Friday brain dump for week of 7/22/05
This was yet another interesting week for me and this site. Admittedly, I have been getting real frustrated at some issues (some I will discuss here) and just the stupidity of government in general. Everyday politicians prove one thing: It is all about them. I guess with most of our congressmen and senators being lawyers by trade, I should not be that surprised. I am reminded of that movie Dave where you had an almost unknown (Dave’s accountant friend) walk into the White House and balance the National budget overnight. I know that was Hollywood’s daydream version, but it would sure be nice to have national issues dealt with without all of the grandstanding by our self-serving politicians.
No, this is not my precursory introduction to my political career. Puhleeze!
If you have noticed on this site, unlike other sites out there, I have not addressed some of the “hot-button” issues of the week (Supreme Court nominee, Karl Rove, Ebonics, etc.). The reason: It is boring.
Slow down. Chew your food
I much rather talk about issues that hopefully matter in the long run. This is why (if you have not noticed by now), I do not update as frequently as some others simply because like many of you, there are just some issues out there that really stick out to me and I want to take my time to really process them. For example, it would be very hard for me to deal with homosexuality in the church one moment, and hours later talk about how blacks are portrayed in Mexico. Whooa! That is just a bit much to swallow in such a short period of time.
On these “Friday brain dump” postings, I try to quickly hit some of the issues that I may have overlooked during the week. This posting will usually cover both Friday’s and Saturday’s.
The hunt for a Supreme Court justice
As I kinda eluded to earlier, this is another one of those issues that the average American does not care about. Conservatives have been pretty straight up in voicing their desire for a Justice that reflects their views. Democrats on the other hand have been saying that Bush should select someone that reflects the “mainstream”. What is so funny about that claim is that the same people are saying this had no problem with nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a former chief counsel for the ACLU). Bottom line, all a person can do is cross their fingers and hope that whoever gets the job doesn’t take the “show of hands” approach when interpreting the law.
Keith, from the blog Little Bit Tired, Little Bit Worn makes a point that I heard someone else make not too long ago:
Even if Roe-V-Wade were over turned, it would mean nothing.
Abortion was legal in 23 states previous to Roe-V-Wade.
Were it over turned all that it would mean is that the legality of abortion would then be decided by the states.
Were this to happen, I would not be surprised if all 50 (with perhaps the exception of Utah) legalized abortion.
You can also be sure that if Roe-V-Wade were over-turned the majority of the state legislators would be the ones determining the legality of abortion in their state and the citizens of those states would never have the opportunity to vote on it.
So all those hysterical claims that tell us that poor women throughout the US will be forced to perform their own abortions in some back alley with a coat hanger if Roe V. Wade was overturned are all false. Ultimately, the decision will be left up to the states. This will bring the power of choice in this issue that much closer to the people—something that Liberalism does not like the people to have.
Ebonics
If a parent is crazy enough to endorse this kind of education, then by all means allow them to do it—JUST NOT ON THE TAX DOLLAR! Ebonics is not a language. As one radio talk show host put it, like most real languages, you can’t use it to explain mathematical or scientific principles, can’t use it in the medical field (can you image your surgeon saying these words as you fade into unconsciousness from the anesthesia: “Aight den, give me dat thing over there that looks like hook or sumptin’” Other doctors in the room look confused and politely ask “What did you say?” Dr. Homey responds “look shawty, if ya’ll don’t stop f&^’n wit me, I am going to have to get buck wild up in here cuz all of y’all are racists…..”
Helplessly you fade out under the anesthesia while all of this is going on.
Homosexuality and the Black church
Still receiving some interesting comments from this post. Here are two comments (with links) from former homosexuals:
Salam Says:
July 21st, 2005 at 1:50 pm e
God bless you on the struggle,
I have been free for over 4 years of homosexuality!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nyeluscommunity/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EX-GAY_MUSLIMS/
Chad Says:
July 21st, 2005 at 2:00 pm e
You can love, while being firm in principles, I owuld have never left the gay
lifestyle, if eveyone patted me on my back!
I left because Christ called me from a life he said was not for me!
The drugs, sex, mutiple partners, orgy’s..alcholol these are the hidden
secrets of my past life! I had a great job a huge smile, but after dark this is the life I lived. I wish I had a freind who told me I love you and I will be here for you, but I disapprove!
http://www.lovinghomosexuals.com/
http://www.lovinghomosexuals.com/myblog/myblog.html EX GAY BLOG
if roe v. wade is overturned, then yes, the legality of abortion would be decided by the states. however, the thought that most states would make it leagal doesn’t mean there would not be a lot of back alley abortions. the states would still be allowed to (as they were pre-roe) place stipulations on access, waiting periods, parental consent or notification, viability, and the circumstances under which abortion is allowed: i.e. only if a woman’s health and/or life are in danger… let’s not oversimplify.
Comment by rhythm | July 22, 2005
Rhythm,
No over-simplification here
That would be up to the people. For the most part, the state can only do what the people demand. If the people demand the right for a woman to have an abortion, then that is what the people will get.
Just slow your roll a little bit on this one. What’s wrong with letting the people decide? Remember, America is still a democracy!
Comment by Duane | July 22, 2005
Rhythm,
you are simply mistaken.
While you ask Duane not to over-simplify I ask you not to take part in pro-abortion hysteria.
Very few of the 23 states which had legal abortion before Roe-V-Wade limited abortion to ‘only if the mothers health or life are at risk’.
This nation has only become more accepting of abortion since Roe-V-Wade, it is highly unlikely that if Roe-V-Wade were over turned that any state legalized abortion would limit abortion to such an extent.
You need not worry, with or with out Roe-V-Wade abortion in America will always be here and will remain legal and will in almost every state (if Roe-V-Wade is overturned) be legal up to the day of birth.
Again you needn’t worry about the future of abortion.
What you need to worry about is the fact that you support the murder of innocent children,
Comment by Keith | July 22, 2005
okay, this is simply to clarify the facts–not to address keith’s idea that i support “murder”–especially considering the fact that i’ve never stated on this blog or anywhere else how i personally feel about abortion. so, anyway, since all states currently have control over the issues i noted in my first comment, if roe were overturned they would STILL have this control. this is not “hysteria”–this is fact. i’m not implying that all 50 states (or even a majority of them) would suddenly decide to limit abortion to cases where life or health depends on the procedure–i’m simply stating the FACT that any number of them would have the AUTHORITY to do so if they so choose. also, there are very few providers nationwide where third trimester abortions are performed, so your idea that abortion will remain legal in almost every state “up to the day of birth” is ridiculous. and i think it’s a shame that you refuse to participate in these conversations without attempting to call my morals into question and telling me what i NEED to worry about. tell me, has that ever worked with a black woman?
Comment by rhythm | July 25, 2005
You are pro-abortion, you support murder.
Simple fact.
In fact, you support the fact that no group of persons are murdered by abortion at a higher rate in America than are African American babies.
You support the fact that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers set-up shop in more often in lower income areas than any other areas in the United States.
You support murder.
I have not called your morals into question, you have made clear some of your morals and I simply have pointed back to them.
As far as third-trimester abortions while obviously they are in the minority, there are plenty of them and they charge plenty of money to make a mother and father the mother and father of a dead child.
You fool yourself.
Okay, perhaps I should not have said you ‘need, to worry.
But you should worry, you should be concerned about the murder of children in the womb.
A society that can put to death the most innocent of persons, the most helpless of persons then has the ability to murder anyone for any reason.
I don’t want to fill Duanes comment section with a heated conversation.
So regardless of if you make comment back or not, I’ll hush my mouth for now.
Comment by Keith | July 25, 2005