Fair Weather Fans

So let’s begin with this; I love Star Wars.  The whole story.  All 6 films and every single book that I have read so far (I am a little behind on the book thing though).   I love the world, the lore, the characters…everything.

I am excited for new films.  I will love them.  That being said, there is a bit of  trepidation at the author being Michael Arndt. He is just starting his career and, a,s such, there is not a lot of work for me to form an opinion on.  I am also leery of JJ Abrams.  I love the new Star Trek and the one being released this year makes me giggle (I sooo wanted the preview to end with Kirk screaming “KAAAAAHN”). But it wasn’t the best one (IMO).  I am pretty old school when it comes to Trek. My favorites are between Wrath of Kahn and Voyage Home. Kahn because it is awesome and Ricardo Montalban rocks, Voyage Home because Spock in 1980’s America is hilarious. So, while Abrams can never replicate or redo the awesomeness that was Star Trek, I can appreciate the new story and still follow characters that I love.  In my eyes, though, there will only ever be one Captain Kirk.  But Abrams at the helm of Star Wars makes me nervous.

First of all, Abrams is not a good, clear, technical director.   He is a great story teller—though his plot twists will make you want to rip out your hair and scream: “Why JJ, why?!?!”  Case in point…Lost.  But it is a good formula and sometimes it works great, like in the new Star Trek.  That being said, it is overdone, especially by Abrams.  Though, I am very relieved that neither Abrams nor his team will be in charge of the writing.  Star Wars has always, always been about pushing the limits of technology.  I can’t see Abrams in that role…I don’t see him as an innovator.  I really don’t want a Star Wars movie with a bunch of choppy sequences that looked like they were done with a hand-held camera…and I could really do without lens flares.

I would have preferred a director, like Joss Whedon or Peter Jackson, who are more known for the fluidity and cleanliness of their art.  Hell, I think Ridley Scott would have been a good pick. It would have been damn pretty.  Scott and Jackson both make very beautiful films and Jackson usually does so with fantastic characters as well.  Whedon also makes things very pretty and is very, very good at character dynamics.  Admit it, one of the things you love about Star Wars is the back and forth between characters.  Say what you want about Lucas and his dialogue but I love it.

Star Wars fans will spout off one liners like no ones business.  “Who’s Scruffy looking?” or in the books…”Yub, yub commander.” are just the type of lines that keep us chuckling 30 years after seeing them.  And they are the types of things that Whedon excels at.  Scott and Jackson do a very good job at moving me…but Whedon can make me laugh and cry in the same breath.

I love what JJ did with Trek but I do not feel that the characters had any real chemistry together.  I was disappointed in that.  I love the new take on an old story (kinda like why I love Baz Luhrman’s Romeo and Juliet), but it will never compare to the original.  Nor will Kirk be better played by anyone other than Shatner and Spock by Nimoy.  And that’s okay, because I love the story, the world, and the characters.  I am just happy that a story I love is still being told.

Truth is, I am more than a little sad that Lucas has passed the torch.  It is the end of an era and I am saddened by this.  But I understand and am just glad that the stories will continue to be told. That is the important part. But I am most disappointed by the so called fans. I get so angry when people say that Lucas destroyed their childhood, f**ked the franchise, o,r whatever with Episodes 1-3.  How?  It was his story to tell.  Without him you wouldn’t have any of it.  It is the same as saying that you like the novels but cannot stand Timothy Zahn.  Don’t you get it?  We wouldn’t have what we have today if it wasn’t for them.  So you didn’t like it…so what…it’s not about you.  It was his story.

The problem with Star Wars, and Star Wars fans, is that they built up the stories so much in their mind that nothing was ever going to be good enough.  They idealized the story they wanted so much that gaining it was impossible to achieve…by anyone.  So when the new films didn’t live up to their over-exaggerated expectations, they became scavengers and turned on their beloved hero.  No matter who did it, how it was done, what story was told, they would have been disappointed.  They set themselves up for disappointment because they expected to get that same feeling they got from watching the newer movies as they did with the originals.  This was never possible for a number of reasons.

First, many of us grew up with Star Wars.  We were kids when we saw them and thus came at them with the innocent, wondering eyes of a child.  Not as an adult filled with doubt and skepticism.  That alone would be cause for disappointment.  Need proof? Take something that you loved as a child. I mean really loved.  For me, it was Fraggle Rock.  I was obsessed with that show.  I loved it.  I saw it with my children recently.  They thought I was crazy and I was wondering what the hell had I been thinking.  I remember having a similar experience with my own mother and Dark Shadows.  My mom loved that show…so naturally 20+ years later when she could watch it again on TVLand she just had to show her kids this great show from her childhood.  Personally, at the time, I could not see for the life of me why on earth my mom was so giddy about watching it again.

That was then, this is now.  Now I get it.  It is like looking back to a simpler, happier time and trying to relive that feeling you got when something first amazed you.  But you can see something for the first time, once.  I love film.  My absolute favorite is Casablanca.  I will never forget the way I felt when I first saw that film and, as such, it will always hold a special place in my heart.  But, no matter how many times I watch it, no matter how many remakes it is subjected to—no matter how many films I see in my lifetime—nothing will ever compare to the way I felt when I saw that movie for the very first time.  I think that is why people didn’t like the new trilogy; because it couldn’t grab at them like Episode 4 did so many, many years ago.

::SPOILER::Episodes 1-3 were not just for fans of the originals.  They were for everybody.  For us they were a back story…but for a new generation it was just the  beginning.  We knew, from the moment Anakin Skywalker walked onto the screen what he would become.  How could we be truly surprised and awed when we already knew the ending?  We were never, ever going to look at those films as someone who had never seen or heard of Star Wars would.  We knew the ending.  We knew what happened to Anakin…what he became.  We knew the Emperor would rise, knew his name…knew how Obi-Wan would meet his fate.

Recently I read the New Jedi Order series—yes, I am that far behind. Get over it.  When my husband read them, he fell in love with all the characters, met certain books with jaw-dropping surprise.  I, however, knew what was going to happen.  I approached characters lightly…met certain books grudgingly because I didn’t want these things to happen.  I loved the books, but somehow, I can’t help feeling that they would have been so much better had I approached them knowing nothing.

In truth, the reason it took me so long to get to them had little to do with college and children and had everything to do with the fact that I didn’t want Chewbacca to die—and if I didn’t read it then it didn’t happen.  Reading the book, all the interactions between Han and Chewie were so much more poignant because I knew the ending.  The lighthearted moments between the two that are so particular to those characters were so very, very bittersweet.  But, such is life.  Much as we want it otherwise, ,all life ends eventually.  I think that might be the problem with Episode 1. We knew what Anakin was going to become,as such, we didn’t want to like him.  Didn’t want to become attached to new characters because we knew their tragic ends.  The movies we grew up with were about hope and redemption…the new ones were about the fall.  They were darker, less up lifting.  We look at them as 1-3 and then 4-6 and as such miss the whole point.  Looking at them as 1-6 gives you a beautifully epic and fantastic story.

I may be skeptical about the new film, ,but honestly, I know I will love them.  I will love them because they are Star Wars.  I am sad to see Lucas go.  And there will probably be a little heartache when I go to see Episode VII in 2015 and I don’t hear that familiar Fox intro before the epic crawl.  It will be different for sure.  Knowing that Lucas will still be consulting and that his longtime producer Kathleen Kennedy will still be involved makes me very happy.  Humans don’t like change, thus the skepticism.  I want the story to continue and I want Lucas to do it—but I understand that it is time for him to move on.  I can respect that.  But that doesn’t mean I am not sad to see a dynasty end.

Star Wars has a new team at the helm.  It may not be the team I would have picked, ,but at least I get new films.  I will forever hold a special place in my heart for the original trilogy, ,as will many of us.  We hold it there because before Star Wars it seemed dreams had a limit.  Star Wars opened that up and showed us all that was possible.  As such, any film that comes after that will pale in comparison.  I love 1-3.  It is a fantastic story and I really am a sucker for a good story.  It may not have been the story I imagined, nor the story I would have told…but, then again, it was never my story to tell.  I was only ever along for the ride.  And what a freaking awesome ride it was too.

I may have a new captain, but I will stay on this ride until the end and will enjoy every minute of it…though some of it may be bittersweet.  In short, (too late) thank you, Mr. Lucas, for showing me how high I could dream.  That my imagination has no bounds.  Thank you for telling your story, even when you were criticized for doing so.  Thank you, from the very bottom of my heart.  You defined my childhood…and continued to tell your tale in such a way that it may define my son’s as well.  You gave me the will to hope, the chance to dream, and memories to cherish forever.



Advertisements

Who’s to Blame?

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre people looked around for something to blame, and I was one of them.  It is fairly typical of human nature; in the light of extreme tragedy we want answers as to how another human being can be so callous.  There were those who screamed foul at the entertainment industry blaming violence in movies and video games, those who blamed medication for mental disorders, those who blamed guns…and I can see the points of a lot of these arguments.  The closer I looked though, the more disturbing the answers became.  Truth is, the blame for tragedies such as these can be laid solely at our feet.  That’s right, we, the American people, are responsible for the ruthless slaughter of 20 innocent babies.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the violent crime rate went up in 2012 for the first time in decades. I think that requires us to take a long hard look in the mirror. In 2012, we had two high profile and highly shocking mass shootings. We owe it to ourselves and the victims of these senseless tragedies to ask why.  More so than that, we owe it to the lives that were shattered to figure out how to stop it.  Some will argue that there is no way to prevent every act of violence, and they would be correct. But that in no way excuses us for accepting this as the status quo.  So I welcome the questions of blame. However, we always seem to be pointing the finger at the other side…and away from us.

One has to wonder if the way we have begun to speak to each other has an effect on the violence in our society.  We have become so polarized and bitter in our politics that nothing gets done but the flinging of proverbial poo. Lately, instead of actually debating the merits of our opinions, we sit back and name call, throw out gross over statements, and distort facts to support our own agendas.  To be very clear, I am using we and our purposefully.  Both sides are guilty of the vitriol spewed forth to anyone who will listen.  In my opinion, the increase in internet communication is partly to blame for that.  It is so easy to be big, tough, and violent over the web…harder in person.  Now, there are those who will cry foul at the mere mention of the idea that we should begin to police the way we speak to and about each other.  “This is my first amendment right,” they will scream from the rooftops.  The problem with this is that, as a society, we have become so focused on what we can do we have completely forgotten to actually look at whether or not we should.

We will never agree on everything.  Honestly, that would be a pretty boring world.  Truth is, the most innovative societal changes were brought about by spirited debate.  There is, however, no reason that the debate cannot be civil.

Immediately following the election I saw posts from some conservative members on my Facebook page call for open revolution and flying the flag upside down.  So, let me get this straight, to support your country, to show your patriotism, to uphold your constitution you would call for a revolution against a democratically elected President because the result is not what you wanted?  Look, I get being disappointed at the outcome of an election. I was in ’00 and ’04; but did no one stop to think that someone out there may take these calls to violence seriously? First of all, your logic seems flawed. You claim to be a patriot and then threaten to take arms against a leader the majority of Americans selected.  Second, that is not patriotism. It is called sedition: the overt conduct to tend toward insurrection of the established order—an incitement of discontent or resistance to lawful authority. Seditious conspiracy is a crime under US law. If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both (USC 18 § 2384). To be charged this only need be a plan—it does not need to be attempted.  Furthermore, USC 18 § 2385 states: Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States…Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.  In my opinion, calling for revolution is the definition of sedition.

In the event of a tragedy such as this, there are those who would point their finger at the violence in Hollywood. At the same time they threaten revolution and civil war when they don’t get their way. Why don’t we think that this may hold part of the blame for the violence of this country?  Because that would mean that we are to blame for death and destruction on such a horrid level that it would shake our belief system to the very core. It is so much easier to point the finger away from us.

We, as a collective society, have become so focused on our freedom of speech that we have begun to speak without thought.  It does not violate anyone’s first amendment rights to ask each other to take a deep breath before we say things—before we type things—and think first about whether or not we really want to say what came to our minds.  My friends and I call it a filter.

Throughout the election season there was such violence spewed from our lips it was inevitable that it would flow onto our streets, into our malls, our places of worship—our  schools.   I have heard this country, which I love dearly, be equated to a dictatorship, Nazi Germany, a police state, a Stalinist-regime…did we honestly think this wouldn’t affect our society?

First, these comparisons are nowhere near accurate.  It is speech that has no truth, meant only to shock and increase ratings.  No one should have to explain, to anyone, how we cannot compare modern America to Nazi Germany, nor how we cannot compare any President of the United States, ever, to Stalin or Hitler.  If you require an explanation, then you are seriously taking the freedoms this country offers you for granted.  You have no concept of what fear of an oppressive regime really is, so when something happens you don’t like you equate it to the most awful thing you can imagine.  Fact is, it is nowhere near reality.  I know a woman who experienced life under Hitler and Stalin personally, and I have a feeling she may have a few words to say about that.

Beyond that, to equate your imagined suffering—or even the actual suffering—of anyone in the United States to these atrocious acts against humanity trivializes the horrors that occurred.  It makes them seem less than they were; makes the suffering and death of millions of people seem petty.  Equating a President of the United States of America to Hitler and Stalin makes Hitler and Stalin seem less evil.  Is that really the legacy we want to leave?

Last Thursday, Jon Stewart made a very good point in the argument that if the Jews had guns they could have stopped Hitler before things got bad. “Look, I really wish arms used in the ghettos could have stopped Hitler.  My feeling was, France couldn’t, and I am pretty sure they had guns. Russia had kind of a lot of guns and they couldn’t stop Hitler…until you factor in wind chill. It’s an awful lot to put on an oppressed minority when it took the free world 5-6 years of all out total war to stop that mother****er.” You can criticize Stewart all you want but he makes a pretty valid point and I fail to see how someone can argue that point.

Furthermore, let us stop playing the “what if” game.  Nothing we do now is going to prevent the Holocaust, nor are we going to know if there was anything that could have prevented that atrocity.  Neither can we prevent Sandy Hook; it already happened. We can’t go back in time and undo it.  I wish to God that we could.  However, after the Holocaust we took action to see what we could do to prevent it from happening again. We created the United Nations, established new laws, and made those responsible accountable to the whole world. Don’t we owe the same thing to the children of Sandy Hook?

The first step is to to take a long, hard look in the mirror and question whether or not our rhetoric is partly responsible?  It’s hard.  It’s hard because no one wants to think that something they said, in the heat of the moment, caused someone to kill 20 small children.  It’s hard because we don’t want to have their blood on our hands. It’s hard because they were kids.  But we need to have this discussion; we need to find solutions to this problem, and nothing can be off the table.  I hear people screaming, from both sides, now is not the time…it is wrong to politicize this.  If now is not the time, then when is?  If the unprecedented slaughter of small children is not supposed to prompt a quick and rational discussion on how to prevent irrational acts of violence then when is the time?  I would go further and say, what would it say about us if we don’t?  Because honestly, if this doesn’t open the door to the discussion than what the hell will?

