The Supreme court ruling

I have no choice after reading the ruling and many of the facts surrounding it to be puzzled. The Supreme Court voted this week to ban so-called (named so by it’s opponents) partial-birth abortions, despite the fact that abortions, though remaining a controversial topic, are legal. In this country, it is estimated 1.3 million abortions take place annually, while only a small portion of these are “partial-birth”. However, the details of this procedure are particularly gruesome. It entails a fetus being removed from its’ mother until only its’ head remains inside, then a hole is made in the head of the fetus, followed by a suction device which is inserted to suck out the brain, causing it’s head to collapse. No, really. It took me about 20 minutes to type that sentence, and I am not sure when I will be able to sleep again. That being said, it is still difficult to comprehend the decision, especially when one looks at the procedure of a more conventional abortion, which involves the entire fetus being suctioned out of the mother, thus suffocating. Both of these are so horrific that one wonders how many involved in this debate actually know and understand the details of either of these procedures. However, if one is legal, how can the other not be? Granted, typical abortions happen on or about the ninth week, while “partial–birth” ones are much later. But if we have already played the role of God and decided that a fetus having not been born is not yet worth being considered a “human” (and thus making it’s death murder), how can we decide one is so wrong while the other is perfectly acceptable? Both of these procedures are cringe-inducing nightmares, but now we are deciding between the lesser of two evils? Interestingly, the decision included 2 pages on the prospect of an abortion patient realizing later the details of this “partial-birth” procedure and feeling regret. So why is disclosure not the bigger issue here as opposed to prohibition? I have never been a proponent of abortion, and would never be in favor of having one if included in any decicion making process. However, the conclusions that others make is their business, and is to be taken up with their conscience. But now we have decision handed down that takes the authority out of the hands of God or an individual and puts it squarely in the hands of 9 people I have never met and hardly know. If abortion is legal, then it’s legal. If it’s not, it’s not. We can debate that issue all day. But don’t split hairs, especially when the way they are split are not based on any laws but rather political affiliations. If the conservatives believe it is wrong, based for the most part on religious reasons, should they not leave it up to God to judge our decisions? What is it about religious people that they feel so compelled to make, not only personal decisions, but to shove those decisions down everyone else’s throat as well? The decisions we make should have nothing to do with government so long as the health and safety of others is not impacted. So go worry about a war, handle the taxes, and pave the roads. No one needs you to make up their mind for them. In the off chance we want your opinion, we’ll ask.

Thanks, NBC

So as the controversy regarding NBC showing the clips and pictures sent in by the Virginia Tech shooter continues to heat up faster than a born-again Christian at an abortion clinic, we are forced to ponder the following: What effect does showing these things really have? NBC has stated that it has helped answer the question as to why this act took place, and what was really happening inside the mind of young Cho Sueng-Hui. So that’s the reason? Like we didn’t know already he was a little crazy?Lets, just for a second, be honest. It was about one thing: ratings. That’s it. The FBI had asked that it not be aired, and if you really cared about the reasons behind the massacre, you would have complied. If your reason was anything other than ratings, why did you not share your little videos with your competing networks? I am sure Ms. Couric would have had no trouble airing them at all. Instead, CBS led Wednesday nights broadcast with the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, not that anyone watched anyway. You can certainly count your lucky stars that this nutjob decided to send you this little “package”, and while you were certainly free to use it as you wish, lets not pretend you give a damn about anything other that the Nielsons. All you did was give a bunch of grieving families a little more stress and agony, and delay their grieving process even further. Does anyone feel better after seeing this? What do we know now that we didn’t know before? What was so wrong with waiting a while before pounding this killers ugly face down our throats? Even so, after seeing this, what do we gain? Just this: The knowledge that there is no way at all to stop this from happening again. This boy had the attention of the legal system, had teachers recommending assistance, spent time with a psychiatrist, and showed, in writing through his scripts, his innermost thoughts. So all these clues were out there, but with no way to connect them, the puzzle was never complete enough to act apon. Haven’t we heard this before? The worst terrorist attact in our nations history could have been avoided if there had not been such an inability or unwillingness to share information between agencies. If a teacher goes to school authorities with a concern for a student, shouldn’t their investigation involve questioning other teachers as well? Or maybe even check with his roommates and classmates? Should a psychiatrist, concerned enough to realize suicidal tendencies, take at least a few minutes to check the opinions of others that know the individual? How many times can the buck be passed? While we cannot imply that this was the fault of anyone other than the shooter, certainly if we are charged with the responsibility with deciding the mental stability of a patient, or with the well-being of a student body, should that not involve a little more than checking a box on a medical form? A judge actually ordered outpatient mental health treatment for Mr. Sueng-Hui. Enforced by whom? We allow an obviously troubled individual back on the street, with no one responsible at all for the repercussions. If a doctor were to prescribe the wrong medication for a patient, causing perhaps one’s death, would they be responsible? Of course. But what if they prescribed no medication or treatment when it was needed? Are they now without blame? As long as there is a system, there will be cracks in the system. There will always be another Cho Sueng-Hui to fall between them. So, thanks NBC, for telling us what we already knew. I just could have waited a few days for the reminder.

Is this really what we have come to?

