A public letter to the state of Mississippi

*sigh*
So, it's that time of the decade. That time when a small group of "christians" try pushing an agenda counter to the status quo, under the auspice of "protecting" someone. In this case, a fertilized egg.

Let me start with my personal position. I have no kids. Not for lack of trying. But I had an operation as a kid that functions pretty well as a vasectomy. Despite this, I lost count on the number of times I heard the phrase "I think I'm pregnant". And each time, I secretly rejoiced. Though as time wore on, I stopped letting myself hope. I'm good with kids, I love shaping minds, and generally I feel that procreation is the ONLY way to keep people on this planet.

That said, I'm not only pro-abortion in the case of dangerous pregnancies, but I'm pro-choice. And if you'll bear with me, I'd like to tell you why.

The source.
First, I object to the source. Christianity. Not that the source IS Christianity, but that it's religion, it's dogma. Separation of Church and State is the very foundation of this county and every attempt to twist that degrades us. And it's not all christians, is a small group of folks that brought us 'creation in schools'. It's about The Wedge. The wedge is a plan to "return America to it's core christian values." They want abortion made illegal, they want women's rights repealed (like voting, and choosing their own manner of dress), and they want THEIR religion taught in schools. In short, they want the U.S. to have all the same things that terrify us about Islamic law.

[that's right folks, you vote against Roe v. Wade and the terrorists win!]

The Law.
Okay, so let's ignore the fact that this is about "abortion" and let's talk about "life". Long before abortion became an issue, we had a bunch of pretty well defined laws about what's "no longer alive". These laws vary slightly from state to state, but the long and short of them is that if the person cannot continue living without mechanical life support, and cannot answer for themselves, then the closest relative has the right to determine their fate. This is so accepted that "pulling the plug" is a common term for ending ANYTHING that's gone on too long.

Okay, so let's flip that over. If brain-dead mechanical assistance means "no longer alive" then brain-dead mechanical assistance can also mean "not yet alive". In short, the fetus is NOT a legal person UNTIL it can survive, on it's own, without mechanical (or biological) assistance. Now, I may not be completely current on the specifics here, but the last I heard, the earliest a child survived a premature birth was about 6 months. And with mechanical assistance about 4 months. I'm willing to assume that no child has, or would, willingly sign a DNR, so those states that require a mechanically assisted wait period should have that apply here too.

So, until we have facts to the contrary let's say 4 months is the earliest a fetus has survived to childhood. Heck, let's say 3. So, 3 months is where the "not yet alive" fetus (legally) becomes a "person" (legally). Prior to that, it has all the same rights (in that state, country, region) as a terminally ill person, not able to support their own life, and not responding to machines. If you choose to treat them as one of the family, great. If not, then a coat hangar in a back alley shouldn't be your only option (homework assignment: go watch Dirty Dancin' again).

Logic.
If we're going to get into legal structures, let's get deep. If someone has a knife in their hand and are slowly pushing it through your chest, to your heart, what are your legal rights? What are your Moral rights? Ethical rights? Think about it. Certain types of pregnancy are just this dangerous to the mother. If an egg deposits in the fallopian tube, the growing "child" will stretch and rupture it long before term, killing both the mother and the fetus. Suicide is illegal (irrational, but we'll get to that another time). Murder is illegal (everywhere). Why should we want laws that allow them in the case of pregnancy?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/07/1023558/-Occupy-My-Uterus-My-Ass!-Fertilized-Eggs-Are-NOT-People

Social
There are dangerous precedents involved here. If we flip these proposed abortion laws back over, then DNRs become illegal, unplugging people becomes illegal, and in short order, we have a vegetative hospice system that rivals the current penitentiary system in both size and cost.

Even in cases where the pregnancy isn't dangerous, there's issues. First, this affects how deep the government can drill into your life. There isn't just a "child" here, but the mother. Best case scenario, her body will be wracked with changes for 9 months, and then she'll be saddled with emotional and financial responsibilities for the rest of her life.

Then there's the financial aspects. Not only do I feel that a woman AND the father have a say in the pregnancy, but the people who have to pay for the results should too. If the mother is on welfare, shouldn't "the people" have a say in that particular pregnancy, or at least provide a proxy?

Compromise
I'm willing to concede that the "child" left growing inside it's mother will probably grow into a baby, and may live to vote. But one final point I'd like to make:
Does it HAVE to be inside THAT mother?
We've proven that in-vitro fertilization can work. In cases of rape, incest, drugs, ignorance, etc., can we just trade out the mothers before implantation occurs? How about freezing the fertilized egg until a host can be found? Then the egg can be moved and allowed it's chance? This works even if everything else is ignored. People of mississippi, I encourage you to ponder.

T-Mobile Inspection...

I'd like to take a look at the local run of T-mobile commercials. Normally I'm only moved to comment on the truly idiotic fare provided us. But the latest run of t-mobile commercials are incredibly spot on if you know what you're looking for. The basic idea is to knock off the famous Apple commercials featuring two spokesmen "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC" featuring all the troubles of Windows, and the simpler, easier solutions from Apple. The targeted Mac audience at the time was younger, hipper crowds with an artistic flair, and those commercials reflected it. The PC was represented by an older, more corporate looking gentleman who (no offense) looked a little bloated. They were wildly effective, and I can understand why others have mimicked them.

This new crop of commercials features a pretty brunette woman representing t-mobile, usually in some eye catching pink outfit keyed to the T-mobile corporate pink. On the left side of the screen, a dull-witted young man with the ATT network represented by a scheming, balding older man. On the surface it kinda looks the same. But that's where it ends. In the first commercial, the speeds of the two networks were represented by motorcycles: T-mobile being a rice rocket that never moves onscreen, whereas ATT is represented by a pocket bike that actually delivers our hapless customer to the commercial. Careful observers will notice that at no time does the t-Mobile bike move or even gets touched, and the pink-clad rep doesn't even have a helmet. "4G" users in the LA area have noted that coverage is a little spotty if you end up behind a barrier, like a few sheets of writing paper. Like the cycle you can't ride, you get coverage you can barely use.

Similarly, if you read this article in Wikipedia, you'll see that the highly touted "4G" T-mobile LTE network isn't really 4G at all, it's an interim step between the two formats. LTE is actually a high-speed version of 3G, and to be fair, it is almost twice as fast (at best rates). Most of t-mobile's competitors have not succumbed to this dishonest labeling, even those who also have LTE or other interim networks. This effect is illustrated by the T-mobile girl, looking shockingly thin, almost anemic, wearing a pink sundress designed to give her the illusion of greater substance while the ATT rep is in a good fitting suit.

Since Apple has been partnered with ATT for so long, and the commercials are carefully constructed not to take shots at the iPhone hardware that must run on ATT, one must wonder, did Apple let t-mobil get the number of their ad agency with the purpose of undermining their efforts using T-mobiles own commercials? :) I feel like T-mobile has gotten what it deserves with these obvious rip-offs.

Rave Act of 2011 (AB74)

The following is the silliest anti-rave legislation I've ever seen. Look carefully at the wording... this applies to everyone who:

• plays any recorded music (including Musak, country rock, etc)


• at "night" (between sunset and sunrise"


• during an event that lasts more than 3 hours (not necessarily all at night)


• not in a bar or sports arena.

So, any club that doesn't serve alcohol, most restaurants, and any kind of dance instruction (like Sr night polka dancing) would all be breaking the law. Every time a store has a sale (ie "event") and has musac plying, all night prayer vigils, and congressional meetings where the national anthem is played are all in violation. While it's fresh in my mind, EVERY New year's eve party would probably break this law.

Movie studios could only operate during daytime hours. Heck, Ralphs, Vons and Home Depot all played Xmas music well after dark. Oooh, yeah, Let's not forget halloween. Most of those parks and spook-houses have some kind of music running for 5-6 hours at least. And at the extreme silly end of the interpretation chain, a ladies' sewing circle plays Fox news in the background all afternoon, but happens to run a few minutes after sundown would be in total violation if Fox plays ANY kind of pre-recorded music. Speaking of fox, how about those late-running all-day football fests. Those are events and what beer commercial doesn't have some music....

This bill is ill-conceived, and ill intended. The fallout from this could be immense if passed. But if people know that it's coming, it won't stand a chance. Forget telling your raver friends, tell everyone who ever listens to music and does anything at night.

New Rave Act (AB74)

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma proposed legislation yesterday to ban large electronic music events in California. In her own words “The introduction of AB 74 is the first step toward eliminating these dangerous events”. Read the full text of the proposed legislation at the end of this email.

Fiona Ma's legislation is just one part of a larger agenda by the police and policy makers to shut down electronic music events in California. Our music and culture is being discriminated against and if we don't stand up and fight, they will succeed.

Thanks very much for your time! You can find the proposed legislation here:
*
*

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Anti-Raves Act of 2011.

SEC. 2. Section 421 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
421. (a) Any person who conducts a public event at night that
includes prerecorded music and lasts more than three and one-half
hours is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) or twice the actual or estimated gross receipts
for the event, whichever is greater.

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to a public event on private
property if the entity that conducts the public event has a business
license to operate a bar, club, theater, entertainment venue, or
other similar business, or to conduct sporting events, and conducting
the public event is consistent with the business license.

(c) For purposes of this section, "night" means that period
between sunset and sunrise.

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitutio