Displaying 91 To 120 Of 203 Comments I agree. » Posted By Assumed Name On December 29, 2013 @ 7:04 pm *blush* (…we tryeth. *smiles*) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 30, 2013 @ 5:26 am Hey kes, I envy you–I’m currently watching “Full House” with kiddo while the program is recording in the background. (I’ll watch it first to decide whether it’s appropriate for a fourth grader. Can’t wait to see it!!) –AN » Posted By Assumed Name On October 29, 2013 @ 6:14 pm Indeed. *smiles* » Posted By Assumed Name On October 29, 2013 @ 5:56 am (Given that 5 billion people out of 7 are either Asian or African, one might assume that dark hair is “business as usual” as far as the world is concerned. *smiles*) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 29, 2013 @ 5:55 am …a spine is a lovely thing to behold. » Posted By Assumed Name On October 28, 2013 @ 5:27 pm Agreed. (It’s amazing how much people pay for very badly constructed “stuff”…and how much one’s sense of self-worth is measured by the same.) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 28, 2013 @ 5:23 pm FYI: Louis Gates’ Televised Program “The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross,” aired on PBS: (The title reminds me of Ali Mazrui’s “The Africans.” *smiles*) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 28, 2013 @ 5:22 pm A quick self-correction: In my breeziness I didn’t mean to imply that religion is per se incompatible with reason and argument–indeed some religious traditions (e.g., the Talmudic method, the historic use of Aristotelian logic in the Jesuit theology, etc.) are cases to the contrary. Rather my point was a (John) Rawlsian one: given the diversity of religious beliefs and given the fact that the legitimacy of most well-established organized religions are at bottom based on faith in authority (unquestioned top dictated down), religion cannot be a basis for public policy or law: I’m not a conservative Muslim, and your being one isn’t a reason for me to cover my hair or not drive. Your dogma doesn’t get to set rules for me just as my dogmas (should I have any lying around) cannot dictate rules for you. That would be fundamentally unfair and disrespectful of you as a person, and the same concern for respect must be accorded to me. The basis for our public rules–laws and public policy–should be guided by reason, which is horizontal and open to all comers: if you cannot articulate a rational argument for a connection between having ovaries and driver safety, then you cannot dictate that women shall not drive. Period. (Full disclosure: a family member by marriage is Pentecostal and we have an uneasy truce: he’s praying that I see the light and I’m praying that he doesn’t unduly harm my female relative with what I take to be his sexism. I’ve told the couple explicitly that my son is off limits with regard to their religious belief system…that and no homophobic remarks. Even though I actively make it to church once or twice a month I admit I find religious conservatism almost as alarming as religious extremism. As a woman neither are in my interest.) Best, » Posted By Assumed Name On October 27, 2013 @ 2:35 am Amen. » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 7:32 pm Killgore, I don’t know the history of this conversation, but in my experience in the US people often don’t question their religious beliefs critically (meaning “logically,” not “crticizingly” (probably notaword, but it works *smiles*) because: 1. Core beliefs of mainstrean Christian dogma don’t do well under the scrutiny of logic (raised Catholic, we’ve some whoppers, including wafers turning to flesh, incomprehensible trinities and other nuttinesses); 2. In spite of the cult of individuality, being known as not Christian (you’re damned) or atheist (worse than damned) will get you ostracized by family, friends, and acquaintances. Professing faith is a litmus test for normalcy. The upshot: I’m not at all surprise people aren’t willing to engage in the way I’ve understood you to describe. So here’s the thing: if you’re arguing about politics or ethics or facts, then religion shouldn’t come into it because religion–Jesus, Mohamad, Spaghetti Monsters–don’t use the rules of logic consistently and, therefore, don’t admit arguments at their base…their base is faith which is belief without critical reason. (The authority is God or revelation or a text or because great-grand daddy said so, which not reason.) When you argue, however, you advance, and hope others will advance, reasons for accepting some proposition as true. People who advance religion as the reason for accepting a position on politics, ethics, etc. aren’t really arguing…so simply tell them (politely) to cut it out; *their* being a good Catholic simply *isn’t* a reason for *you* to favor prohibiting abortion. Now religious scholars and scholars of theology do deal with religious concepts and dogma and beliefs rationally. There are publications on the problem of evil, the inconsistency of monotheistic divine attributes, and all the rest of it. If you were interested on how someone who respects and uses good old fashioned logic deals with also being a person of faith, then those sorts of publications would be an appropriate place to look for answers as those authors have “put themselves out there” so to speak, and are ready to engage. I hope this didn’t come off as knowing it all…because although (unlike Plato) I do know a few things, I certainly don’t know it all. *smile* –AN (signing off to kick her sweet son out of her bed, and tuck him into his own) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 7:27 pm Kalima, **Very** nice analysis reference skewed priorities–the whole Snowden oddly cum Merkle thing has irritated me greatly, and I couldn’t put my finger on the reason, but you’ve nailed the reason why. » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 6:47 pm …you’re absolutely correct ref. the unconstitutionality incarceration without being afforded an open hearing along with legal representation. On another note, having been pregnant I must say that I’m not sympathetic with a woman’s using any drugs when intentionally carrying to term unless the drugs are medically necessary to preserve or promote the health and/or life of the mother. If you’re going to deliver a baby, it seems to that the future baby has a right to not suffer through the physical torment of withdrawal unnecessarily…and that that right is inextricably tied to the mother’s prenatal behavior. In the case of pregnancy, drug addiction is a moral issue. That said, I would