It is just 2 days following the horrific events of Mondays Virginia Tech events, and it seems we have already moved on. This morning the headlines on yahoo.com had to do with tax extensions and presidential candidates, with hardly a mention of our troubled shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, and the tragedy. Perhaps, as we delve deeper into his life, we are afraid of what we will find. Stories of teachers pulling him from class and directing him to counseling after some admittedly deranged writing, the fact that he had few friends and signed his name with a question mark, and the ever present query as to why a man wanting to take his own life felt compelled to take so many others with him. It seems so incomprehensible, but is it really? The English major wrote of mothers with chainsaws and step-fathers killing step-sons, and an overwhelming desire by students to kill a teacher in his plays. This is shocking? If you were a teacher, and a student had turned in “Pulp Fiction” as a homework assignment, what would you think? Would you run to a counselor to get a young Mr. Tarantino help, or pay $10 bucks to go see the movie? Last weekend, “300”, a movie based a Frank Miller graphic novel, passed the $200 million mark in the US and has grossed over $400 million worldwide, despite some of the more deranged killings ever seen on screen. Did we miss the “warning signs”? And this is just the start. Every weekend features a new horror movie with more torture to “push the limits”, with lines, usually made up of, say, 18-24 year old males, stretching around the block to buy tickets. Are we really shocked that a 22 year old college student would write this way? No. We will hear those that will sadly state that they should have said something, or could have done more to help. He obviously had some serious issues which called for professional help. We know that now. But could we have admitted that beforehand? How could we sit through and be entertained by a movie like “Hostel”, which features clients paying upwards of $25,000 to torture and kill Americans with chainsaws for sport, and then question Mr. Seung-Hui’s writings that feature similar themes? These may just be movies, but they all started in someone’s mind, and that someone in now holding millions of our dollars for having “entertained” us. And is the fact that he was a loner bothersome? Living in a age of severely diminished social skills, where are best friends are Sanjaya and Jack Bauer, and Friday night is spent huddled over a laptop with an oversized cup of coffee, why are we surprised? The fact is, we’re not. There is no way to forsee this happening, especially when the line is so blurred. All the “warning signs” show us is that we can’t tell anymore the difference between a brilliant director or a serial killer, an incredibly creative mind or a student on the edge. If we really want to notice the warning signs, we have to change the way we are entertained, the way we look at art and creativity. Perhaps the recent events in Virginia will do that, but it is unlikely. This, for a while, may change the way we look at others, the way we look for warning signs. But for real change, we need to change the way we look……..in the mirror.

The whole Imus thing

It has been awhile since I spent much time watching the news, at least on a so-called real news channel, not with John Stewart still on every night at 11. But I figured it had been way too long, like over 24 hours, since I had heard of any soldiers dying in Iraq or some stupid comments from the White House, so I tuned in. And while there were no dead bodies to show, there was what looked like a breathing cadaver plastered on every channel in the form of Don Imus, who apparently had said something that someone heard and then told someone who emailed some black female basketball player at Rutgers. That had to be what happened, since the odds of a 20 year old intelligent hard working African-american athlete at Rutgers even having a clue who Don Imus is are about the same as his wife marrying him for his looks. As I hear the details of this complete stupidity, I am forced to contemplate the most obvious question. Who the hell cares what Don Imus says? Are these girls really upset with what was said, or just pissed off at the 3, 285,058 members of the god-forsaken media that keep pounding them with questions every 3 seconds? There is no excuse for the idiotic comments in the first place, but it this really the first time it has happened? Imus has done this for years. Now we all care? The phrase that was used was “nappy-headed ho’s.” So as I see it, there are 2 groups that have any rights to be offended: first, the Rutgers women basketball team and their families; and second, actual nappy headed ho’s. And I am not really sure if the latter would speak up anyway. Instead of hearing from either of these groups, we get to hear the Reverends’ Sharpton and Jackson, both with those spotless records, yelling some insanity at every possible moment a camera is in front of them. I wonder, How much time did they spend talking with the young women before their respective public tirades? What gives them the right to demand the head of Imus, when these girls had not yet said a word? Did they realize that these comments, while incomprehensible, came from a man that has raised millions for children of every race imaginable? Not only did they ramble on like madmen, but looked even worse following the Rutgers press conference. Who needs the Rev’s as a voice of the African-american nation when you have C. Vivian Stringer and Essence Carson handling themselves with more grace and class than those two men have ever shown. In the face of an insane media outcry and a ridiculous amount of unwanted publicity, these 2 women stood out as examples of what all humans should be. Did all of this attention bother them? Of course. Would they rather have had the focus be on their remarkable tournament run, and their individual accomplishments as African American women? Absolutely. Did they wallow in self-pity because some idiot opened his mouth? Never. There was no question after that news conference that anything ever said about them could slow them down, no matter how popular the source. These women don’t need anyone to stand up for them, especially some media hungry self-appointed spokesmen. This is the most over-blown non-story in years, destroying the career of man that does far more good than harm, and putting amazing women in a completely unwarranted pressure filled mess. I don’t respect a black man for being black, I don’t respect a white man for being white. I respect those that work hard, have self-respect, and don’t let anything stand in the way of greatness. I respect the Rutgers womens basketball team.