Jan 8, 2015
je suis charlie
seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from Morocco
seen from Germany
seen from Yemen
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Russia
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Greece
je suis charlie
thanks scotus!
Mass panic in the entire apartment in 3, 2, 1.
Why I Am Pro-Life
by Thomas Friedman
Hard-line conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he “came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” That came on the heels of the Tea Party-backed Republican Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois saying after a recent debate that he opposed abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would not survive without an abortion. “Health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime, for any reason,” Walsh said. That came in the wake of the Senate hopeful in Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, remarking that pregnancy as a result of “legitimate rape” is rare because “the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.”
These were not slips of the tongue. These are the authentic voices of an ever-more-assertive far-right Republican base that is intent on using uncompromising positions on abortion to not only unseat more centrist Republicans — Mourdock defeated the moderate Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana in the primary — but to overturn the mainstream consensus in America on this issue. That consensus says that those who choose to oppose abortion in their own lives for reasons of faith or philosophy should be respected, but those women who want to make a different personal choice over what happens with their own bodies should be respected, and have the legal protection to do so, as well.
But judging from the unscientific — borderline crazy — statements opposing abortion that we’re hearing lately, there is reason to believe that this delicate balance could be threatened if Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan, and their even more extreme allies, get elected. So to those who want to protect a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body, let me offer just one piece of advice: to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves “pro-life” and Democrats as “pro-choice.” It is a huge distortion.
In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.”
“Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax.
The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society.
Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change.
Now that is what I call “pro-life.”
everything happens for a reason...
... except when it doesn't. i used to be the person who believed that everything happened for a reason, but then i went to therapy.
it turns out that physicists aren't the only people in the world who discount the concept of fate- my counselor with dual PhDs in psychology & theology also called bullshit on predetermination. she argued that it's human nature to look for the good/interesting/valuable take-away from crap situations so we can justify distress.
something about that idea has always resonated with me. i find it oddly comforting (if not ironic) that free will allows for an opportunity to select a coping mechanism which ostensibly contradicts its existence. it's nice to have that choice, and it's interesting to me that so many people have an instinctual need to feel like just one piece of some bigger concept in order to validate our seemingly small experiences.
so, after much internal debate- i do not still believe that everything happens for a reason, but i really appreciate that we can all agree it'd be nice if it did.
This is the last second chance, I'm half as good as it gets.
this year for lent i'm giving up.
i have plenty of vices that i should give up for any number of reasons. i'm not giving anything up for lent, though, because i'm enough of a martyr already.
i could blame my nominal affiliation to a denomination that has lackadaisical requirements for penitence- namely only that you do it, and that you be genuine about it. there's bound to be some correlation between that and my current nonchalance about this holy time of sacrifice, but honestly i just view lent in a similar manner to the way i view valentine's day; celebrating our relationship for one day a year means absolutely nothing to me if i don't feel loved the other 364 days. likewise, while i'd guess the almighty is happy to let people repent in any way they see fit, i just can't imagine a deity who thinks 40 days and 40 nights without chocolate wipes the moral slate clean.
yes, i realize that i'm clearly over-simplifying a major liturgical practice. but part of my problem with the modern incarnation of this tradition is that too few people fully grasp the motivation behind it. i'm not suggesting that one must be an expert on dogma in order to practice the traditions of his faith (though if you're a practicing christian, you already know that ultimately i'm not the one responsible for judging you for that.) i'm just saying that i would rather put my energy into being a good person for 365 days a year than being an asshole with a caffeine headache for 40 of those days.