agree that incarceration is an inappropriate response, and that drug treatment programs tailored for pregnant women would be the better response. All the best, » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 6:42 pm Hi Nirek, I’m prochoice, but I think termination is a more complex issue than “my side” admits. For example, because of advance in medical technology’s lowering the age of viability, third trimester termination is arguably per se dicey if there are no medical (physical or psychological) issues for the woman or fetus. However, if there is restricted (or no) access to birth control or early term termination (medical or surgical) as is fast becoming the reality in too many states, then it’s forced pregnancy through manufactured circumstance in which case the option for late term abortion without medical motivation becomes more palatable. I dunno (again *smile*). If it were up to me age appropriate sex education would be legally mandated from grade to secondary school, condoms and IUDs would be free, and oral contraceptives would be heavily subsidized. I.e., as does President Obama, I favor lowering the rate of abortion by lowering he rate of unplanned pregnancy. Cheers! » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 6:30 pm I agree, Kalima, that there is no longer strong sense of community…at least not like there was in the past. I think part of it has to do with physical mobility–at least in the States people don’t often remain or return to where they grew up. Not only are old friends scattered, but so are first generation families once children reach adulthood. In addition, in the west generally, and the US specifically there exists a cult of individualism (and individual freedom). I’m an unabashed left leaning liberal and all that, but it’s a part of the human condition that we thrive with social contact and its give and take. More to your point, again in the US, people aren’t particularly good about caring for but the most immediate of neighbors. There’s the radical individualism thing, and the fear of others thing (that the US is violent is just the case), and there’s the sheep thing (there are no protests against the government shut down or wage depression, and both occupy Wall Street and Wisconsin went out with a whimper). I dunno. It’s all rather infuriating and sad at the same time. » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 6:18 pm Thank you for this source, Ad Lib. This is excellent. (Current work on servitude focuses on human trafficking (which is heinous, to be sure), but I feel strongly that imprisonment under certain conditions, is servitude as well–actual and not metaphorical.) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 6:05 pm Agreed, Killgore. » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 6:01 pm That’s excellent, Sally. (Earlier today I was at a meet for my son, and I was having a perfectly delightful conversation with one of the adult chaperones when she went on a tear about “Obama choosing a company that can’t set up a web site.” I started to explain that he had nothing to do with what company did the work as it was decided through a bidding process. I stopped mid-sentence realizing, a. She didn’t know, and b. she didn’t want to know. (People are delightful as long as you stick to the weather. *smiles*) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 6:00 pm Agreed: consent without the modifier “informed” is not consent. » Posted By Assumed Name On October 26, 2013 @ 5:56 pm “Case Explores Rights of Fetus Versus Mother,” NYT, 23 October 2013, By ERIK ECKHOLM. Article about state laws that incarcerate women for not accepting anti-drug addiction drugs and/or programs, or for being addicted to drugs, as well as how these laws are abused as well as possibly being unconstituional in the first instance. My cryptic reaction upshot: Arrrgh!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/us/case-explores-rights-of-fetus-versus-mother.html?hp&_r=0 » Posted By Assumed Name On October 24, 2013 @ 6:14 am My area’s public health whatever is making individual and group appointments to educate people about available health plans. (Very cool. 🙂 » Posted By Assumed Name On October 23, 2013 @ 5:25 pm Cool–I just found it on Netflix and will watch it tonight after my big little guy has gone to sleep. » Posted By Assumed Name On October 23, 2013 @ 5:22 pm Absolutely, AdLib. I’m interested in the “for profit” aspect of private prisons. Do you (or anyone else) know of reliable statistics regarding he growth of private prisons, their revenue stream, how prisoners are compensated for work, etc.? » Posted By Assumed Name On October 23, 2013 @ 6:00 am Getting out the vote is key…and to do that, not only must eligible voters be registered, but they need to be in compliance with new voter identification requirements as well as be clear on where to go to vote. (Off topic: They changed our polling station last year from the township hall which is adjacent to the most heavily populated subdivision to a church that is isolated from residential areas. The same number of people voted–you have to have a vehicle to survive here–but I couldn’t see the logic behind the move, especially since the church probably had to be paid for the use of their space. Phooey!!) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 23, 2013 @ 5:56 am I agree, Killgore, with both you and Ad Lib. (I could find the documentary only on Amazon…I’ll check it out soon.) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 23, 2013 @ 5:48 am …stereotyping is an evil that knows no bound…that and people tend to forget that being elderly is but one stage of life. (I hope to be so lucky! *smiles*) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 23, 2013 @ 5:45 am V. Cool!! » Posted By Assumed Name On October 23, 2013 @ 5:41 am …if only this were 2014. (People have short memories I fear…) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 22, 2013 @ 11:32 am …from the evil (sincerely w/out tongue in cheek) Huff Post an article ref. sexual assault of imprisoned youths (and of a piece with my contention that American prisons are a form of slavery): http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/prisoners-of-profit (Sorry to be cryptic and , most likely, not quick to respond–working, etc. *smiles*) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 22, 2013 @ 7:40 am Merci!! (…I’m “techy-challenged.” *smiles*) » Posted By Assumed Name On October 14, 2013 @ 5:51 pmComments Posted By Assumed Name
–AN
–AN
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats