Once upon a hoopty...

Western Europe is in an uproar over muslims and terrorists and burqas (burkas). When your peaceful streets are attacked, we, as Americans have also learned, it is far too easy to sell freedoms for security. Does the government of the Netherlands have the right to ban burqas? Right? I suppose any government can forbid anything it wants. But is it right to forbid it? Right?

Our day and age would have us believe there are not moral absolutes. And if you believe that then I suppose you would agree that a burqa would not be a problem, unless we fear guerrilas and terrorists to dress in them to hide their weapons. It is too much, then, to provide female security officers to check woman who feel is it morally appropriate to wear garments that cover their bodies. It is inefficient, I will grant.

It is inefficient to provide liberties to everyone, to the minorities, especially in a time when it is much easier to travel to different countries and make a dwelling among different cultures. It is also possible that, were we dwelling among their culture, they would not offer us the same liberties. And that will be used as a justification as well. Far be it for us to do what is right since there are others who do not. Or since others would take advantage of our doing right. If we even believe in "right." Or because it is them and not us this time.

It is easy to condemn Christianity because those who confessed to it claimed it as a reason to conduct an Inquisition and drive out Jews and Moors from Spain. Or because they claimed it as a reason to war against Muslims and Jews for "the Holy Land" in a crusade. There are those today who would claim Christianity as a reason to hate jews or muslims or blacks or homosexuals, but can I please profess that hate and war and torture are not Christian values in a Biblical sense. Though Christ teaches that we must pursue moral righteousness, the highest end of that righteousness is love. Please let us not pursue another crusade of religious intolerance in the name of Christianity, or of any religious or secular reason.

Freedom. Is not easy.

Wow. It was a week for upsets. And boy am I upset.

Louisville's undefeated streak was broken up, Arkansas beat Tennessee, Georgia upset Auburn, Florida squeeked past S. Carolina (i'm no gator fan, but I'd rather see Spurrier lose any day of the week; this wasn't techinically an upset, but it was so close, it's worth mentioning), Arizona upset California, and Kansas State beat Texas! Wow!

I'd also like to point out that there are 5 ranked ACC teams right now: Boston College and Virginia Tech one would expect to see in this group...but alongside Georgia Tech, Maryland and WAKE FOREST? Where did the Demon Deacons come from? When was the last time they had a winning season? Seriously though. Where did FSU and Miami go? If FSU doesn't show up to play against WESTERN MICHIGAN they're going to have a <50% season. 50% is hopeful at this point. It's amazing how fast a team can go from "dynasty" to "crap." I don't know enough about the problems to blame Jeff Bowden, but he seems like an easy scapegoat. I'm just ...shocked....

EDIT: I went back to look and see that Arkansas is actually higher ranked than the Vols, but I'm just so surprised to see the razorbacks doing so well that they deserve honorable mention here as well.

As per Crystal's suggestion to exchange ideas on abortion and a possible solution, i thought I would do more than merely complain about the inevitable shift farther and farther left unto some crazy dystopia a la Brave new World.

My stance, my actual belief:
1. I think a fetus is a life. [A lot of Christians would define a fetus as a life using Bibical scripture, and while I do think the scriptures they quote are inspired by God, I don't think these passages prove anything about the life in fetuses. The way the Bible inspires me to believe what I believe in this instance is God's command in the Old Testament telling the Israelites that murder is wrong. This, of course, depends on thinking of the fetus as a life, a conclusion to which I come more practically.] It cannot be a parasite, by definition, because a parasite is a foreign body. I suppose if the fetus is unwanted, it can feel like a parasite or an unwanted tumor, but if left alone, it will mature into a human being. Also, most humans will procreate on purpose. This means that what one woman may feel is a parasite, another woman longs for. If a woman, 8 months pregnant, who had a decorated room and tons of baby clothes, were to be shot in the stomach, we would mourn as if the shooter took two lives. The difference, then, seems to be the woman's preference, which cannot be a definition of life. Emotionally, I know too many heart-broken couples who cannot have children to think of abortion as acceptable. I've seen too many sonograms and felt too many kicks to compare a human fetus to a tapeworm. Granted, that's an emotional and not logical plea, but i think it's somewhat valid.

2. A woman has a right to a preference and a choice. The way abortion is treated right now is that it is hated by half the US population and heralded by the other half. This creates a lot of situations in women's clinics where a woman is pressured into either outright having an abortion before fully understanding all the ramifications, or she is pressured to not consider abortion as an option. I don't consider either one of these as protecting a woman's choice. I think that not providing or maybe requiring counseling before going through with an abortion is wrong, because as much as the woman may have the right, she also has the responsibility to know what it will mean and what her other alternatives are. Abortion is still a surgery and that always means risks. An abortion can result in the woman's losing the ability to have children in the future. There are plenty of other results. I personally believe that abortion should always be a last option after every alternative has been weighed, and perhaps not even then, and I'd like to think that most people would choose to selflessly give birth to the baby and keep it or give it away rather than abort it, but people don't do things because I think it's right.

3. The best way to discourage abortion in a society where it is an option is to decrease the stigma of pregnant teenagers and single mothers. This is a social answer to a social and moral dillema, but there's no way to enforce this. This way is not a quick solution, but this is the right solution. As long as parents make ultimatums like "I'll disown you," children will do whatever they can to hide from them. I think it is obvious that the best time and place to have kids is within a marriage or otherwise committed relationship, but i don't know why the alternative to "best" has to be so looked down upon. When my mom was growing up, the stigma kept most girls (or at least "more") from being sexually active as teenagers, but now we tell teenagers that they're supposed to have sex, just not have babies. Which makes no sense. All this to say, changing cultural stigmas is, at best, a difficult task.

4. Legally, I am a moderate on most issues and likewise on this one. I think that taking more permissive steps is the wrong direction. I think that taking more preventative steps is a pipe dream, unless the culture backs it up. At the risk of repeating myself, I don't know if there's any legislation that requires women desiring an abortion to go through any kind of counseling, but i do think that is important. And in more than a "don't teach me about politics and government, just tell me who to vote for" kind of way. I think that having a legal abortion is a right that comes with responsibility, and that is knowing the full ramifications of what you are having done.

My first response is to be passionately outspoken against Mr. Ortega. I have seen the lies that have been told and unfulfilled by his party. I was not there in the eighties when he was in control of the country, alligned himself with the soviets and with a marxist socialism, but i have heard the stories. They celebrated their revolutionary victory by calling on the poor farmers in the cattle lands of the north to share and eat the cattle. And then there were no cattle. They discredited education, and placed as teachers anyone who would parrot the ideals of the party. They did try to educate the poor and country folk, but only in marxism.

Can people change? Of course I believe that. Has Daniel Ortega changed? I am sure he has changed in some ways...he is 16 years older than when he last was presidente. Has he mellowed out a little? Does he still hold to socialist ideals? Like many countries, and like his Venezuelan ally, I think he is mostly a proponent of any idealogy that is against the United States and their attempts to neo-colonize his country. Does he have a point? maybe so.

And that's where I find myself. If I had been born and raised in Nicaragua, I might want to believe the party lies, too. I might want to believe that Ortega is the best hope for Nicaragua. And I hope he is. I hope I'm wrong and that he reaches out to the poor without so offending the rich and the international community that he can continue to help the poor to put food on the table. With Fidel's rebellion against the U.S. fading to a fizzle, Chavez and now Ortega will continue to stand against the U.S. in this new era of capitalist colonialism. Are they any better? I doubt it. Will they challenge the way we view international politics? I hope so. Maybe we'll even have to act like equal partners in the international stage.

Oh, I don't know what I think anymore. God bless Nicaragua and have mercy on her whether her new leader be good or bad.

Found this article online.

"We can terminate for serious foetal abnormality up to term, but cannot kill a newborn," he told The Sunday Times. "What do people think has happened in the passage down the birth canal to make it OK to kill the foetus at one end of the birth canal but not the other?"

If we can justify killing a fetus, because it's not alive yet, because it hasn't been born yet and therefore isn't a citizen and so it doesn't have any rights, then why can't we justify killing a newborn? I mean, really, what's the difference? In fact, the whole first year of life a human is barely able to interact with the world around it. I mean, what's the difference between a fetus and a 6-month-old baby? And while we're talking about incoherancy, what about the elderly who suffer from Alzheimer's? It would be merciful to shorten the "years of emotional and financial suffering" for those who are unfairly given the burden of having to care for such people. And since they barely know what's going on.... I mean, what's the big difference between an elderly Alzheimer's patient and a fetus? What about prisoners? Anyone who can't obey the government is just going to have "years of emotional and financial suffering," and if we were a merciful people, we would put them out of their misery and make room for their time and space and assets to be used by other more worthy people. In fact, anyone who doesn't agree with the policies of the current administration shouldn't have to suffer under their leadership. It would be merciful to end their suffering. We should get to choose, after all, who lives and who doesn't.

Where will it end?

There are a lot of news articles out right now about the Dixie Chicks documentary and the pseudo-documentary "Death of a President" which carries on as if Pres. Bush has been assassinated. The publicity all seems to say that most film houses refuse to show the films because the subject matter is offensive and is against the current administration. And then the film producers whine about their freedom of speech/expression.

I understand that this is a marketing ploy, but really: can we really, honestly believe that film houses don't have the right to not show whatever movie they don't think will make them money? The freedom of speech has a lot more to do with the fact that you cannot be arrested for believing or saying anything. You are legally allowed to want someone to be dead and to tell that to anyone you want. That's fine, as long as you don't try to bring that about in any way. It's related to freedom of the press: you have the right to print (or broadcast) anything, and with that right comes the social responsibility to make sure that the difference between opinion and fact are clearly stated in your press release. Are you legally forbidden to lie in the paper or in the news? Well...kinda. You can sue for libel and slander, but the government cannot silence you.

As for movies, you can make a movie about whatever you want. You can even produce whatever movie you want. In fact, you can own a movie house and show whatever movie you want. But the owners of theaters don't have as lofty ideals as most directors and are usually driven by income. And documentaries have primarily played in indy houses for decades. The recent exception of the Michael Moore and Penguin documentaries are not the norm. I don't really care about either of these two movies. At all. It makes no difference to me whether my local film house shows these movies or not.

*sigh*

Marketing makes me angry.