High speed pursuits
I don't understand why police are permitted to engage in high speed pursuits with suspected criminals. Is it really that difficult to write down the plate number, set up a check point down the road, or notify surrounding municipalities' police departments of the suspected vehicle? I understand these things are sensational and exciting and we want to get the bad guy, but people actually get killed with these things.
Discomfort with some pro-abortion arguments
I've been finding lately that a lot of the pro-choice talking points are extreme, unreasonable, and frankly, inhumane. While I support a woman's right to abortion during the first trimester, I'm troubled by some of the arguments advocating the right to choose:
1. "The child would have lived a miserable life anyway"
We frequently hear the argument that had the fetus not been terminated and had the mother carried out the pregnancy, the child would have lived in a broken home or a foster home, suffered from abuse and neglect, and a general life of misery. This may or may not be true. There is ample evidence of children who were raised by terrible parents who overcame adversity and lived incredible lives. There is also plenty of evidence that these types of kids turned into criminals and monsters. Either way, it doesn't seem ethical to support the termination of this hypothetical kid's existence simply because his or her life looked like it was going to be difficult. Though life can be hard, I am glad to be alive rather than dead.
I really don't think I'm going too far by saying that the "child would have lived a miserable life anyway" argument implies that all children living in broken homes, foster homes, etc. might as well not be alive.
2. "Old men on the bench shouldn't be deciding what women can do with their bodies"
I particularly hate this argument. My sister says this all the time. As long as America continues to be a democracy, we maintain our constitution, and men are permitted to sit on the Supreme Court, men will have a voice on the abortion debate. There are issues in society that predominantly effect women. There are issues that predominantly effect men. The American people elect representatives who appoint judges who make rulings on many of these issues. Until a Constitutional amendment is passed which prohibits the male gender from ruling on abortion, proponents of this argument will not be satisfied.
This argument also ignores the fact that men on the bench authorized abortion with Roe v. Wade. White men also passed civil rights legislation in the 1960s, passed legislation to protect women from sexual discrimination in the workplace, etc. etc. Of course, minorities pressured white men to enact these laws. That's exactly the point of our democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more minorities in positions of power, but our system generally forces representatives to be held accountable to the people who vote them into power.
3. "illegalizing abortion will result in many women dying from back alley abortions"
This might be true, but if the government passed a law, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to obey that law. If an individual chooses to resort to an obviously dangerous practice to abort their child, it is exclusively their fault for the harm they bring to themselves -- not the government.
It is not difficult to brainstorm a plethora of stupid laws the government has passed and how the laws have created more harm than good. Of course, different people agree and disagree on what constitutes a "stupid law." That's why we have three branches of government and rules of the game to sort out whose opinion prevails. Not everybody can win. With abortion, two sides fundamentally disagree with one another and there really is no compromise to be made. Either the practice is permitted or it is not and thus criminalized. Basically, if abortion is criminalized, women will be responsible for carrying out their pregnancies and, for those who disagree with the law, operating through the appropriate channels to change the law.
It is very easy for each side to become carried away in this debate. It is easy to make extremist and unreasonable arguments in support of a cause one passionately believes in. But it's important not to lose sight of why we are in favor of a certain policy. I, myself, support abortion because a pregnancy will ruin the life of some women. At the age of 20, pursuing a college degree with lots of goals in life, a child would be utterly unnacceptable at this point for me. I believe individuals should have the freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies that could literally destroy their lives.
1. "The child would have lived a miserable life anyway"
We frequently hear the argument that had the fetus not been terminated and had the mother carried out the pregnancy, the child would have lived in a broken home or a foster home, suffered from abuse and neglect, and a general life of misery. This may or may not be true. There is ample evidence of children who were raised by terrible parents who overcame adversity and lived incredible lives. There is also plenty of evidence that these types of kids turned into criminals and monsters. Either way, it doesn't seem ethical to support the termination of this hypothetical kid's existence simply because his or her life looked like it was going to be difficult. Though life can be hard, I am glad to be alive rather than dead.
I really don't think I'm going too far by saying that the "child would have lived a miserable life anyway" argument implies that all children living in broken homes, foster homes, etc. might as well not be alive.
2. "Old men on the bench shouldn't be deciding what women can do with their bodies"
I particularly hate this argument. My sister says this all the time. As long as America continues to be a democracy, we maintain our constitution, and men are permitted to sit on the Supreme Court, men will have a voice on the abortion debate. There are issues in society that predominantly effect women. There are issues that predominantly effect men. The American people elect representatives who appoint judges who make rulings on many of these issues. Until a Constitutional amendment is passed which prohibits the male gender from ruling on abortion, proponents of this argument will not be satisfied.
This argument also ignores the fact that men on the bench authorized abortion with Roe v. Wade. White men also passed civil rights legislation in the 1960s, passed legislation to protect women from sexual discrimination in the workplace, etc. etc. Of course, minorities pressured white men to enact these laws. That's exactly the point of our democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't have more minorities in positions of power, but our system generally forces representatives to be held accountable to the people who vote them into power.
3. "illegalizing abortion will result in many women dying from back alley abortions"
This might be true, but if the government passed a law, it is the responsibility of the citizenry to obey that law. If an individual chooses to resort to an obviously dangerous practice to abort their child, it is exclusively their fault for the harm they bring to themselves -- not the government.
It is not difficult to brainstorm a plethora of stupid laws the government has passed and how the laws have created more harm than good. Of course, different people agree and disagree on what constitutes a "stupid law." That's why we have three branches of government and rules of the game to sort out whose opinion prevails. Not everybody can win. With abortion, two sides fundamentally disagree with one another and there really is no compromise to be made. Either the practice is permitted or it is not and thus criminalized. Basically, if abortion is criminalized, women will be responsible for carrying out their pregnancies and, for those who disagree with the law, operating through the appropriate channels to change the law.
It is very easy for each side to become carried away in this debate. It is easy to make extremist and unreasonable arguments in support of a cause one passionately believes in. But it's important not to lose sight of why we are in favor of a certain policy. I, myself, support abortion because a pregnancy will ruin the life of some women. At the age of 20, pursuing a college degree with lots of goals in life, a child would be utterly unnacceptable at this point for me. I believe individuals should have the freedom to terminate unwanted pregnancies that could literally destroy their lives.
I hate the double standard.
I'd actually never heard of Don Imus until recently. When I heard some dude made some sort of racial slur, I had initially thought he was a politician. As I've been bored and watching CNN while I clean my kitchen today, was getting quite frustrated with the hypocrisy of the media.
As I hear it, eighteen major advertisers have pulled their ads from Imus' radio show. And while I don't like, condone, or defend idiotic shock jock radio, it really pisses me off to hear that companies have a "media standard," when a white guy says something stupid, but have no problem what so ever with billboard top 40 ads.
I read a wonderful article today that sums it up far better than I could, but if people have a problem with an old white dude who makes one comment, why don't they have any issues with rap music?
Go read this article, then come back to me, although I warn you, there's some language, but that's the point.
I don't know what kind of radio show Imus has, but it isn't a stretch of the imagination to think that he could have played the new hot track by R. Kelly, and it's terribly sad that whilst it is perfectly acceptable for him to play and promote a degrading song, but as soon as he opens his fat mouth to say something far cleaner, he's a villain.
As I hear it, eighteen major advertisers have pulled their ads from Imus' radio show. And while I don't like, condone, or defend idiotic shock jock radio, it really pisses me off to hear that companies have a "media standard," when a white guy says something stupid, but have no problem what so ever with billboard top 40 ads.
I read a wonderful article today that sums it up far better than I could, but if people have a problem with an old white dude who makes one comment, why don't they have any issues with rap music?
Go read this article, then come back to me, although I warn you, there's some language, but that's the point.
I don't know what kind of radio show Imus has, but it isn't a stretch of the imagination to think that he could have played the new hot track by R. Kelly, and it's terribly sad that whilst it is perfectly acceptable for him to play and promote a degrading song, but as soon as he opens his fat mouth to say something far cleaner, he's a villain.
White House looking for "War Czar"
According to the Washington Post:
I though that we already had a "high-powered czar to oversee the wars" who had "authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies."
The article continues:
Some sort of "commander-in-chief," perhaps? Somebody who can bridge the military and Executive Branch chains of command?
Nah.
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.Gee.
I though that we already had a "high-powered czar to oversee the wars" who had "authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies."
The article continues:
To fill such a role, the White House is searching for someone with enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.Hm. Stature and confidence.
Some sort of "commander-in-chief," perhaps? Somebody who can bridge the military and Executive Branch chains of command?
Nah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
