 15 minutes playing with PaintShop.

lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
... I spent 15 minutes playing with PaintShop.

lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
CDC requires "the censoring of any “content”... to eliminate anything even vaguely “sexually suggestive” or “obscene”.... And they demand that all such materials include information on the “lack of effectiveness of condom use” in preventing the spread of HIV and other STDs"

Not currently coherent to say much except, "Well, that's the dumbest thing I've heard since leaving High School"... Must regain coherency and send email to them.

Frankly -- my Big Brother radar is pinging overtime here. I don't care what their politics are; everyone in that administration can't be stupid enough to believe their own propaganda in the face of numerous studies. It's like a conscious decision has been made to place political perception over the health of Americans -- young Americans -- and that scares me. What scares me more is wondering why because every rationale I can construct to motivate such a decision is really disturbing.
lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
CDC requires "the censoring of any “content”... to eliminate anything even vaguely “sexually suggestive” or “obscene”.... And they demand that all such materials include information on the “lack of effectiveness of condom use” in preventing the spread of HIV and other STDs"

Not currently coherent to say much except, "Well, that's the dumbest thing I've heard since leaving High School"... Must regain coherency and send email to them.

Frankly -- my Big Brother radar is pinging overtime here. I don't care what their politics are; everyone in that administration can't be stupid enough to believe their own propaganda in the face of numerous studies. It's like a conscious decision has been made to place political perception over the health of Americans -- young Americans -- and that scares me. What scares me more is wondering why because every rationale I can construct to motivate such a decision is really disturbing.

Profile

lady_songsmith: owl (Default)
lady_songsmith

July 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
1718192021 2223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios