Is a human embryo or fetus or a fertilized egg a "human being"?
That's not a scientific question. It's a matter of definition. Definition depends on your philosophy. So it's really a semantic/philosophic question.
And at what point legally-protected human life begins is a legal/philosphical question. And all the law can do is look back to how English-American law has dealth with the question over the centuries. Which takes us back to philosophy.
Obama was dead right that this discussion is above his pay grade. It's like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A problem for disputing rabbis or theologians or legal scholars. Any any legal definition is for legislatures, not the president.
In my opinion -- my philosophy -- an embryo or fetus is a parasite on the mother until capable fo independent life. Considering the fetus as a parasite, as a not-yet-separate entity, the mother is the one who reasonably bears the burden of the fetus continued existence and can call the shots. Which is more or less how the law is now after Roe v. Wade.
Philosophy is supposed to be based on reasoning, on logic. Religion is not.
Turn to religion. Those who take a strongly anti-abortion position are probably fundamentalist Christians. As fundamentalist Christians, they claim to be following the Bible.
In that case, what does the Bible say?
The only Biblical reference to the rights of the fetus is found at Exodus 21:22-28. You should be aware that there are two ways of interpreting this passage. Those Christians who oppose abortion know that this passage causes them a problem, and therefore they have developed an alternative reading of this passage, which has been carried over into the Bible translation that they favor.
If you pick up a RSV or NRSV or NEB then you get one reading. If you pick up an NIV or NKJB, you get another. So be aware of this.
The fact is, there are fundamentalist Bible translations prepared by fundamentalists and targeted to sell to other fundamentalists. So if you really want to get to the root of the meaning of a Bible passage in English, you have to compare different translations! (Or go to the original Hebrew or Greek words. But be aware that the lexicons that define these words can also be biased!) There is no translation that is not affected by the opinion of the translators. In my opinion, the NIV is quite biased in a number of places. Fundamentalists say that about the RSV and NRSV and NEB that I favor.
Basically, if you want to live a content, undisrupted existence, you buy a Bible translation that supports your opinion and that of your church. That is where most Christians are. Despite Sunday Schools and myriad semons, most Christians don't have the foggiest idea what the Bible says or how it came about. 99% of Bible "readings" are out of context or without consideration of the history of the text.
Back to Exodus 21:22-28. My reading is that if a miscarriage is caused by accident, then those responsible pay a fine to the father for the loss of the fetus. If the mother were injured, then the law of a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye applies. Which means that the fetus is not treated as a human being would be, but is a property right or expectancy of the father!
Fundamentalists define their way out of this by saying that the situation described in Exodus 21:22-28 is not a miscarriage, but a live birth! The infant is born alive though perhaps prematurely and survives hale and hearty.
There are multiple problems with that. (1) In ancient times, what is the likelihood that a prematurely born infant would have survived? IMO, vanishingly small. (2) If both mother and child are unharmed, then what is the point of the fine? (3) And if a happy, live birth is the exception, then why not tell about the punishment for causing a miscarriage, where the fetus dies, which will be more common? (4) And why in the middle of Exodus' discussion of the penalties Jewish law prescribes for accidental and intentional death and injuries, include a provision covering a rare situation where there was no harm?
Those who argue that Exodus 21:22 described a live birth and a surviving infant fail to see the forest for the trees. And if the Bible is "inspired by God" and "inerrant," then wouldn't a perfect God have communicated an important point with less ambiguity? People are being murdered by those who use the Bible as justification for a violently anti-abortion stance!
My conclusion is that, whatever your interpretation, the Bible is no firm authority for the position that the fetus is a human being under Jewish law.
Let's look at another argument based on the Bible. The Bible says that "Thou shalt not kill." Performing an abortion is killing the fetus. Therefore, the Bible forbids abortion.
Once again, this is not exactly true.
The commandment is actually "Thou shalt not commit murder." Killing is in many places in the Bible sanctioned by God, in war and as a penalty, so the Bible is no authority that killing is wrong. Killing a non-human is likewise not wrong.
What then, is a fetus? Again, Exodus 21:22 is no foundation for the argument that a fetus is a human being under the law. And the Ten Commendments do not forbid killing per se.
Which means that Christian fundamentalists opposed to abortion are basing their belief on something other than the Bible.
[To the reader: I have for years been interested in the abortion controversy and sought a logical resolution of it. The above is the best summary of my thinking to date. It of course resolves nothing for anyone else. Feelings pro or con are deeply held and held by other glue than logic. But let me say that I am especially proud of my analysis of Exodus 21:22ff, and owe it to no other person.]
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Offshore Banking Leaks
Once monolithic Swiss banks have lately been shown to have as many holes as ... swiss cheese. The freshly leaked information provided to Wikileaks is a case in point. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41153375/ And http://civilities.net/SwissWhistleBlower
Think of the secrets contained in those Swiss and offshore banks over the years! Nazi gold. Mafia money. The assets of persons long dead. It fires the imagination.
But most are just tax evaders and thieves and money-launderers of various types. Boring crimes of tax law and accountancy. One would have to be an accountant to even perceive what is happening.
What about this Rudolf Elmer, the source of the new leaks? What motivates him?
And how could a bank assure its customers absolute loyalty and confidentiality? Other than paying them obscenely well, which banks, at least Swiss banks, do not do? One wonders. A team of hit men, poised and ready to take out the families of any bankers who might otherwise be tempted to break ranks and run, data in hand? Plot for a novel there.
For years I've been a fan of "financial thrillers," a fiction genre dealing with financial shenanigans and murder on Wall Street and also in Swiss banking. Paul Erdman, an American who gained admission to the closed society of Swiss banking and then ran afoul of it, serving a time in a none too hospitable Swiss prison, founded the genre with a series of best sellers.
Think of the secrets contained in those Swiss and offshore banks over the years! Nazi gold. Mafia money. The assets of persons long dead. It fires the imagination.
But most are just tax evaders and thieves and money-launderers of various types. Boring crimes of tax law and accountancy. One would have to be an accountant to even perceive what is happening.
What about this Rudolf Elmer, the source of the new leaks? What motivates him?
And how could a bank assure its customers absolute loyalty and confidentiality? Other than paying them obscenely well, which banks, at least Swiss banks, do not do? One wonders. A team of hit men, poised and ready to take out the families of any bankers who might otherwise be tempted to break ranks and run, data in hand? Plot for a novel there.
For years I've been a fan of "financial thrillers," a fiction genre dealing with financial shenanigans and murder on Wall Street and also in Swiss banking. Paul Erdman, an American who gained admission to the closed society of Swiss banking and then ran afoul of it, serving a time in a none too hospitable Swiss prison, founded the genre with a series of best sellers.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
More on Capitalism, Communism, and Government
China is an example of how you can have a growing capitalist economy along with dictatorial (or oligarchic) form of government. Real life is often confusing. For example, you can have communism as an economic system and democracy as a form of government -- in fact, communism would work better that way; let the people decide how and where to allocate economic resources as central planning rather than haphazardly by .
Capitalism has one thing going for it. It recognizes that humans are primarily motivated by greed and selfishness. Pretending otherwise has led to a lot of grief. At the same time, we can't live with pure capitalism; it is intolerably manipulative and ignores considerations of the welfare of workers, consumers and of the nation as a whole. And so there are piles of laws and regulations, antitrust laws and unions to control the ravenous cannibalistic carnivore that we call capitalism.
Capitalism is like a nuclear furnace. Given all the fuel it wants, it will inevitably go into china syndrome and destroy all of us. We can live with it only if there are control rods and coolant and a graphite moderator and firm hands in charge.
So, I think you are mixing apples and oranges, when you imply that socialism or even communism mean dictatorship. The form of government is to an extent independent of the economic system. Capitalism and democracy do not always go together. (Marx himself was totally confused about this and did not distinguish between type of economy and form of government; in fact, Marx seemed to think that when the communist system was attained, government would drop away like a butterfly's coccoon; little did he know.)
Capitalism has one thing going for it. It recognizes that humans are primarily motivated by greed and selfishness. Pretending otherwise has led to a lot of grief. At the same time, we can't live with pure capitalism; it is intolerably manipulative and ignores considerations of the welfare of workers, consumers and of the nation as a whole. And so there are piles of laws and regulations, antitrust laws and unions to control the ravenous cannibalistic carnivore that we call capitalism.
