Monthly Archive for June, 2005Page 2 of 3

Blog Law

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has a legal guide for bloggers.

Hat tip: Michael Pollock of Small Business Branding.

If you liked this post, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Additional info on subscribing can be found here. Thanks for visiting!

Michael Jackson verdict in

Just one link:

Unwanted babies

[blogan: The following is a guest post by Marilyn Burge. Although she and I come from very different backgrounds and have vastly divergent views on religion and politics, she is a good friend and we enjoy debating the issues. Please join me in welcoming Marilyn to blogan.]

We argue constantly in America about abortion. The issue of whether or not to abort quickly gets bogged down in issues like when two joined cells become persons (The U.S. Constitution is actually pretty clear on this issue. It says Natural Born citizens, so there is no reason to believe that the Founding Fathers regarded the unborn as Americans, or, persons for that matter.), whether or not aborted fetuses feel pain during abortion, and, if they do, at what stage of pregnancy they are able to feel pain, etc. Sooner or later, the issue that gets talked about is guilt and regret. The guilt and regret of abortion is usually the focus of this part of the discussion. There are several fairly well-known evangelical groups that focus on this aspect of the problem. These groups are most likely started by a woman who has had an abortion and later regretted it, perhaps after converting to an evangelical faith. Or, perhaps she knows somebody who had an abortion and later regretted it, and wants to save others that pain she knows her friend or relative is experiencing. I would imagine it is inconceivable to her that a woman would feel anything other than guilt and regret, thinking as she does about how she would feel had she had aborted a fetus earlier in her life.

But life is messy. It is like a decision tree, where there are two or more forks in the road, and regardless of which prong of the fork is chosen, one encounters another fork further down that path, and, again finds yet another down whichever prong is then chosen.

So, if a woman is pregnant with an unwanted fetus and choose not to abort, her next fork is whether to keep the baby or adopt it out. Either choice has a huge potential to later cause the woman to feel guilt and regret. Keeping the baby will introduce her to the drudgery of having to support herself and another human being who later may not be entirely happy with her choice, knowing (or imagining) that a much better and easier life would have been theirs, had the birth mother chosen another path.

If the woman decides to adopt the baby, there is also a huge potential for guilt and regret. An item in the newspaper about a child of the same age who did something stupid and ended up in serious difficulty with the law, or, perhaps dead from getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking. “Was that my child? If it was, would things have turned out different if I had kept him or her?” More guilt and regret. There can be no end to it.

Not all woman experience guilt and/or regret, regardless of which path is chosen. Some (many?) have the presence of mind to put the whole sad affair behind them and get on with their lives. Some people are just more inclined to beat themselves up over their mistakes. That’s the way they are put together, it seems.

So, as much as we might like to think that women who abort will suffer guilt and regret, and that we are saving them from that, the plain truth is, it depends on their mindset — now and in the future. If that is their mindset, it is likely that there is no way to save them from their guilt and regret, regardless of how much we may want to. That is just the way they are put together, and guilt and regret will be what they, themselves will have to learn to deal with, and there is nothing we can do about it, try though we may.

Army offers new recruiting incentive: duty

Memorial Day and graduation ceremonies have passed. Yet, Scott Ott at Scrappleface writes an article “quoting an unnamed Army spokesman” that would serve either occasion well.

Most ordinary men live their whole lives in search of meaning, purpose — a cause to which they can give their hearts. They know the desperation of their empty pursuit of pleasure. They long to spend themselves for something greater than themselves. They know that the grave awaits each of us. They hope to really live before they die. And when, on the street or at the mall, they see a man in uniform, they’re filled with gratitude and awe. As they shake his hand and thank him for his sacrifice, they see a reflection of themselves as they wish to be.

In a very real sense, those who sign up to serve in the United States military sign their own death certificates. Yet by surrendering their lives, they come to know the joy of duty and the satisfaction of service to others. What else could inspire a young man to step out from among his teenage friends and to put on the uniform that marks him as the target of every terrorist on earth? Duty. Duty driven by love. Greater love has no man than this, that he lays down his life for his friends.

Read the whole post with a box of tissue handy.

Good news!

