Thursday, August 19, 2004

Some people just know how to write a FAQ

I felt all tingly and inspired.

Imperial FAQ

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

The Federalist Papers

I am inspired to provide this link for anyone unaware of these papers. They are germane to some of the political commentary on this and other blogs. They are a fascinating piece of history, as well as masterworks of Public Relations. It is good sometimes to go back to the roots of our nation and see where we came from. It can give perspective, and raise the tone of public debate.

If you read nothing else, at least read the first paper, written by Hamilton. Some very interesting statements are made. Like this one:
"And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives."

The Federalist Papers

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

What I did on my Summer Vacation

Bo Derek, the later years.

Monday, August 16, 2004

Woman Purees Newborn
Acquitted on Technicality

"... Tremendous breakthrough", says ACLU spokes-person. "This case represents a giant leap in the right direction."

Dateline: Massachusetts

Exact details are sketchy, but what is known is that a woman, known only as "Jane Doe" gradually fed her two day old baby into a food processor.

In arguments before the court, Ms. Doe's lawyer, Mr. Sharq, argued that the alleged murder was in fact an abortion. Mr. Sharq noted that Ms. Doe had not wanted the pregnancy, but didn't know that federally funded abortions were her right as a woman. As she did not have enough money to pay for an abortion, she had been forced to bear an unwanted child. The lawyer then focused on the legality of abortions, centering on the viability of the fetus.

Noting that in the Roe v Wade decision the Supreme Court had left the ultimate determination of the viability of the fetus up to the doctor, Mr. Sharq then called in a pediatrician as expert witness. The pediatrician, responding to Mr. Sharq's pointed questions, admitted that a new born baby was just as helpless as a fetus. Elaborating, he acknowledged that a new born was just as dependent on the mother for survival immediately after birth, as before. With the term "viability" hinging on survivability outside the womb, the pediatrician commented that a baby wasn't able to survive "on its own..." until it was able to feed itself. A newborn, not being able to feed itself, would not survive outside the womb on its own, and was therefore not viable. In summation, Mr. Sharq said, "So, a new born is in actuality simply a post-uterine fetus, and a non-viable one at that." Turning to the judge, he continued, "A non-viable fetus is subject to abortion, under the laws of this land."

The court then focused on the grisly manner in which Jane Doe had disposed of her baby. In testimony, Ms. Doe asserted that she had only heard of two methods of abortion, suction and D&C. When vacuuming the baby did not have the desired result, she resorted to D&C, or chopping the baby into little pieces.

The court dismissed the charges. The judge, in the written opinion, noted that "in court case after court case the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy has been upheld as an interpreted constitutional right. As the natural result of pregnancy is a child, it can be argued that the prevention of an unwanted child is implied. Further the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a fetus is a human being entitled to protection under the Constitution. It has been here established that a new born is simply a post-uterine fetus. As such it has no standing under the law, and no crime has been committed. May God help us all."

In a related story, you will no doubt be fascinated to learn that in Santa Clara County v The Southern Pacific Railroad(1886) the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation was a "person" under the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is Unconstitutional to pass laws applied specifically to corporations and not to flesh and blood persons, as such laws deny corporate "persons" civic equality. (Conlin, The American Past, A Brief History. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Copyright 1991)