Capitalism is like a nuclear furnace. Given all the fuel it wants, it will inevitably go into china syndrome and destroy all of us. We can live with it only if there are control rods and coolant and a graphite moderator and firm hands in charge.
So, I think you are mixing apples and oranges, when you imply that socialism or even communism mean dictatorship. The form of government is to an extent independent of the economic system. Capitalism and democracy do not always go together. (Marx himself was totally confused about this and did not distinguish between type of economy and form of government; in fact, Marx seemed to think that when the communist system was attained, government would drop away like a butterfly's coccoon; little did he know.)
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The President's Tucson Speech, January 12, 2011
Had the president risen to somber silence rather than cheering and applause, I think we'd have seen a more restrained delivery. As it was, Obama was in his element as the minister of a black church conducting a "celebration of life" funeral. He made the speech about the fallen, just as he should, secondarily drawing out lessons from the tragedy and hope for the future. It is a sad thing to have lost someone. But to have the president talk about your lost one the way Obama did is as good as it gets under the circumstances. Surely this was part of the healing process for the survivors. Total control, dominance of the occasion, but with a tactful and deft touch. Obama at his best.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Palinoma, Part Deux
It's official, almost. Palin is serious about running! Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011202145.html
Why? One reason is that Palin will get at least one more book out of the race, and a couple of years more life as a paid commentator afterward. As it was, her appeal was wearing thin, even for devout Palinites, many of whom would start drifting away if she didn't run.
Which I guess makes for a more exciting presidential race leading up to a catastrophic defeat, because unless Obama is caught beating his wife or molesting his children, snorting coke in the Oval Office, or stupping his girlfriend in the Rose Garden, he will win, against Palin or Romney or whomever.
What will be interesting is how Palin tries to remold herself. The old Palin is a dead duck, with little support outside a minority Republican core, and very little appeal to independents. To make a serious run, she will have to change her image significantly. And that means 22 months of entertainment.
INTRODUCCCIIIINNNNGGGGG, CHAMELO-PALIN!!!
Why? One reason is that Palin will get at least one more book out of the race, and a couple of years more life as a paid commentator afterward. As it was, her appeal was wearing thin, even for devout Palinites, many of whom would start drifting away if she didn't run.
Which I guess makes for a more exciting presidential race leading up to a catastrophic defeat, because unless Obama is caught beating his wife or molesting his children, snorting coke in the Oval Office, or stupping his girlfriend in the Rose Garden, he will win, against Palin or Romney or whomever.
What will be interesting is how Palin tries to remold herself. The old Palin is a dead duck, with little support outside a minority Republican core, and very little appeal to independents. To make a serious run, she will have to change her image significantly. And that means 22 months of entertainment.
INTRODUCCCIIIINNNNGGGGG, CHAMELO-PALIN!!!
Toward a Gentler, Non-Violent Language
I'm trying to reform. Instead of "aiming at a target," I now "work toward a goal." Instead of "warring with my competitors," I "adversely interact with them." Instead of 'picking out the gun and the bullets that are right for the target" I "select the implements appropriate for the job."
Improvement? Well, no, but it does sound more civilized, more peaceful.
Which is all a way of saying that it puts readers/listeners to sleep sooner.
Improvement? Well, no, but it does sound more civilized, more peaceful.
Which is all a way of saying that it puts readers/listeners to sleep sooner.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Political Vitriol
I don't have any right to browbeat Republicans, T-Partiers, or the multitude of overpaid talking heads on conservative airwaves. Because I am the one who has said, more than once, that one can vote with a ballot, a bomb, or a bullet. Back in the Bushie days, I called for a million Americans to take up their shotguns and deer rifles and march on Washington ro effect a change of government.
Heck, young Loughner's Uncle Fester mugshot even looks disturbingly familiar, like the strange face that peeks out at me from the mirror each morning. (I hope I don't have that smirk.)
But just because I don't have any right to complain doesn't mean I won't. I can be as hypocritical as anybody else. So here goes.
This was a political crime, however messed up Loughner's brain wiring was. His web output was political and some of the books he claimed to like were political.
His target, Congressperson Giffords, was a political target. A controversial person figure in the area, by virtue of bitter attacks by a T-Party opponent last year. Loughner bought his Glock in November, several weeks after the 2010 election. Coincidence?
Now I'm not saying Loughner was a Republican or T-Party goer. Only that his motives were political in his mind and had a political nexus from an objective viewpoint. What he seems to have been, was anti-government. What in the late 1800s we called anarchists. What in the late 20th century we called anti-government militias. Except that so far he seems to have been a militia of one.
Sure, there was that messed up brain wiring. But let me tell you: We all have messed up wiring. The difference is that some of us are more messed up than others. It may well be that all extreme politics is a matter of brain wiring, of dysfunction.
Political dialog has always been but a step away from the strike of a fist or the drawing of a knife or a gun.
A few days ago in an argument over the Second Amendment, I was informed by a Far Right Republican in my community that the Second Amendment was there to assure that citizens could resist their government if need be. That's in no way realistic, but I have to admit that I think the same way. A big part of the ownership of a weapon is not in its potential and mostly imagined use as an implement of self-defense, but in that feeling of independence, from anything and everything.
There is a close connection between a man and his guns, unlike even his relationship with a favorite wife or dog. Guns are things that dreams are made of. The fantasy is 90% of gun ownership. I feel that siren-call too, but unlike true gun-nuts, I recognize it for what it is, and I fear those dreams in myself.
We are soon going to be fighting another war over these shootings, about gun control in some form or another. I think what will come out of it is, first, a return to a limit on ammo magazine size. IMO, no shooter needs more than six shots, and encouraging people to think they can haphazardly spray bullets around when in the process of defending themselves or their homes is irresponsible.
Second, we need a checkable database for those with mental problems and a fair way of nominating individuals for that database. This may prove impossible because of privacy and medical confidentiality issues, and nearly useless since of the mass killers who go postal, most of them are recognizable as dangerous only in hindsight.
The Tucson tragedy is like all tragedies that impinge on the public consciousness. Thousands may die. 60,000 or more Americans may be shot every year, but we don't notice or don't think about it. It takes a small scale tragedy like this to grab us by the shirt collar and shake us into wakefulness. We;ll see how long this fad lasts.
Back to the vitriol.
Isn't it ironic that we are now in a deluge of political vitriol thrown back and forth over whether political vitriol played a role in these shootings? No sooner had Sheriff Dupnik uttered his dictum in a public statement than he was attacked by a barrage of criticism from the Far Right. And Palin and T-Partiers were attacked by Democrats. And Palin defenders and associates are attacking back.
Whether we have real shooting or ersatz shooting, it continues. Maybe the shooting analogies will become politically incorrect for a time, but the conflict and attacks continue.
Heck, young Loughner's Uncle Fester mugshot even looks disturbingly familiar, like the strange face that peeks out at me from the mirror each morning. (I hope I don't have that smirk.)
But just because I don't have any right to complain doesn't mean I won't. I can be as hypocritical as anybody else. So here goes.
This was a political crime, however messed up Loughner's brain wiring was. His web output was political and some of the books he claimed to like were political.
His target, Congressperson Giffords, was a political target. A controversial person figure in the area, by virtue of bitter attacks by a T-Party opponent last year. Loughner bought his Glock in November, several weeks after the 2010 election. Coincidence?
Now I'm not saying Loughner was a Republican or T-Party goer. Only that his motives were political in his mind and had a political nexus from an objective viewpoint. What he seems to have been, was anti-government. What in the late 1800s we called anarchists. What in the late 20th century we called anti-government militias. Except that so far he seems to have been a militia of one.
Sure, there was that messed up brain wiring. But let me tell you: We all have messed up wiring. The difference is that some of us are more messed up than others. It may well be that all extreme politics is a matter of brain wiring, of dysfunction.
Political dialog has always been but a step away from the strike of a fist or the drawing of a knife or a gun.
A few days ago in an argument over the Second Amendment, I was informed by a Far Right Republican in my community that the Second Amendment was there to assure that citizens could resist their government if need be. That's in no way realistic, but I have to admit that I think the same way. A big part of the ownership of a weapon is not in its potential and mostly imagined use as an implement of self-defense, but in that feeling of independence, from anything and everything.
There is a close connection between a man and his guns, unlike even his relationship with a favorite wife or dog. Guns are things that dreams are made of. The fantasy is 90% of gun ownership. I feel that siren-call too, but unlike true gun-nuts, I recognize it for what it is, and I fear those dreams in myself.
We are soon going to be fighting another war over these shootings, about gun control in some form or another. I think what will come out of it is, first, a return to a limit on ammo magazine size. IMO, no shooter needs more than six shots, and encouraging people to think they can haphazardly spray bullets around when in the process of defending themselves or their homes is irresponsible.
Second, we need a checkable database for those with mental problems and a fair way of nominating individuals for that database. This may prove impossible because of privacy and medical confidentiality issues, and nearly useless since of the mass killers who go postal, most of them are recognizable as dangerous only in hindsight.
The Tucson tragedy is like all tragedies that impinge on the public consciousness. Thousands may die. 60,000 or more Americans may be shot every year, but we don't notice or don't think about it. It takes a small scale tragedy like this to grab us by the shirt collar and shake us into wakefulness. We;ll see how long this fad lasts.
Back to the vitriol.
Isn't it ironic that we are now in a deluge of political vitriol thrown back and forth over whether political vitriol played a role in these shootings? No sooner had Sheriff Dupnik uttered his dictum in a public statement than he was attacked by a barrage of criticism from the Far Right. And Palin and T-Partiers were attacked by Democrats. And Palin defenders and associates are attacking back.
Whether we have real shooting or ersatz shooting, it continues. Maybe the shooting analogies will become politically incorrect for a time, but the conflict and attacks continue.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Palinoma
Not that Sarah Palin had any viability as a candidate before, but the occurrences of this weekend have double-nailed her coffin. The descent into the pit came when an assistant commented that the rifle scope cross-hairs on that map were not rifle scope cross-hairs but something else. Such as ... the reticle in a surveying instrument. Sure.
Palin, the former beauty queen, former professional college transfer student, and Alaska TV hostess turned poltician, faced declining stock value even before this. Good idea to start a good savings plan. And don't sell the fishing boat.
Palin, the former beauty queen, former professional college transfer student, and Alaska TV hostess turned poltician, faced declining stock value even before this. Good idea to start a good savings plan. And don't sell the fishing boat.
An Espionage Case Against Julian Assange and Wikileaks? Or More Governmental Hypocrisy?
So the Justice Department is subpoenaing Twitter records in order to examine the relationship between Julian Assange and Private Manning, the one with access who leaked both the military database and the diplomatic cables to Wikileaks.
That is the only legal case possible against Assange: if it can be proved he employed or worked with Manning, that Manning was not a solo leaker and Assange was not merely a leakee.
Or is it?
When Woodward and Bernstein were getting material on the Watergate story, didn't they ask their sources for more? Didn't they push for documentation, even if that meant "stealing" copies of government information? Isn't it good journalism to milk a source for more?
And is trying to get material for the purpose of publicly leaking it an act of espionage? I've been writing elsewhere about the public's right to know, or the right to access government information. Obviously my opinion on that is not the law. But espionage requires digging for information for the benefit of a foreign power, does it not? Or to sell to a foreign power?
And when it comes to espionage, what charges has the U.S. government brought against officials in the State of Israel, in the Mossad? Remember that two men are in U.S. federal prison for spying on the United States for Israel. If we go after Assange, who did not work for a foreign government, why aren't we going after the spymasters in Israel? [Hell, the Israelis strafed, torpedoed, and bombed the heck out of an American ship back in 1967, and were required to say no more than "Oops, sorry" and pay a few million in damages. For more, Google "U.S.S. Liberty".]
Or in Russia, for that matter. Why don't we indict Putin and seek to have him arrested when he is abroad? Or more practically, why not indict high KGB officials for espionage? Remember the Russian agents busted last year? Why not indict their bosses?
The answer to that seems to be that the United States brings espionage charges when it is convenient to do so and where the target is relatively helpless. Which of course is how we conduct warfare these days. We love to invade and war against impoverished third world countries, where the opposition carries AK-47 rifles and some war surplus weaponry. And is preferably shoeless. Not against those with some teeth.
And while I am bashing my country, let me ask this. When the U.S. military and government failed to reveal that 2007 video showing a U.S. helicopter engaged in the commission of a war crime, wasn't that an indictable offense under laws that we would seek to apply to others? Concealing evidence? Failure to report? Conspiracy? Even terrorism? Why don't we investigate the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, and the whole chain of command on that one?
Answer: Because in this as with Assange, our laws are applied selectively, when and where it is convenient to the government itself. Which is in the nature of hypocrisy, is it not?
That is the only legal case possible against Assange: if it can be proved he employed or worked with Manning, that Manning was not a solo leaker and Assange was not merely a leakee.
Or is it?
When Woodward and Bernstein were getting material on the Watergate story, didn't they ask their sources for more? Didn't they push for documentation, even if that meant "stealing" copies of government information? Isn't it good journalism to milk a source for more?
And is trying to get material for the purpose of publicly leaking it an act of espionage? I've been writing elsewhere about the public's right to know, or the right to access government information. Obviously my opinion on that is not the law. But espionage requires digging for information for the benefit of a foreign power, does it not? Or to sell to a foreign power?
And when it comes to espionage, what charges has the U.S. government brought against officials in the State of Israel, in the Mossad? Remember that two men are in U.S. federal prison for spying on the United States for Israel. If we go after Assange, who did not work for a foreign government, why aren't we going after the spymasters in Israel? [Hell, the Israelis strafed, torpedoed, and bombed the heck out of an American ship back in 1967, and were required to say no more than "Oops, sorry" and pay a few million in damages. For more, Google "U.S.S. Liberty".]
Or in Russia, for that matter. Why don't we indict Putin and seek to have him arrested when he is abroad? Or more practically, why not indict high KGB officials for espionage? Remember the Russian agents busted last year? Why not indict their bosses?
The answer to that seems to be that the United States brings espionage charges when it is convenient to do so and where the target is relatively helpless. Which of course is how we conduct warfare these days. We love to invade and war against impoverished third world countries, where the opposition carries AK-47 rifles and some war surplus weaponry. And is preferably shoeless. Not against those with some teeth.
And while I am bashing my country, let me ask this. When the U.S. military and government failed to reveal that 2007 video showing a U.S. helicopter engaged in the commission of a war crime, wasn't that an indictable offense under laws that we would seek to apply to others? Concealing evidence? Failure to report? Conspiracy? Even terrorism? Why don't we investigate the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, and the whole chain of command on that one?
Answer: Because in this as with Assange, our laws are applied selectively, when and where it is convenient to the government itself. Which is in the nature of hypocrisy, is it not?
Saturday, January 8, 2011
A 2006 Letter to Mrs. Bush
[In 2006, Laura Bush stated on television that the news was biased toward bad Iraq news, that made George W. Bush look bad. When I heard this, I wrote an open letter, in a now defunct Lubbock Avalanche-Journal discussion forum. Here's the letter, which I came across today in a pile of paper I was sorting through.]
Mrs. George W. Bush
C/O The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500-0002
Re: Overlooked Good News
Dear Miss Laura:
I watched with interest your TV interview in which you remarked that a big reason for the unpopularity of the President is the one-sided news coverage of the situation in Iraq. All we get is the bad news, and none of the good.
You may be right. But I posted a request right here in the true-red heart of Republicanism – Lubbock, Texas, just a skip and a jump from your old home town – for good news about Iraq. And no one would tell me any!
I do know that many Iraqis voted in the election. It was an inspiring image, as you pointed out.
And most of those Iraqis who voted are still alive, so far, and some of the candidates they voted for are too – certainly those who fled the country. I guess that’s good news.
And the British have got the water running and the streetlights on in Basra a few months ago. That’s good news. (A tough job; it took three years!)
But I can’t find any more good news!
I wonder, would it be possible – and I know this is a great deal to ask – would it be possible for you to journey to Iraq with cameramen to investigate and report on those good news stories that we are overlooking? Do you think Mr. Bush would have any objections?
You would look great in the khaki uniform of a correspondent, and who knows? It could be the start of an exciting new career in journalism. But do be careful!
Faithfully yours,
Teshaw a/k/a/ El Alacran
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)