I received an e-mail today from Marilyn Burge (a frequent commenter on this blog):

The G8 announced today that the entire debt of 20 of the world’s poorest nations has been voted to be forgiven. The also announced that there are 24 other nations on the table for consideration. All the nations involved will vote on the issue next week.

The Los Angeles Times has more information.

Jamison and Kevin

Kevin and Jamison

Congratulations!

Last night we went to the Faith Bible High School graduation. Jamison poses with Kevin, his favorite graduate.

How to make a million dollars

Want a million dollars? Rather than “investing” here or here, try How to Make a Million Dollars, by Marshall Brain.

___
Hat tip. Michael D. Pollock at Small Business Branding.

At least it’s better than smoking pot

I’ve taken Fred Clark at slacktivist to task before but I won’t today. He’s right on with his Nabobs of NABA post.

When you have to resort to the NABA defense, you’re in bad shape. That’s NABA as in “Not As Bad As.”

We’ve heard a lot of this lately from the nabobs of NABA in the Bush administration.

For example, Abu Ghraib NABA Saddam Hussein, or Guantanamo Bay NABA Joe Stalin. We want to be proud of America. “But,” Fred writes, “good God, is this what America is now reduced to?”

Go read the entire article. Then ask yourself: are all those critical of the government wanting to tear down America or restore her to her rightful glory?

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. —Benjamin Franklin

Can we stop genocide?

David Kopel (of The Volokh Conspiracy), Paul Gallant, and Joanne D. Eisen have posted a law review article, Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right?, as a working paper draft. It discusses the history and effectiveness of various methods used to stop genocide.

Kofi Annan observes “the developing international norm in favor of intervention to protect innocent civilians from wholesale slaughter.”122 Unfortunately, the norm of intervention to stop wholesale slaughter is extremely underdeveloped in practice. Neither the Security Council, nor any other multilateral body, nor any nation(s) acting unilaterally have stopped the genocide in Sudan. Nor are they stopping the genocide by government-caused starvation in Zimbabwe. Nor did they stop the genocides in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Guatemala, or Rwanda. Even when a genocidal government (such as Hitler’s Germany, Amin’s Uganda, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia) made the error of provoking a stronger nation and prompting an invasion, that invasion eventually stopped the genocide, but did not prevent the genocide from being initiated.

A policy that relies on the Security Council to prevent genocides has historically been proven to be ineffective. A policy that relies on unilateral invasions to prevent genocide may save lives, but such a policy has, historically, resulted in action that, at best, came far too late to save millions of genocide victims. Moreover, humanitarian, non-defensive unilateral intervention is, by the dominant interpretation of international law, illegal.

In other words, multilateral bodies have a terrible record on stopping genocides. Unilateral action to stop genocide is illegal. What’s left?

For one answer, plus a good background on the Darfur genocide, read the whole paper.

The authors also invite your comments by e-mail.

Another random header picture question

Mark asks:

im trying to do what u did with your header, but im having a bit of a problem. look at the experimental site that i have (kubrick). i know that it would not take long for you to modify it because you encounter the same problems with the php and #header. I have provided you the images location as well. I would really appreciate if you could help me. thanks and sent me the modified codes. It shouldn’t take more than 2 minutes. If I you could get the header images to work then I should be ok. thanks

my images are as follows
http://bb.1asphost.com/smark016/header0.jpg
http://bb.1asphost.com/smark016/header1.jpg
http://bb.1asphost.com/smark016/header2.jpg
http://bb.1asphost.com/smark016/header3.jpg
http://bb.1asphost.com/smark016/header4.jpg
http://bb.1asphost.com/smark016/header5.jpg
http://bb.1asphost.com/smark016/header6.jpg
http://bb.1asphost.com/smark016/header7.jpg

First off, the solution I posted earlier works for WordPress blogs (and probably any other blog programmed in PHP). I don’t believe Blogger lets you use PHP. You’ll need to get the same functionality using JavaScript.

I’m not an expert on Blogger, so I Google searched for “blogger random header” and found this.

Good luck!

Update: This isn’t my first post on this topic. I should have included a link to the earlier posts. Here they are: