Slackin

I know, I know, I've been slackin. It's not that I didn't have the desire to post, trust me, it's a liberal's hay day in the news right now, it's just a time issue. I will try and catch up today and this weekend, so the wisdom will be flowing. :P

For a little humor that made my Friday, look at Steve's latest post (Oct 20th)

To be or not to be: that is the question.

Today's topic for post; state assisted suicide. Flowing from the previous topics, the Supreme Court is now considering this question. I have soooo much to say about this subject, as it touches on so many issues.
First off, let me say that I am undecided on the issue itself. Whether one should take their own life under the circumstances provided for by the Oregon law permitting it, I'm not sure. I know if I were in those circumstances, I would not, as I would fight for my life 'till my dying breath. However, if someone is of sound mind and does not want to suffer the last few months of their life, I do believe that is THEIR choice.
I find it hilarious that conservatives support smaller government until it comes to forcing their beliefs on others (there are exceptions, a few out there do support all forms of smaller government, but not the current administration). Basically what I think this boils down to is the Christian ideology the current administration is trying to force on us all. They believe that suicide, in any form, is wrong, and, according to most Christian denominations (among other religions), those who commit suicide will go to some form of hell. I can think of several situations where I might commit suicide, and it be the morally right thing to do (involving sacrifice for family, etc). So under my belief, not all suicide is wrong. That's my belief, and I'm not going to impose it on you. I may discuss it, debate it, or what have you, but no one, including myself, is morally right in imposing it. That is a decision anyone in their right mind (not depressed, insane, etc) has the right to make for themselves.
Now John Ashcroft says he is pursuing this, not for moral reasons, but for legal reasons having to do with the Controlled Substances Act. That's a big load of crap. If you read the CSA itself, here, or for a legal summary of it in the most recent court ruling on it, here, you will see that the CSA does not provide legal grounds for his actions. In fact, the only way it could (his legal argument) is if you took one part of the act, by itself, that says medical prescriptions must serve a legitimate medical purpose, and took that to mean that prescriptions for assisted suicide don't meet that criteria. That is a personal moral judgment cloaked in legal reasoning. Not to mention that other portions of the act specifically outline that it can't supersede any state determinations for legitimate medical purposes (thus that legal argument fails anyway). If inclined, you can read the court ruling for more details on that. I am sure that since the Supreme Court will be ruling on the legal standing of the case, not assisted suicide itself, they will come to a similar ruling as the 9th circuit court of appeals.
There are many more points I could make on this, but as this blog gets longer, and my day shorter, they'll have to wait until later.
I welcome comments and views on this, as I love hearing points of view, especially those that manage to change mine.
For more information on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, go here.
Bumper sticker of the day: The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

Interesting reactions

I thought it would be interesting to point out the differences in reactions from two people on opposite ends of the spectrum.

"The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. ... When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials."
- Eugene Delgaudio, President of the Public Advocate, a conservative advocacy group

"With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how and whether she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely. ... There must be no rush to judgment."
- Ralph G. Neas, President of People for the American Way, a liberal public advocacy group

This tells me that for arguements point, she is at least some where in the middle. It also shows a key difference in how each side looks at things, which in my view, says a lot.

Intro and supreme court nominee

Get out while you still can. There's no turning back. Don't say I didn't warn you. ;)
Ok... I live in Edmond, OK, and work in Stillwater. Go Cowboys (far stretch this year). I have a wonderful wife, Becky, and 3 kids, 2 girls, 5&7, and a boy, 1. My life is mostly involved with computers and technology. I love to go stormchasing, play paintball, work on / fix things (mainly cars), and love science (mainly physics). I am a very analytic / logical person, but would consider myself a people person too. Now on to the stuff that is not so popular 'round here. I am a liberal, agnostic, debate loving, somewhat arrogant, philosophical person. Love me or hate me. On the political spectrum I am decently moderate, so you won't see me tying myself to any trees or anything, but I definitely think the war in Iraq is a BIG BIG mistake. I'll go into that later, heh.
Now for the news of the day. The new supreme court nominee, Harriet Miers. I actually think Bush has done a respectable job in choosing nominees, as I realize he can't pick candidates that are too moderate. I was fairly happy with John Roberts, time will tell, but I think he will be less conservative than Renquist. At this point not much is known about Harriet Miers. His pick could have been a lot worse, say a definite far right conservative. Being that she has been in Bush's camp a long time, I have to worry about her though. Bush knows her better than anyone else from a legal standpoint, and I question any unknown he would put up. Plus she's a lawyer from Texas, and woman's advocate or not, that's bad from a Roe v. Wade perspective. We'll see what the coming week brings.
A colleague at work made this comment: "She does look like a Pit Bull in size 6 shoes." heh.
Bumper sticker of the day: "A mind is like a parachute: it has to be open to work"