Mrs. Fischer is awesome again, as usual. Marriage as death, yes, but also marriage as exercise. The only way to grow is to destroy what you have now and let it rebuild.

Labels: love

Seems reasonable to me

Speaking at a national "Right to Life" conference in Dallas, Perry took aim at Davis' own background, claiming she had learned the wrong lessons from being born to a single mother and having her first daughter as a teenager.

The response is predictable

"I would say to him that I had the privilege of making a choice about the path I chose for my life, and I am so proud of my daughters, but I could never for a moment put myself in the shoes of another woman confronting a difficult personal choice, and it really isn't for him to make statements like that," Davis said.

If we can't tell people not to kill their children, what exactly can we tell them? And, to take a political example, why can you tell them that they have to have health insurance, even though you can't put yourself in their shoes?

Labels: prolife

They're still the same species as you and me. And it doesn't do anyone's logic any favors to pretend otherwise.

In Footnote 54 of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade, as part of the personhood discussion, the Court pointed out the fact that Texas had exceptions, and that this undermined the State's whole argument for personhood. The Court recognized that when you make exceptions, you demonstrate that you don't really believe that's a person -- that ANY are persons, and when ALL aren't protected, NONE are protected.

Labels: prolife

Some principles cut across the left/right political divide. For example, CT has his own way of looking at things. Of course it's a Slate article so they see things through a rather particular lens, but it does get to the core of the issue:

All of these votes arise from the same philosophy that drives Thomas to rule for unlimited and anonymous corporate electioneering, astonishingly torturous methods of capital punishment, and the deprivation of gay people’s rights. More than any justice in history, Thomas is an originalist, ruling exclusively by the letter of what he views as the Founders’ original intent in writing the Constitution. Because the Founders, for example, condoned “public dissection” and the “embowelling [sic] alive, beheading, and quartering” of prisoners, so too does Thomas. But because, in Thomas’ view, the Founders felt Americans had a right to view graphic sexual material, we still hold that right today. Liberal justices attempt to apply the Constitution’s strictures to the present, adapting its liberties to the needs of modern society. When society proposes a new liberty, like a right to be gay, Thomas rejects it out of hand. But when it begins to encroach on an old one—private property, for instance—Thomas emerges as a defender of freedom.

If you want to amend the Constitution, amend the Constitution, I say. The needs of modern society should be determined through a political process, not by five dudes or chicks being lobbied. Regardless, I'm more an admirer of Thomas sticking to his guns than his particular positions.

Labels: law, politics

A most humorous parody if you've ever used MVS, OS/390, or z/OS. I guess everyone else can just look away.

The SRM is a turkey in disguise,
and MF-1 is a telling' me lies,
Start a JOB and the whole thing dies,

Hercules running MVS 3.8 supports MF-1 if you have too much time on your hands . . .

Labels: computers, history

I am in heaven. Thanks to OS/2 Museum for the link.

Labels: technology

This I don't understand?!?

Last year, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK’s busiest abortionist was incensed when Bishop Hopes participated personally in the annual 40 Days for Life project, praying the rosary outside one of BPAS’s central London abortion facilities Bishop Alan Hopes

A BPAS spokesman told the Evening Standard that there is “no moral justification” for bishops to get involved in such a campaign. Abigail Fitzgibbon, policy manager for BPAS said that “vocal” anti-abortion MPs were also stirring up protesters. She told the Standard, “If bishops are getting behind this then I can’t see how it’s morally justified especially when women have already made up their minds.”

I honestly don't understand what bishops have to do with this being morally justified or not. . . perhaps someone of the British persuasion can enlighten me?

Labels: prolife

Sooner or later that points us back to something that is not merely *a* being but is Being itself: something that simply Is. All created contingent beings participate in and are sustained by the God who is Being. As Mike Flynn points out, if such self-existent Being could talk, it would say, "I AM." And by a strange coincidence, that is exactly how the God of some seriously philosophically-unsophisticated semitic Bronze Age shepherds introduced himself to them in Exodus 3. It's almost as though they were the recipients of revelation or something.

Points out Mark Shea.

Labels: philosophy, religion