Are we really still debating the right to choose in the US? Really?
Does life begin at conception?
Have you heard of weasel words? It's when people use a word or phrase that is slightly different than what they mean in order to assert something that is either not factual or not provable. "Life begins at conception" is a perfect example of weasel words. Here's why:
What the statement "life begins at conception" says is that the embryo is alive. To prove that, you only need to prove things such as metabolism, biological function, etc. Easy. An embryo is most certainly, absolutely, incontrovertibly alive. So were the cells that existed before they fused to form it. So is a house plant.
What the statement "life begins at conception" implies, or is used to assert, is that a human life, humanity, with the right to not be murdered unless the state decides otherwise (lacking, however, the right to choose to end itself) begins at conception. And that's a whole other ball of wax isn't it? The belief that humanity begins at conception is just that, a belief.
So?
So probably more than 99% of the US population is opposed to the imposition of Sharia law within the US. It's one of the few things Americans agree on nearly unanimously. Why? Because Americans recognize that it's wrong to impose laws based on religious beliefs instead of laws based on clearly verifiable facts and logic. It's one of the most basic concepts of the US. Americans may disagree over the right of the US to tell other countries what laws they may or may not have, but advocating for a law limiting directed bequests to one third of the estate and requiring the rest to be distributed according to a state formula with female heirs receiving half as much as male heirs within the US, for example, wouldn't go far. That would be the imposition of a belief with no greater interest of the state involved.
So legislating the belief that humanity begins at conception is no different than the imposition of Sharia law. It is the imposition of a belief with no greater interest of the state involved.
Every woman has the right to choose not to have an abortion if she believes that the life in her womb, however it was conceived and at whatever risk to her own health, should be viewed as a citizen with rights of its own. She does not, however, have the right to believe that on behalf of the woman next door.
The odd thing is that if I pondered the imposition of Christiana Law, I'd have expected the bits about loving your neighbor to be legislated first, paving the way for the total imposition of Christiana Law. Who knew restrictions would come first? As a Christian, I'm offended. There's nothing Christian about the imposition of Christiana Law. Attempting to found laws on the beliefs of a subset of Christians should be as repulsive to the American spirit as the founding of laws on the beliefs of anyone else.
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
Your Money is My Money
This brilliant piece is a translation of a Dagblad article that appeared 20 July 2012, written by Frits Bloemendaal [http://byhans.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/jouw-geld-is-mijn-geld/]:
How is it possible that one broker can bring down a bank? That one money trader can bring entire countries to the edge of disaster? And that one director with a penchant for gambling can reduce a corporation with many tens of thousands of homes to beggary?
It happens because it can.
At the tops of businesses, and at the moment in public and semi-public institutions, a culture change has arisen in which self-interest, narcissism and unscrupulousness have become the most normal things in the world. That began around 30 years ago in countries such as the US and England, and spread thereafter to our own regions.
One of the worst examples is the American energy company Enron, where managers set up an enormous fraudulent network and filled their own pockets, with the eventual result of the demise of the billion-dollar company. Many thousands of employees and investors were left destitute. In the Netherlands it began with Aegon, where executives like Kees Storm enriched themselves with options worth billions, while their clients were squeezed dry with extortionate policies.
Since then the examples have piled up. The real estate fraud of the Bouwfunds and the Philips pension funds, laid out in the book De Vastgoedfraude [The Real Estate Fraud] by journalists Vasco van der Boon and Gerben van der Marel, mercilessly exposed the mentality of anyone managing the savings of others. Your money is my money, it comes down to that.
It is so much that I can only skim the surface. But no one takes note.
Theft, or gambling with other people's money, has long since ceased to be taboo in financial institutions. Unscrupulousness and shamelessness are virtues rather than sins. In the play "De Prooi" ["The Prey"], about the collapse of ABN AMRO (also such an example), one of the lead characters says, "At Goldman Sachs they choose people who were teased as children." These people want revenge against the world and show no pity.
Journalist Joris Luyendijk, who writes a column about London's financial world for the British newspaper The Guardian, recently quoted a psychologist who coaches banking sector executives. The owners of the banks, he says, are looking for "a psycopath" to transform the organization into "a merciless, money-making and soul-stealing organization." That is the secret of their wealth.
That exploitation has become the norm has everything to do with the nearly boundless freedom of the financial sector.
For years, no one dared to place obstacles in the way of the money machine. Precisely in a sector where so much money literally is up for grabs, there is very strong control needed: checks and balances. Only in the last few years has that realization begun to dawn, but that took a banking crisis that cost the Dutch people alone some 200 billion euro in stalled economic growth.
Whether politicians have the ability to turn the management culture the right way is the question, because for the time being the countries are still dancing to the pipes of the financial sector, and not the other way around.
How is it possible that one broker can bring down a bank? That one money trader can bring entire countries to the edge of disaster? And that one director with a penchant for gambling can reduce a corporation with many tens of thousands of homes to beggary?
It happens because it can.
At the tops of businesses, and at the moment in public and semi-public institutions, a culture change has arisen in which self-interest, narcissism and unscrupulousness have become the most normal things in the world. That began around 30 years ago in countries such as the US and England, and spread thereafter to our own regions.
One of the worst examples is the American energy company Enron, where managers set up an enormous fraudulent network and filled their own pockets, with the eventual result of the demise of the billion-dollar company. Many thousands of employees and investors were left destitute. In the Netherlands it began with Aegon, where executives like Kees Storm enriched themselves with options worth billions, while their clients were squeezed dry with extortionate policies.
Since then the examples have piled up. The real estate fraud of the Bouwfunds and the Philips pension funds, laid out in the book De Vastgoedfraude [The Real Estate Fraud] by journalists Vasco van der Boon and Gerben van der Marel, mercilessly exposed the mentality of anyone managing the savings of others. Your money is my money, it comes down to that.
It is so much that I can only skim the surface. But no one takes note.
Theft, or gambling with other people's money, has long since ceased to be taboo in financial institutions. Unscrupulousness and shamelessness are virtues rather than sins. In the play "De Prooi" ["The Prey"], about the collapse of ABN AMRO (also such an example), one of the lead characters says, "At Goldman Sachs they choose people who were teased as children." These people want revenge against the world and show no pity.
Journalist Joris Luyendijk, who writes a column about London's financial world for the British newspaper The Guardian, recently quoted a psychologist who coaches banking sector executives. The owners of the banks, he says, are looking for "a psycopath" to transform the organization into "a merciless, money-making and soul-stealing organization." That is the secret of their wealth.
That exploitation has become the norm has everything to do with the nearly boundless freedom of the financial sector.
For years, no one dared to place obstacles in the way of the money machine. Precisely in a sector where so much money literally is up for grabs, there is very strong control needed: checks and balances. Only in the last few years has that realization begun to dawn, but that took a banking crisis that cost the Dutch people alone some 200 billion euro in stalled economic growth.
Whether politicians have the ability to turn the management culture the right way is the question, because for the time being the countries are still dancing to the pipes of the financial sector, and not the other way around.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A Scold for Holland, Too (Among Other Things)
As part of a few international communities on the "interwebs," I routinely have the opportunity to hear people talking smack about my first country, the US. The US in the international community is like the kid with crutches, braces, and red hair who is loved by the teachers and has nothing to say to other children: an easy target. As Anthony Bourdain recently mentioned on No Reservations, "I get tired of my country being the bad example."
Having left said country for one more suited to my own nature (yayy Holland), I'm often one of the bashers and as anyone who's read my blogs knows, I'm a big fan of the Netherlands. (I'm looking for the +1 button on the Dam.)
So it was with astonishment that I listened to a self-professed intelligent Spanish woman explain how all the problems in Spain, Italy and Greece are the result of retirees from the north. [In case you're American and haven't been informed, Greece, Spain and Italy are having financial problems which have been brought to light by the EU's refusal to allow its member countries to rack up and continue to sustain huge national debts.]
Since my conversation with the Spanish woman left me completely baffled, it was up to my Dutch friend to explain to me that the southern countries (read: warm), as a favorite retirement location for English, Dutch, German, etc. old people, have taken to blaming their multi-billion euro debts on the fact that people from the north retire there. Apparently, these retirees are rumored in those countries to show up penniless and without means of support on their doorsteps and then of course the poor southern countries have to spend all their money on feeding and housing the poor old people.
When it was mentioned to the Spanish woman that all of the northern countries (Holland, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. all have a history of similar social programs) continue to pay retirement to and to insure their retirees no matter where they wander off to live, she simply said with complete confidence, "No they don't." She defended this statement as being her opinion. But enough about her and her lack of logic; she's not the point.
The point is that it cuts both ways. Yes this is me taking Holland to task. As ridiculous as you know such assertions by the populace of the south to be, the assertions by a handful of idiots (with their accompanying nods from the TV-watchers in the bars) that every ill in Holland is caused by the "massive" influx of population from the east is equally ignorant and lacking any basis in fact. (In fact the hiccups of all the European economies can largely be traced back to those wonderful worthless loans that the American banks bundled and sold as ordinary securities, ensuring that when they went down and started an economic crisis it will cost no less than a decade to fully recover from, they would take the rest of the world down with them. And their ability to do that can be traced back to trickle-down economics and the policies of deregulation. Why would we need to keep an eye on people who hold the country's welfare in their greedy little hands? How quickly we forget.)
But back to my story! The US came to a point in its history where there were irreconcilable disagreements over the policies and practices of the north and the south. They settled it at gunpoint. Europe won't do that, as membership in the European Union is a privilege, but it does cause concern about the new Chinese neighbors that northern Europe's going to have if it plays out without resolution and China eventually forecloses on its loans.
Don't laugh, Americans: The Chinese own $1 trillion of the US too.
Having left said country for one more suited to my own nature (yayy Holland), I'm often one of the bashers and as anyone who's read my blogs knows, I'm a big fan of the Netherlands. (I'm looking for the +1 button on the Dam.)
So it was with astonishment that I listened to a self-professed intelligent Spanish woman explain how all the problems in Spain, Italy and Greece are the result of retirees from the north. [In case you're American and haven't been informed, Greece, Spain and Italy are having financial problems which have been brought to light by the EU's refusal to allow its member countries to rack up and continue to sustain huge national debts.]
Since my conversation with the Spanish woman left me completely baffled, it was up to my Dutch friend to explain to me that the southern countries (read: warm), as a favorite retirement location for English, Dutch, German, etc. old people, have taken to blaming their multi-billion euro debts on the fact that people from the north retire there. Apparently, these retirees are rumored in those countries to show up penniless and without means of support on their doorsteps and then of course the poor southern countries have to spend all their money on feeding and housing the poor old people.
When it was mentioned to the Spanish woman that all of the northern countries (Holland, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. all have a history of similar social programs) continue to pay retirement to and to insure their retirees no matter where they wander off to live, she simply said with complete confidence, "No they don't." She defended this statement as being her opinion. But enough about her and her lack of logic; she's not the point.
The point is that it cuts both ways. Yes this is me taking Holland to task. As ridiculous as you know such assertions by the populace of the south to be, the assertions by a handful of idiots (with their accompanying nods from the TV-watchers in the bars) that every ill in Holland is caused by the "massive" influx of population from the east is equally ignorant and lacking any basis in fact. (In fact the hiccups of all the European economies can largely be traced back to those wonderful worthless loans that the American banks bundled and sold as ordinary securities, ensuring that when they went down and started an economic crisis it will cost no less than a decade to fully recover from, they would take the rest of the world down with them. And their ability to do that can be traced back to trickle-down economics and the policies of deregulation. Why would we need to keep an eye on people who hold the country's welfare in their greedy little hands? How quickly we forget.)
But back to my story! The US came to a point in its history where there were irreconcilable disagreements over the policies and practices of the north and the south. They settled it at gunpoint. Europe won't do that, as membership in the European Union is a privilege, but it does cause concern about the new Chinese neighbors that northern Europe's going to have if it plays out without resolution and China eventually forecloses on its loans.
Don't laugh, Americans: The Chinese own $1 trillion of the US too.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
WTH
Today's blog probably belongs on "WTH" (wherever that may be) rather than on the Daily Wot. At any rate:
* Austerity. It's the present in some parts of Europe. It's a subtle present and less-subtle future in the US. What's it mean? Essentially, that when the rich abuse the system and bleed a country a dry (such as in Greece where a handful of families possess the wealth to solve the entire country's debt crisis), the regular people bring the country back into balance by giving up a myriad of government services that their taxes are supposed to pay for.
Why? Because although most of the money ends up in the hands of the richest rich, it's more difficult to trace that cash flow because it's generally in the form of taxes avoided and income exported from the country. The only cash flow that can be readily traced and is obvious to everyman is money spent on education and families. Money spent on prisons and weapons are sacred cows. What's left to cut? Humanity. Now why would people protest or fight against that?
* Socialism. For our less-politically-savvy friends, COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM are not the same thing. Not even remotely. Not even a little bit. So when people wish to dismiss socialism as evil, pointing to the failure of the Soviet Union (that would be a COMMUNIST state) only reveals your own ignorance; it doesn't help your case. Want to point at socialist states? Finland, Sweden, England, Holland, Australia.... (It's a long list of countries that you probably like.)
Don't ask the Wiki. The first header in the Wiki article on "List of socialist countries" is "Socialist states espousing communism". WTH? Those would be communist states, not socialist states. And their list does not include the states with socialist systems, such as England, Finland, Sweden, Holland, Canada... ETC!!!!!!!! sheesh (In the Wiki's favor, the page has a ton of complaints for inaccuracy.) How much do I love articles titled, "Why Socialism Failed" when countries we love (like those mentioned above) are still socialist and thriving! This is the same tactic used by enemies of the populist Occupy movement in the US: Pretend it has failed and maybe it will just go away.
* Pakistan. WTH is wrong with you? You cannot simultaneously claim that you did not know that bin Laden was in your country and charge the man who gave up his location with treason! You just can't. 'Cuz you know that robot guy, Data? The one from Star Trek who could handle subtlties of illogical humanity without blowing his circuits? Even HIS head would blow up at the logic of those two arguments. Either you supported that #@%^#^@$, in which case the US bombs you back into the Dark Ages, or you didn't, in which case the good doctor did nothing against your country. Your pick.
* Obama. OK I love you 99% of the time. But I have issues with this whole drone killing thing. It's what I would expect of a Republican president, not of you. I get that you're in a tough, complex spot. That was made obvious by the failure of your attempt to close Gitmo. You signed a Presidential Order to close it and... it's not closed. So there are CLEARLY complications in those international policies that have not been shared with the public. But still... I just have trouble swallowing how right-wing you are on some areas of human rights. You're tougher than I can possibly envision Romney being on the Middle East, and how scary is that?
I have more rants, but I'm going to stop now because there are only so many things one can rant about at one time without sounding rabid.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Dear American Men--
The next time you are in a room with more than 2 women of childbearing age (this may not happen frequently for some of you), look right, look left, look forward: it is extremely likely that one of the three women in the room has had an abortion.
We don't bring it up at dinner. We will often deny it when asked. But yeah... we want sex as much as you do and want a child with every sexual partner we have as little as you do. Go figure. It's almost like men and women aren't that different after all.
I do not believe that the majority of you are thoughtless pricks. Yes, I mean that in the derogatory sense of penile comparison applied to personality. Anyway, you're not. Mostly, you're pretty good guys! You do give a crap when the people you care about are hurting. You do work your butts off to do, alongside your co-parent, the best you can for the kids you have. You do think for more than 2 seconds about birth control before putting part A into slot B. But not much more than 2 seconds. Just like women don't think about it in that moment for more than 2.5 seconds either. So why don't they take the pill? Well why don't you. There IS a pill for men, you know. Oh it has side effects. Welcome to our world.
Here's where it gets messy. When part A and slot B are not ... properly treated... well hell. What are we gonna name it? Is that really the way children should come into the world?
And my sense is that you guys, as great as you are, kinda sorta secretly (apparently at the moment not so secretly if you happen to be a State Legislator or Rush) blame the woman if it does come to "What are we gonna name it?" Contraception is HER job. (Except that we're not going to require private insurance plans to actually pay for that.)
And while I'm trying REALLY hard not to rant here... seriously?
How many of you take active responsibility for contraception? Do you? *eyes the male person who might be reading this*
Tell ya what: If your religious beliefs bar abortion, then you pay for every child you have some part into bringing into this world. AND ... yeah that's it. No shoving your beliefs down other people's throats.
I won't make your wife/girlfriend/mistress/hooker have an abortion if you don't take away my right have one.
Or anyone else's. I get that you ("you" being the nutsos I'm actually addressing and not the 90% of you who are actually sane but powerless) feel it's murder. Other people feel it's murder when you eat a steak. Does it give you pause? Didn't think so.
Because you feel their opinion is baseless. Good morning. Other people feel your opinion is baseless. How about thinking about how to figure out a way for as many people as possible to live by their own standards instead of shoving yours down... up... you get the picture.
The next time you are in a room with more than 2 women of childbearing age (this may not happen frequently for some of you), look right, look left, look forward: it is extremely likely that one of the three women in the room has had an abortion.
We don't bring it up at dinner. We will often deny it when asked. But yeah... we want sex as much as you do and want a child with every sexual partner we have as little as you do. Go figure. It's almost like men and women aren't that different after all.
I do not believe that the majority of you are thoughtless pricks. Yes, I mean that in the derogatory sense of penile comparison applied to personality. Anyway, you're not. Mostly, you're pretty good guys! You do give a crap when the people you care about are hurting. You do work your butts off to do, alongside your co-parent, the best you can for the kids you have. You do think for more than 2 seconds about birth control before putting part A into slot B. But not much more than 2 seconds. Just like women don't think about it in that moment for more than 2.5 seconds either. So why don't they take the pill? Well why don't you. There IS a pill for men, you know. Oh it has side effects. Welcome to our world.
Here's where it gets messy. When part A and slot B are not ... properly treated... well hell. What are we gonna name it? Is that really the way children should come into the world?
And my sense is that you guys, as great as you are, kinda sorta secretly (apparently at the moment not so secretly if you happen to be a State Legislator or Rush) blame the woman if it does come to "What are we gonna name it?" Contraception is HER job. (Except that we're not going to require private insurance plans to actually pay for that.)
And while I'm trying REALLY hard not to rant here... seriously?
How many of you take active responsibility for contraception? Do you? *eyes the male person who might be reading this*
Tell ya what: If your religious beliefs bar abortion, then you pay for every child you have some part into bringing into this world. AND ... yeah that's it. No shoving your beliefs down other people's throats.
I won't make your wife/girlfriend/mistress/hooker have an abortion if you don't take away my right have one.
Or anyone else's. I get that you ("you" being the nutsos I'm actually addressing and not the 90% of you who are actually sane but powerless) feel it's murder. Other people feel it's murder when you eat a steak. Does it give you pause? Didn't think so.
Because you feel their opinion is baseless. Good morning. Other people feel your opinion is baseless. How about thinking about how to figure out a way for as many people as possible to live by their own standards instead of shoving yours down... up... you get the picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)