I have wanted to write about this for some time, but never ... what? ... never gotten around to it? Maybe I was afraid of the topic. But, now, here it is.
People who support the right of a woman to have an abortion and people who think abortion should be illegal have not thought the issue through. Maybe I haven't. But, here's my thinking as of now.
I am morally opposed to abortions generally, but opposed to making them illegal.
A criminal law ought to be based on logic or be an attempt to protect the values of a society.
So, the first question is, can a law making abortions illegal be supported by logic?
Any logical argument must be based on a self-evident truth. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men (and women) are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thomas Jefferson wrote those words in our declaration of independence and I believe them to be true.
Unfortunately, Mr. Jefferson didn't say which one of those unalienable rights was self-evidently the most important.
The argument over whether abortion should be illegal is, logically, an argument over which of these unalienable rights is most important. Is the right to life most important? If so, then those who want to make abortion illegal ought to prevail. Is the right to liberty most important? If so, then those who want a woman to have the right to do what she wants with her own body, even if it involves the death of someone else, ought to prevail.
I believe the right to life is most important. More important than the right to liberty. But, unfortunately, I can't make a logical argument that it should be. It is a feeling, an emotion. But, laws cannot be based on feelings or emotions. They have to be based on logic.
Even those who agree with me that life is a more important right than liberty are conflicted on the subject. "Give me liberty or give me death," said one of our founding fathers. One of our states has a slogan: "Live Free or Die." We routinely ask our soldiers to kill and to die for our liberty. Even many who claim that they hold life as a more important right that liberty support the death penalty.
So, the other question is, can a law making abortion illegal be supported as an attempt to protect the values of our society.
All the polls on the subject put us, as a society, nearly evenly divided on the issue of abortion. Some polls show us to slightly favor a woman's right to an abortion, others show us slightly against abortions. Part of the difference depends on how one words the questions that are asked.
With every other law of which I can think, if that law is based on protecting our values, we, as a society, are overwhelmingly in favor of the law. Take murder, as an example. There are a few - a very few - people who don't think murder is wrong. But, overwhelmingly, we agree, as a society, that murder is wrong. The same for hitting people, or stealing things, or abusing one's children. Some people think they're okay, but overwhelmingly we think, as a society, that they are wrong. So, we make laws making them illegal.
But, abortion - whether it is wrong or right - is not something on which we are overwhelmingly, as a society, in agreement. We are very divided on the issue. We might wish that we weren't so divided. Those who support a woman's right to an abortion probably want everyone to agree with them. Those who believe that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder probably want everyone to agree with them. But, as a society, we are not in agreement. I don't think that a society should base a law on its right to protect the values of the society when the society is fundamentally divided on the issue.
So, a law making abortions illegal must be made on the basis of logic. I can't make a logical argument that abortions should be illegal. I can make what I perceive to be a very strong emotional argument that they ought to be illegal, but I can't make a logical argument.
Which leaves me believing that those who think the issue is easy, that it is black and white, that it is cut and dried, are wrong. It is emotional. But, we can't make laws based on emotions when we, as a society, are not in agreement on those emotions.
So, I am personally against abortions, but I don't think that we, as a society, ought to make a law against them.
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Saturday, April 21, 2018
James Comey's book, "A Higher Loyalty"
I have just finished reading James Comey's book, "A Higher Loyalty."
Unlike, it seems, some of the commentators and pundits, I actually read every word of it.
Those who claim it is a book about Donald Trump either haven't read the whole book, don't understand it, or are lying. It is not a book about Donald Trump. It is a book about leadership.
I don't know if he made the right decisions about the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails. I'm actually not sure. But, I know that, according to his book, he had reasons for the decisions he made. He discussed those reasons with the staff working on the case(s). And he accepts responsibility for those decisions.
I was struck by two things he says near the end of the book.
"I am writing in a time of great anxiety in my country. I understand the anxiety, but also believe America is going to be fine. I choose to see opportunity as well as danger."
"... I choose to be optimistic. Yes, the current president will do significant damage in the short term. Important norms and traditions will be damaged by the flames. But forest fires, as painful as they can be, bring growth. They spur growth that was impossible before the fire, when old trees crowded out new plants on the forest floor. I already see new life - young people engaged as never before, and the media, the courts, academics, non-profits, and all other parts of civil society finding reason to bloom."
Now, I don't assume that America is going to be fine. It depends on the decisions we make going forward. It has in the past. It always has. In the past, we have made decisions that kept America progressing. There is no guarantee that we will continue to make those kinds of decisions. But, don't count us out.
Unlike, it seems, some of the commentators and pundits, I actually read every word of it.
Those who claim it is a book about Donald Trump either haven't read the whole book, don't understand it, or are lying. It is not a book about Donald Trump. It is a book about leadership.
I don't know if he made the right decisions about the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's e-mails. I'm actually not sure. But, I know that, according to his book, he had reasons for the decisions he made. He discussed those reasons with the staff working on the case(s). And he accepts responsibility for those decisions.
I remember something someone said about James Comey. I disagree with many of the policy decisions he has made, but I have never known James Comey to lie.
"I am writing in a time of great anxiety in my country. I understand the anxiety, but also believe America is going to be fine. I choose to see opportunity as well as danger."
"... I choose to be optimistic. Yes, the current president will do significant damage in the short term. Important norms and traditions will be damaged by the flames. But forest fires, as painful as they can be, bring growth. They spur growth that was impossible before the fire, when old trees crowded out new plants on the forest floor. I already see new life - young people engaged as never before, and the media, the courts, academics, non-profits, and all other parts of civil society finding reason to bloom."
Now, I don't assume that America is going to be fine. It depends on the decisions we make going forward. It has in the past. It always has. In the past, we have made decisions that kept America progressing. There is no guarantee that we will continue to make those kinds of decisions. But, don't count us out.
I will try to be as optimistic as James Comey.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
If You Can't Trust CNN ...
A few minutes ago I finished watching Jake Tapper's interview of James Comey on CNN. I didn't care for the interview. It was as if Mr. Tapper was trying to get Mr. Comey to say something that would be sensational, something Mr. Comey had not before said. Mr. Comey responded to all of Mr. Tapper's questions in a way that seemed thoughtful and careful.
Immediately after the interview, Mr. Tapper had a discussion with a panel of "experts." Almost all of the experts, including Mr. Tapper, quoted Mr. Comey incorrectly from the interview. Mr. Tapper rarely corrected them.
Then, Wolf Blitzer came on the air and told Mr. Tapper what a "powerful" interview it had been.
I could not disagree more. It had, in my opinion, not been a "powerful" interview. On the contrary, it seemed to me a weak interview on the part of Mr. Tapper.
So, I am left wondering what, if anything, I can believe from CNN, "the most trusted name in news."
I don't watch Fox news, because they are obviously right-leaning. I don't watch MSNBC anymore, because they are obviously left-leaning and I have heard them say things that I know not to be true.
For many years, I have watched CNN because I considered them to be "down-the-middle," truly "fair and balanced."
I understand the difference between factual reporting and opinions. That's why in an earlier post on this blog I didn't recommend CNN as one's initial source for sorting out the news.
However, this was not just opinion. This was factually incorrect reporting by a reporter who was there. This was a failure to correct the opinion "experts" when they said things that the "reporter" should have known were incorrect, because the reporter was there. This was one hand of the network washing the other hand of the network when it didn't deserve washing (Mr. Blitzer complimenting Mr. Tapper on his "powerful" interview).
Recently, my son argued that CNN was not to be trusted. I didn't believe him. In fact, I was a little hurt by what he said, because I trusted CNN. Now, I think he spoke the truth.
So, that brings me to my question. If you can't trust CNN - which I cannot - who can you trust? I guess the local news and local the newspaper. We are back where we began, years ago.
Immediately after the interview, Mr. Tapper had a discussion with a panel of "experts." Almost all of the experts, including Mr. Tapper, quoted Mr. Comey incorrectly from the interview. Mr. Tapper rarely corrected them.
Then, Wolf Blitzer came on the air and told Mr. Tapper what a "powerful" interview it had been.
I could not disagree more. It had, in my opinion, not been a "powerful" interview. On the contrary, it seemed to me a weak interview on the part of Mr. Tapper.
So, I am left wondering what, if anything, I can believe from CNN, "the most trusted name in news."
I don't watch Fox news, because they are obviously right-leaning. I don't watch MSNBC anymore, because they are obviously left-leaning and I have heard them say things that I know not to be true.
For many years, I have watched CNN because I considered them to be "down-the-middle," truly "fair and balanced."
I understand the difference between factual reporting and opinions. That's why in an earlier post on this blog I didn't recommend CNN as one's initial source for sorting out the news.
However, this was not just opinion. This was factually incorrect reporting by a reporter who was there. This was a failure to correct the opinion "experts" when they said things that the "reporter" should have known were incorrect, because the reporter was there. This was one hand of the network washing the other hand of the network when it didn't deserve washing (Mr. Blitzer complimenting Mr. Tapper on his "powerful" interview).
Recently, my son argued that CNN was not to be trusted. I didn't believe him. In fact, I was a little hurt by what he said, because I trusted CNN. Now, I think he spoke the truth.
So, that brings me to my question. If you can't trust CNN - which I cannot - who can you trust? I guess the local news and local the newspaper. We are back where we began, years ago.
Friday, March 9, 2018
How Does One Make Sense of the News?
I am often asked - (unlike George Foreman, I'm not paid to say that) - "How do you make sense of the news?
The unspoken question nowadays is, "how does one tell the fake news from the real news?"
Part of the answer is, it takes effort.
It's like a jigsaw puzzle.
When one first opens the box and pours out all the pieces, they're just in a big pile. None of it fits, none of it makes sense.
So, the first thing one does is turn them all right-side-up and spread them out. Then, at least one can see them all.
But, they still don't make any sense. The shapes mean nothing. The colors are all mixed up. So, one separates out the pieces that seem to have straight edges: the edge pieces. Not because there's anything magic about the edges, but because they're easy. Then, gradually, one can start connecting them, either because the shape fits into another piece or because the colors match or by sheer trial and error.
Once the edge pieces are all connected, that forms the outline of the puzzle. All the other pieces have to fit in that outline somewhere.
So, one begins to sort them by color. Some are all blue. One knows that's the sky, though one may not yet know how the sky pieces fit together. Nonetheless, one knows they're generally at the top. One can't fit many of them together, yet, but one knows they're going to fit, eventually, and one puts them together.
Maybe there is some other distinctive feature - a fence line or a wall or a window. One can tell by looking at the pieces that they are part of that feature, so one puts them together. A few of them, to one's surprise, actually fit with each other.
Little by little, the picture starts to take shape. Some parts actually go fast. Other parts just don't seem to fit and one has to go back to them over and over before one begins to discover the connections.
Finally, it all starts to make sense. One can pick up a piece and just tell where it goes. Sometimes, one is surprised by one piece or another. It fits where one did not expect it to. But, finally, all the pieces fit and are in place.
The news is exactly like that. The first time one looks at it, it's like those puzzle pieces that are just dumped out of the box - all mixed up and seemingly nonsensical.
But, with patience, trial and error, and diligence, it can all come together. Just don't expect it all at once or even quickly.
Telling the fake from the real news is a little harder. It's like opening a puzzle box and some of the pieces one pours out don't have anything to do with the puzzle. They are fake.
Start by finding a news source in which one has confidence. I suggest a reputable news paper or the nightly news. Read or listen to it faithfully. Then, if one hears an item of news that contradicts that source, one may be suspicious of that item.
Don't be afraid to discard a piece of the puzzle. If it's real, one will probably read or hear it again from the news source one trusts.
Finally, learn to tell the difference between fact and opinion. Often, one finds opinion masquerading as fact, even in reputable news sources. Sometimes, the reporter doesn't even recognize the difference him or herself.
For example, when a reporter reports that someone said something, that's a fact. The reporter may get it wrong, but the person actually said something. However, when a reporter reports that someone believes something, that's an opinion, based on the person's behavior. The reporter cannot actually know what anyone besides the reporter believes. Insist on finding out what the behavior was or is, then form one's own opinions about what the person believes.
The unspoken question nowadays is, "how does one tell the fake news from the real news?"
Part of the answer is, it takes effort.
It's like a jigsaw puzzle.
When one first opens the box and pours out all the pieces, they're just in a big pile. None of it fits, none of it makes sense.
So, the first thing one does is turn them all right-side-up and spread them out. Then, at least one can see them all.
But, they still don't make any sense. The shapes mean nothing. The colors are all mixed up. So, one separates out the pieces that seem to have straight edges: the edge pieces. Not because there's anything magic about the edges, but because they're easy. Then, gradually, one can start connecting them, either because the shape fits into another piece or because the colors match or by sheer trial and error.
Once the edge pieces are all connected, that forms the outline of the puzzle. All the other pieces have to fit in that outline somewhere.
So, one begins to sort them by color. Some are all blue. One knows that's the sky, though one may not yet know how the sky pieces fit together. Nonetheless, one knows they're generally at the top. One can't fit many of them together, yet, but one knows they're going to fit, eventually, and one puts them together.
Maybe there is some other distinctive feature - a fence line or a wall or a window. One can tell by looking at the pieces that they are part of that feature, so one puts them together. A few of them, to one's surprise, actually fit with each other.
Little by little, the picture starts to take shape. Some parts actually go fast. Other parts just don't seem to fit and one has to go back to them over and over before one begins to discover the connections.
Finally, it all starts to make sense. One can pick up a piece and just tell where it goes. Sometimes, one is surprised by one piece or another. It fits where one did not expect it to. But, finally, all the pieces fit and are in place.
The news is exactly like that. The first time one looks at it, it's like those puzzle pieces that are just dumped out of the box - all mixed up and seemingly nonsensical.
But, with patience, trial and error, and diligence, it can all come together. Just don't expect it all at once or even quickly.
Telling the fake from the real news is a little harder. It's like opening a puzzle box and some of the pieces one pours out don't have anything to do with the puzzle. They are fake.
Start by finding a news source in which one has confidence. I suggest a reputable news paper or the nightly news. Read or listen to it faithfully. Then, if one hears an item of news that contradicts that source, one may be suspicious of that item.
Don't be afraid to discard a piece of the puzzle. If it's real, one will probably read or hear it again from the news source one trusts.
Finally, learn to tell the difference between fact and opinion. Often, one finds opinion masquerading as fact, even in reputable news sources. Sometimes, the reporter doesn't even recognize the difference him or herself.
For example, when a reporter reports that someone said something, that's a fact. The reporter may get it wrong, but the person actually said something. However, when a reporter reports that someone believes something, that's an opinion, based on the person's behavior. The reporter cannot actually know what anyone besides the reporter believes. Insist on finding out what the behavior was or is, then form one's own opinions about what the person believes.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
The Unmade Bed: The Messy Truth about Men and Women in the 21st Century
I have finished reading "The Unmade Bed: The Messy Truth about Men and Women in the the 21st Century," by Stephen Marche.
I read it because NPR made it sound good. It wasn't.
Part of the inaneness of the book is that Stephen Marche, the author, gave up a career as a professor in New York to accommodate his wife's career move to Canada. The book is, in part, an effort by Mr. Marche to explain and excuse that decision. Not that he needed to. It was a perfectly fine decision, but part of the book is explained by his need to do this.
But, it is more than that.
Part of it is that it is simply incorrect.
In the book, Mr. Marche actually says, "Anything boys can do, girls can do. Anything girls can do, boys can do." That, on it's face, is false. Boys can impregnate girls. Girls can never impregnate boys. Girls can give birth to babies. Boys will never be able to give birth to babies.
But, it is an incorrect statement at a deeper level. While it is true that there are males who can do some of the things females can do, most males will never be able to do most of the things that most females can do as well as most females. While it is true that there are females who can do some of the things males can do, most females will never be able to do most of the things that most males can do as well as most males. This is a fundamental truth about men and women. While there is overlap, there is never equivalence. Men and women are not equal. To deny this truth is to deny truth. Mr. Marche attempts to deny truth.
But, it is more than that.
In his efforts to deny the truth, Mr. Marche makes assumptions that are not true.
Mr. Marche says, "Conjure up the image of a young man, and you automatically picture a loser." Really? I don't. Mr. March makes assumptions that he expresses as universal truths which are not universal.
But, it is more than that.
Mr. Marche says things that are absolutely unintelligible, except, perhaps, to an academic. I assume he does it to sound important. He certainly isn't doing it to communicate. I consider myself a fairly well-educated man, and there were times when, reading the book, I stopped, re-read a sentence, pondered over it, and still couldn't figure out what it meant.
The book is, in a word, pretentious.
All that said, Mr. Marche does come around to reality. He admits that boys and girls (using the example of his own son and daughter) are just different. He quotes some author as saying "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." He says this is true, but then points out that the fish and the bicycle keep falling in love, keep forming families together, keep having children, and keep making choices about furniture for the house.
Nonetheless, Mr. Marche's belated efforts to accept reality are marred by his initial attempts to deny it.
On a scale of 1 through 5, with 1 being the worst, I'd give it a 1.
I read it because NPR made it sound good. It wasn't.
Part of the inaneness of the book is that Stephen Marche, the author, gave up a career as a professor in New York to accommodate his wife's career move to Canada. The book is, in part, an effort by Mr. Marche to explain and excuse that decision. Not that he needed to. It was a perfectly fine decision, but part of the book is explained by his need to do this.
But, it is more than that.
Part of it is that it is simply incorrect.
In the book, Mr. Marche actually says, "Anything boys can do, girls can do. Anything girls can do, boys can do." That, on it's face, is false. Boys can impregnate girls. Girls can never impregnate boys. Girls can give birth to babies. Boys will never be able to give birth to babies.
But, it is an incorrect statement at a deeper level. While it is true that there are males who can do some of the things females can do, most males will never be able to do most of the things that most females can do as well as most females. While it is true that there are females who can do some of the things males can do, most females will never be able to do most of the things that most males can do as well as most males. This is a fundamental truth about men and women. While there is overlap, there is never equivalence. Men and women are not equal. To deny this truth is to deny truth. Mr. Marche attempts to deny truth.
But, it is more than that.
In his efforts to deny the truth, Mr. Marche makes assumptions that are not true.
Mr. Marche says, "Conjure up the image of a young man, and you automatically picture a loser." Really? I don't. Mr. March makes assumptions that he expresses as universal truths which are not universal.
But, it is more than that.
Mr. Marche says things that are absolutely unintelligible, except, perhaps, to an academic. I assume he does it to sound important. He certainly isn't doing it to communicate. I consider myself a fairly well-educated man, and there were times when, reading the book, I stopped, re-read a sentence, pondered over it, and still couldn't figure out what it meant.
The book is, in a word, pretentious.
All that said, Mr. Marche does come around to reality. He admits that boys and girls (using the example of his own son and daughter) are just different. He quotes some author as saying "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." He says this is true, but then points out that the fish and the bicycle keep falling in love, keep forming families together, keep having children, and keep making choices about furniture for the house.
Nonetheless, Mr. Marche's belated efforts to accept reality are marred by his initial attempts to deny it.
On a scale of 1 through 5, with 1 being the worst, I'd give it a 1.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
A Follow-Up Letter
As of April 25, 2017, I still haven't heard from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, so today I sent the following letter:
April
25, 2017
James
W. Collins
13112
Appaloosa Chase Dr.
Austin,
TX 78732
U.S. Customs and
Border Protection
1300
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington,
D.C. 20229
Re: Need for a wall through Big Bend National
Park; previously sent letter
Dear Sir or
Madame:
On March 1. 2017, I sent a letter to
Secretary Kelly asking him
“First: What will you tell Congressman Williams
regarding the need to build a wall through Big Bend National Park?
“Second: If you tell Congressman Williams that it is
necessary to build a wall through Big Bend National Park, will you tell him
that such a wall could just as effectively be built north of the park?”
Later I received a letter from the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection dated March 17, 2017, acknowledging receipt
of my letter to Secretary Kelly and stating that “DHS has asked that U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respond on its behalf.”
The letter further states that “[w]e
have forwarded your letter to the appropriate CBP office,” but it does not
state to which it was forwarded.
On March 29, 2017, I sent a letter to
this address asking for the name of the office or person to which or whom my
letter was forwarded. To date, neither
that letter nor my original letter to Secretary Kelly have received any
response.
May I please know the name of the
office or person to which or whom my letter was forwarded?
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
James
W. Collins
Cc: Secretary John Kelly
Congressman Roger Williams
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
A Response to my Letter to Secretary Kelly
So, I finally got a response to my letter to Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly. A few days ago I received a letter on what purports to be U.S. Customs and Border Protection letterhead (I have no reason to think that it is not) which reads, in its entirety:
"March 17, 2017
"Thank you for contacting the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) about border security. DHS has asked that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respond on its behalf. CBP appreciates your taking time to share your thoughts and concerns with us. We have forwarded your letter to the appropriate CBP office.
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection"
It is unsigned.
I responses, today I sent U.S. Customs and Border Protection the following letter. We'll see what they say.
"March 17, 2017
"Thank you for contacting the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) about border security. DHS has asked that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respond on its behalf. CBP appreciates your taking time to share your thoughts and concerns with us. We have forwarded your letter to the appropriate CBP office.
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection"
It is unsigned.
I responses, today I sent U.S. Customs and Border Protection the following letter. We'll see what they say.
March
29, 2017
James
W. Collins
13112
Appaloosa Chase Dr.
Austin,
TX 78732
U.S. Customs and
Border Protection
1300
Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington,
D.C. 20229
Re: Need for a wall through Big Bend National
Park
Dear Sir or Madame:
On March 1. 2017, I sent a letter to
Secretary Kelly asking him
“First: What will you tell Congressman Williams
regarding the need to build a wall through Big Bend National Park?
“Second: If you tell Congressman Williams that it is
necessary to build a wall through Big Bend National Park, will you tell him
that such a wall could just as effectively be built north of the park?”
A few days ago I received a letter
from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection dated March 17, 2017, acknowledging
receipt of my letter to Secretary Kelly and stating that “DHS has asked that
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) respond on its behalf.”
The letter further states that “[w]e
have forwarded your letter to the appropriate CBP office,” but it does not state
which office it to which it was forwarded.
May I please know the name of the
office or person to which or whom my letter was forwarded?
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
James
W. Collins
Cc: Secretary John Kelly
Congressman Roger Williams
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)