John Stevens and my own Stevens (Miller, that is) have an interesting set of posts up. Read John's first at Our Loudoun Schools, and then read Stevens's response at Without Supervision.
Logic! Reason! SCIENCE! Well, maybe not science.
I am excited to see something that is rarely seen in the Loudoun blogosphere, a calm rational substantive debate based on thoughtful interpretations of the facts.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
One reason I don't have advertising on my blog
Is that it seems nigh impossible to control which ads run. Daily Kos, for example, has ads for Frank Wolf running at the top and bottom of their pages. Various body positive blogs I read have trouble with diet ads running. Infertility blog readers get upset when the blogs they read have advertising for baby stuff.
And the specialty advertisers like Advertise Liberally won't touch a site like mine that has relatively low traffic (relative to Pandagon, for example).
Other blogs I know sell their own advertising space, but that seems like a lot of overhead.
So, instead, I'm donating space to restaurants that are supportive of Democracy in general and who support causes I believe in. All the logos I have up are of businesses I support with my purchasing dollars. I am receiving absolutely no compensation for having their logos on my site.
Joe's Pizza and Joe's Cafe; American Flatbread; and Jimmy's Old Town Tavern. They are restaurants worth eating at owned by civic-minded and warm-hearted people. Go eat at their restaurants, and tell them I sent you.
And the specialty advertisers like Advertise Liberally won't touch a site like mine that has relatively low traffic (relative to Pandagon, for example).
Other blogs I know sell their own advertising space, but that seems like a lot of overhead.
So, instead, I'm donating space to restaurants that are supportive of Democracy in general and who support causes I believe in. All the logos I have up are of businesses I support with my purchasing dollars. I am receiving absolutely no compensation for having their logos on my site.
Joe's Pizza and Joe's Cafe; American Flatbread; and Jimmy's Old Town Tavern. They are restaurants worth eating at owned by civic-minded and warm-hearted people. Go eat at their restaurants, and tell them I sent you.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Musical Interlude
We are a gentle angry people, and we are singing for our lives...
I grew up in a family that went marching, marching, marching. And Holly Near is a singer and songwriter whose music was part and parcel of that.
I grew up in a family that went marching, marching, marching. And Holly Near is a singer and songwriter whose music was part and parcel of that.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
WHAT THE HELL?
[Sounds of me banging my head on the keyboard]. THIS IS WHY WE'RE HAVING AN ENTHUSIASM GAP! Dammit! Equality is in the National fucking Platform for crying out loud.
I hear Danny Glover shouting in my head.
I hear Danny Glover shouting in my head.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
BitchPhD is going dark. I am so sad about this. That blog has been enormously influential to me. Not least because the lead writer taught me how to get my bras properly fitted. I hate it when blogs I love go dark. I hate it worse when they take down the site entirely. I really hope that doesn't happen with Bitch PhD.
I'll miss you and your co-bloggers, Dr. Bitch. Please come back.
I'll miss you and your co-bloggers, Dr. Bitch. Please come back.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
For the sake of argument...
Let's take the other side seriously for a moment and assume, strictly for the sake of this discussion, that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception, and that it has the same rights as every other person has. You know that I think that's crap, but let's pretend it's not for now, okay?
An innocent person has a right to live, so an embryo has a right to live. (Hard to imagine an embryo as anything other than innocent, eh?) Killing an innocent person is wrong and we should prevent that. If we don't act to save that innocent embryo against its murder by abortion, we're as guilty of killing it as the person who performs the abortion is, and as guilty as the woman who has it performed on her is. Our only moral option is to prevent abortion, even if that means making it a crime to have or give one.
Seems pretty clear that, if we don't act to stop it, we are committing a moral wrong, because we are choosing to let an innocent person die. That's why we have to empower our police to arrest abortionists and their patients, our courts to prosecute them, and our prisons to lock them up. Heck, Virginia has the death penalty and prisons are expensive. Abortionists and their patients are not innocent. Execute them. If we don't, we're as bad as they are.
Some people point out that, if we use the power of government to control a pregnant woman's behavior, we're taking away her liberty. That's true, but we're talking life and death here! Any constitutional scholar will tell you that life interests outrank liberty interests under the constitution. So, government forcing choices on pregnant women is constitutionally okay, if that's what it takes to save an innocent person's life.
Right.
When was the last time you gave blood? Something like a quarter of a million people died in Haiti this year after a major earthquake struck their homes. Many died for lack of blood. Every single person who could have given a pint of blood, but didn't, might have saved an innocent life. But didn't. Why is that okay, but standing by and letting a woman make her own choice isn't? Because it should be your choice as to whether or not you give blood? How is it not, then, a woman's choice as to whether or not she gives birth? Because her choice kills and your choice doesn't? Sorry. You give blood, or someone dies. She gives birth, or someone dies. What gives anyone the right to compel a person to give birth, if no one has the right to compel a person to give blood? (By the way, giving blood is far less likely to kill you than giving birth.)
If an embryo is an innocent person, and it's morally wrong to allow others to kill an innocent person, and therefore we are morally obliged to compel a pregnant woman to give birth, are we not morally obliged to compel an able person to give blood?
Are we not obliged to compel every potential donor with a kidney to be tested for type and kept on file so their kidney can save an innocent life when that donor dies?
Heck, if you have two good kidneys, why should you be allowed to keep them both? Some people don't have one. Government simply must take one of yours or else some innocent person dies.
If you believe an embryo is a person and that government must force a pregnant woman to give that person birth, then roll up your sleeve. And keep next week open, too, because you're going to be due in surgery. Someone out there needs one of your kidneys, and by God, the government's gonna give it to him.
Nothing else would be moral.
An innocent person has a right to live, so an embryo has a right to live. (Hard to imagine an embryo as anything other than innocent, eh?) Killing an innocent person is wrong and we should prevent that. If we don't act to save that innocent embryo against its murder by abortion, we're as guilty of killing it as the person who performs the abortion is, and as guilty as the woman who has it performed on her is. Our only moral option is to prevent abortion, even if that means making it a crime to have or give one.
Seems pretty clear that, if we don't act to stop it, we are committing a moral wrong, because we are choosing to let an innocent person die. That's why we have to empower our police to arrest abortionists and their patients, our courts to prosecute them, and our prisons to lock them up. Heck, Virginia has the death penalty and prisons are expensive. Abortionists and their patients are not innocent. Execute them. If we don't, we're as bad as they are.
Some people point out that, if we use the power of government to control a pregnant woman's behavior, we're taking away her liberty. That's true, but we're talking life and death here! Any constitutional scholar will tell you that life interests outrank liberty interests under the constitution. So, government forcing choices on pregnant women is constitutionally okay, if that's what it takes to save an innocent person's life.
Right.
When was the last time you gave blood? Something like a quarter of a million people died in Haiti this year after a major earthquake struck their homes. Many died for lack of blood. Every single person who could have given a pint of blood, but didn't, might have saved an innocent life. But didn't. Why is that okay, but standing by and letting a woman make her own choice isn't? Because it should be your choice as to whether or not you give blood? How is it not, then, a woman's choice as to whether or not she gives birth? Because her choice kills and your choice doesn't? Sorry. You give blood, or someone dies. She gives birth, or someone dies. What gives anyone the right to compel a person to give birth, if no one has the right to compel a person to give blood? (By the way, giving blood is far less likely to kill you than giving birth.)
If an embryo is an innocent person, and it's morally wrong to allow others to kill an innocent person, and therefore we are morally obliged to compel a pregnant woman to give birth, are we not morally obliged to compel an able person to give blood?
Are we not obliged to compel every potential donor with a kidney to be tested for type and kept on file so their kidney can save an innocent life when that donor dies?
Heck, if you have two good kidneys, why should you be allowed to keep them both? Some people don't have one. Government simply must take one of yours or else some innocent person dies.
If you believe an embryo is a person and that government must force a pregnant woman to give that person birth, then roll up your sleeve. And keep next week open, too, because you're going to be due in surgery. Someone out there needs one of your kidneys, and by God, the government's gonna give it to him.
Nothing else would be moral.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Pop and Politics
Can you guess WHY this video makes me think of politics?
Okay, okay, okay. I've been reliably informed that, no, NO ONE would guess why this video makes me think of politics. The answer is, one of the band members looks like he could be the brother of The World's Best Campaign Manager, Bar None.
Okay, okay, okay. I've been reliably informed that, no, NO ONE would guess why this video makes me think of politics. The answer is, one of the band members looks like he could be the brother of The World's Best Campaign Manager, Bar None.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Do you remember?
Which was the first presidential election you voted in and who you voted for?
Which was the first presidential election you were aware of and who the candidates were?
The first presidential election I voted in was 1988: Bush v. Dukakis. I voted for Dukakis.
The first presidential election I was aware of was Carter v. Reagan (and Anderson). We held debates in my elementary school, and I spoke in favor of Anderson.
Which reminds me of this song:
Which was the first presidential election you were aware of and who the candidates were?
The first presidential election I voted in was 1988: Bush v. Dukakis. I voted for Dukakis.
The first presidential election I was aware of was Carter v. Reagan (and Anderson). We held debates in my elementary school, and I spoke in favor of Anderson.
Which reminds me of this song:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)