Saturday, September 11, 2004
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Copied straight from The Boston Globe:
CYA Memo
What's "Grp"?
CYA Memo
18 August 1973
Memo to file
Subject: CYA
1. Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job. Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush's OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it. Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any feedback from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate. Austin is not happy either.
2. Harris took the call from Grp today. I'll backdate but won't rate. Harris agrees.
What's "Grp"?
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Abortion and "Reproductive Rights"
Someone somewhere else mentioned their discomfort with the term "reproductive rights", and I realized that we've actually studied something recently in Torts class that I find relevant to an explanation of the term.
When studying the tort of 'battery' (Law school! Now in week three!), we learned that its elements are
intent to touch and intent to cause harm or offense with that touching*;
and
actual touch, and harm or offense resulting from that touch.
[*] Different jurisdictions may rely just on the intent to touch. This is a 'strict liability' approach. You broke it, you buy it, regardless of what you meant to do.
In the case Cohen v. Smith (648 N.E.2d 329) we learned that bodily harm doesn't have to be caused by this touching. Offense to a reasonable sense of personal dignity works too.
That case also told us that the right to accept or refuse medical care, to determine what shall be done with one's own body, is sacrosanct. (In Cohen, a woman's religious beliefs imposed certain requirements - that the hospital agreed to - on her medical care. The hospital then ignored those requirements.)
The problem is, with abortion, until we have external reproductive systems, a pregnancy always carries with it the possibility of someone having to make an either/or decision:
what's best for the mother?
or
what's best for the fetus?
And how, really, can I get away with being that someone, telling you what choice to make?
A person's right to choose the nature of or course of their medical care does not go away just because they have a potential person growing inside them. This is why we call them reproductive "rights".
It is your right to make decisions about your medical care.
"Reproductive rights" are not about the right to end a potential person. They're about the right to control what other people do to your body. The right to give or withhold consent as your personal dignity, religious beliefs, morality, etc., may require.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness and cannot accept blood transfusions, that's your decision to make, about your medical care.
If you are a pregnant woman with a heart condition, and your doctor tells you it could kill you to try to carry a fetus to term, it could kill you to give birth, it could kill you even with a C-section, you are trapped with the most hideous decision in the world.
But it is still yours to make.
Because I don't have the right to tell you what medical treatment to accept or deny.
If I take away from you the right to determine what happens to your body when you're pregnant, then what comes next?
What about...if you might become pregnant? Isn't that a terribly important time, too? Your health affects the health of any fetus you might carry. So, to be safe, why doesn't the state just dictate to all menstruating women as well as all pregnant women? All menstruating and pregnant women are not allowed to smoke. Because, it's damaging to a fetus, you know. All menstruating and pregnant women are not allowed to drink. Or eat fatty foods. Or have too much salt. Or work in high-pressure jobs - got to watch that blood pressure! Or watch scary movies - mustn't overstrain your nerves!
Or work at all?
Bam. We've just gone back to the Victorian era.
That was one hell of a slippery slope, wasn't it? Let's not slide down it.
"Reproductive rights" are a part and parcel of your right to control the course of your medical care, pregnant or not.
When studying the tort of 'battery' (Law school! Now in week three!), we learned that its elements are
intent to touch and intent to cause harm or offense with that touching*;
and
actual touch, and harm or offense resulting from that touch.
[*] Different jurisdictions may rely just on the intent to touch. This is a 'strict liability' approach. You broke it, you buy it, regardless of what you meant to do.
In the case Cohen v. Smith (648 N.E.2d 329) we learned that bodily harm doesn't have to be caused by this touching. Offense to a reasonable sense of personal dignity works too.
That case also told us that the right to accept or refuse medical care, to determine what shall be done with one's own body, is sacrosanct. (In Cohen, a woman's religious beliefs imposed certain requirements - that the hospital agreed to - on her medical care. The hospital then ignored those requirements.)
The problem is, with abortion, until we have external reproductive systems, a pregnancy always carries with it the possibility of someone having to make an either/or decision:
what's best for the mother?
or
what's best for the fetus?
And how, really, can I get away with being that someone, telling you what choice to make?
A person's right to choose the nature of or course of their medical care does not go away just because they have a potential person growing inside them. This is why we call them reproductive "rights".
It is your right to make decisions about your medical care.
"Reproductive rights" are not about the right to end a potential person. They're about the right to control what other people do to your body. The right to give or withhold consent as your personal dignity, religious beliefs, morality, etc., may require.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness and cannot accept blood transfusions, that's your decision to make, about your medical care.
If you are a pregnant woman with a heart condition, and your doctor tells you it could kill you to try to carry a fetus to term, it could kill you to give birth, it could kill you even with a C-section, you are trapped with the most hideous decision in the world.
But it is still yours to make.
Because I don't have the right to tell you what medical treatment to accept or deny.
If I take away from you the right to determine what happens to your body when you're pregnant, then what comes next?
What about...if you might become pregnant? Isn't that a terribly important time, too? Your health affects the health of any fetus you might carry. So, to be safe, why doesn't the state just dictate to all menstruating women as well as all pregnant women? All menstruating and pregnant women are not allowed to smoke. Because, it's damaging to a fetus, you know. All menstruating and pregnant women are not allowed to drink. Or eat fatty foods. Or have too much salt. Or work in high-pressure jobs - got to watch that blood pressure! Or watch scary movies - mustn't overstrain your nerves!
Or work at all?
Bam. We've just gone back to the Victorian era.
That was one hell of a slippery slope, wasn't it? Let's not slide down it.
"Reproductive rights" are a part and parcel of your right to control the course of your medical care, pregnant or not.
How Sure Are You...Dick?
Cheney Threatens US With Another Terrorist Attack Unless Vote Bush
That's what the headline should say, anyway.
That's what the headline should say, anyway.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
cute baby-yarn beret
I did a beret based on the patterns in Anna Zilboorg's 45 Fine and Fanciful Hats To Knit, in baby yarn, in that pale yellow and pale green you basically only find in baby yarn, you know? Same green yarn as the little raglan sweater I've been avoiding:
The beret was knit on 4.0 mm circular needles and double pointed needles.
Very cheerful looking.
The baby blue cotton tank (apparently, I have a Thing of some sort about baby yarn, or baby yarn colors) is still progressing slowly but surely.
The bright yellow socks - ripped apart. Completely unsatisfactory. Though I may do some colorwork with that yellow yarn in socks for the future, I just don't think it's workable as the main yarn for a sock.
The beret was knit on 4.0 mm circular needles and double pointed needles.
Very cheerful looking.
The baby blue cotton tank (apparently, I have a Thing of some sort about baby yarn, or baby yarn colors) is still progressing slowly but surely.
The bright yellow socks - ripped apart. Completely unsatisfactory. Though I may do some colorwork with that yellow yarn in socks for the future, I just don't think it's workable as the main yarn for a sock.
Hey, cool!
I own an 1888 Seated Liberty dime!
How neat!
Isn't it fun, the things you find when you unpack?
How neat!
Isn't it fun, the things you find when you unpack?
Friday, September 03, 2004
Power Corrupts
Don't Like the Poverty Stats? Redefine Poverty!
Not the first time, either.
Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the first time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level.[1] But instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration today is announcing plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods.
Not the first time, either.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Church of Bush
Worth a full read: The Church of Bush
I sincerely hope that we can walk away from this diefication of the president, because if not, we've severely hampered the natural balance of power that is fundamental to the United States.
Once I interviewed a Freeper who told me he first became a committed conservative after discovering the Federalist Papers. "I absolutely devoured them, recognizing, my God, these things were written hundreds of years ago and they still stand up as some of the most intense political philosophy ever written."
I happen to agree, so I asked him—after he insisted Bush couldn't have been lying when he claimed to have witnessed the first plane hit the World Trade Center live on TV, after he said the orders to torture in Iraq couldn't have possibly come from the top, all because George Bush is too fundamentally decent to lie—what he thinks of the Federalists' most famous message: that the genius of the Constitution they were defending was that you needn't base your faith in the country on the fundamental decency of an individual, because no one can be trusted to be fundamentally decent, which was why the Constitution established a government of laws, not personalities. [emphasis added -- sid]
"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary . . . "
Conservatives see something angelic in George Bush. That's why they excuse, repress, and rationalize away so much.
I sincerely hope that we can walk away from this diefication of the president, because if not, we've severely hampered the natural balance of power that is fundamental to the United States.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
President Does It Again
Bush Hails His Actions On Intelligence
There goes Bush, again, signing executive orders when no one is paying attention.
Of course, now that I'm peeved he's sliding stuff past the media (again), I'd like to draw something *else* out, to wit:
War. On. Terror.
War on fear. War on despair. War on horror.
Not war on al-Qaeda, or some group of people, or a country. Not even war on a system or ideology, or illness (war on poverty, war on racism, polio). But terror.
Fear. War. On fear.
Does this make any sense, anywhere, to anyone?
There goes Bush, again, signing executive orders when no one is paying attention.
Of course, now that I'm peeved he's sliding stuff past the media (again), I'd like to draw something *else* out, to wit:
"All of them [the orders Bush signed -- sid] are essential to America's security as we wage the war on terror," Bush, speaking in his weekly radio address, said of the orders.
War. On. Terror.
War on fear. War on despair. War on horror.
Not war on al-Qaeda, or some group of people, or a country. Not even war on a system or ideology, or illness (war on poverty, war on racism, polio). But terror.
Fear. War. On fear.
Does this make any sense, anywhere, to anyone?
RNC Attendees to Visit Ellis Island
RNC Attendees to Visit Ellis Island
How interesting.
If you're of Asian descent, or, say, some shade other than *white*, your ancestors probably didn't come through Ellis Island.
So, what does this field trip say about the ethnic and racial diversity of the RNC?
How interesting.
If you're of Asian descent, or, say, some shade other than *white*, your ancestors probably didn't come through Ellis Island.
So, what does this field trip say about the ethnic and racial diversity of the RNC?
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Baby's First Week at Law School
It's been good. Which class we talk about what in is kind of blurring together, since many of the cases we chew over overlap their subject matter from one class to another. Like, maybe we talk about a contract in Civil Procedure - so we can talk about the *procedure* - as well as a contract in, you guessed it, Contracts.
I can see it's *very* easy for my fellows to get bogged down in the details of the case, as opposed to what the case tells us about the system. I probably only think I'm not suffering from that as greatly as everyone else. (Hopefully, my arrogance will tip me on my ass quickly and I can get over myself without too much damage.)
Some of the stuff we're reading right now dates back to the 1800's, so that we're seeing evolution of thought on property, contractual obligations, jurisdiction, and what harm really means (for my classes Property, Contracts, Civil Procedure, and Torts - all fascinating, btw). Because it changes with time.
I mentioned we touched on contractual obligations in both Contracts and Civil Procedure. Well, what we (the American system) inherited from the British system was a very formal approach with little room for intent.
Did you sign the contract? Is that your mark? Does it say you will perform X? Then you must perform X. Even if you *meant* at the time to sign a document that said Y - which was very similar to X, but not X - still, you promised X. Tough. Too bad for you.
But, things evolve, and today, there is some room in the rule (which is still the formal approach) for misrepresentation, or the inability to have a "meeting of minds" - in short, for trying to determine if an "honest mistake" has occurred.
Similarly, just in the past 40 years, there's been a shift in permitting lawsuits for emotional distress, even when no physical harm has resulted from some party's actions. Used to not be the case. Now, battery means to touch someone with intent to cause harm or offense, and to actually cause harm or offense, and the phrase emotional distress has some - certainly still fuzzy - meaning in a courtroom.
Baby's First Week: pretty good.
I can see it's *very* easy for my fellows to get bogged down in the details of the case, as opposed to what the case tells us about the system. I probably only think I'm not suffering from that as greatly as everyone else. (Hopefully, my arrogance will tip me on my ass quickly and I can get over myself without too much damage.)
Some of the stuff we're reading right now dates back to the 1800's, so that we're seeing evolution of thought on property, contractual obligations, jurisdiction, and what harm really means (for my classes Property, Contracts, Civil Procedure, and Torts - all fascinating, btw). Because it changes with time.
I mentioned we touched on contractual obligations in both Contracts and Civil Procedure. Well, what we (the American system) inherited from the British system was a very formal approach with little room for intent.
Did you sign the contract? Is that your mark? Does it say you will perform X? Then you must perform X. Even if you *meant* at the time to sign a document that said Y - which was very similar to X, but not X - still, you promised X. Tough. Too bad for you.
But, things evolve, and today, there is some room in the rule (which is still the formal approach) for misrepresentation, or the inability to have a "meeting of minds" - in short, for trying to determine if an "honest mistake" has occurred.
Similarly, just in the past 40 years, there's been a shift in permitting lawsuits for emotional distress, even when no physical harm has resulted from some party's actions. Used to not be the case. Now, battery means to touch someone with intent to cause harm or offense, and to actually cause harm or offense, and the phrase emotional distress has some - certainly still fuzzy - meaning in a courtroom.
Baby's First Week: pretty good.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)