To those who would start their argument, “No, rational person…” stop.  You are right; no rational person would look at the hate, anger, and violence that we toss back and forth every day to mean “go shoot up a first grade class.”  But, my question to you is this: what rational person would shoot up a first grade class? Problem is, there are no easy answers and a lot of really hard questions: guns, media, movies, music, video games, mental health, and medication.  I think we also need to ask ourselves: If we treat each other with respect, will the levels of violence drop?  I don’t know, but I think it is at least worth a shot—and what would be the downside? Perhaps if we started treating each other with the dignity and respect due to a human being, we would solve more problems than we create.

I do think that it’s important for us to watch our rhetoric. I do think that it’s a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with our enemies, if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction between the manifestos of paranoid mad men and what passes for acceptable political and pundit speak. It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn’t in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV. Let’s at least make troubled individuals easier to spot.

Why I Oppose Personhood

Despite the resounding defeat of the Republicans in the last election-due in part to their stance on women’s health issues-there has been talk of personhood bills again. For those who don’t know, personhood amendments seek to define the beginning of life.  The goal, I am assuming, is to find a way around Roe v. Wade to make abortion illegal…despite the fact that the court has continuously upheld the Roe decision and have repeatedly refused to rehear the case. In 2011 voters in Mississippi shot down such an amendment to their constitution by a whopping 58% and in 2012 the Oklahoma Supreme Court deemed such legislation unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has refused to hear challenges to the Oklahoma ruling. Voters have overwhelmingly rejected personhood legislation. That has not stopped the pro-life movement though.

HR 23, The Sanctity of Life Act, was brought forth last month from Rep. Broun of Georgia and sponsored once again by Rep. Ryan of Wisconsin.  In 2011, Reps. Broun and Ryan presented this bill before the House with then Rep. Akin of Missouri (yeah, that one…legitimate rape guy).  The bill claims the Constitution provides the right to life (it doesn’t but more on that later) and as such all human life is protected by the Constitution.  It also stipulates that life begins at the moment of fertilization when it is a single cell.  Furthermore, Mississippi Rep. Arnold introduced to the state House HB 819, The Protection of the Human Person Act.  This gem of legislation not only defines life beginning at fertilization but also restricts IVF treatment and expressly forbids—wait for it—human-animal hybrids.  Yes, you read that right.  You can’t make this stuff up.

There are several problems with this type of legislation, aside from the fact that voters don’t want it.  First, there is an inherent problem with the idea that life begins at fertilization. Embryos will ‘live’ outside of the human body but only in stasis; they cannot grow. Let us do some simple science here first.  Basic Human Reproduction 101: egg and sperm meet and form a single cell, this is called a zygote.  It takes 24 hours before the first split occurs.  The zygote then begins to divide rapidly. Around day 14, implantation occurs and you have an embryo. It is at this point the FDA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists define the beginning of a pregnancy. In fact, if a zygote does not implant then it will not survive. It is estimated that 60% of all conceptions fail to implant though there is no way to know how many zygotes are formed and as such how can we even think to regulate it.

If a single celled organism has all the rights of a human being (when human beings don’t even have the rights of human beings) then is a woman who miscarries guilty of involuntary manslaughter? Dozens of pharmaceuticals (not just birth control either) could be termed illegal because of their effect on said zygotes along with IVF treatments. Not to mention it would make abortion illegal as well. Except, SCOTUS ruled on that…40 years ago (Roe v. Wade)…the proposed bills are unconstitutional…and have been ruled as such by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. SCOTUS refused to hear the argument, effectively upholding the Oklahoma ruling. Voters in Mississippi, a fairly conservative state, shot down a personhood amendment. Yet, Mr. Broun, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Arnold, and other sponsors—by proposing such bills—would like to ignore the will of the American people (the majority of which do not support personhood amendments—59% of Americans support a woman’s right to choose) and the rulings of the courts to further their own agenda.

I think if this were being done by the left, say trying to pass an amendment altering or eliminating the second amendment, the right would be up in arms. Just look at how angry they become when you start talking about background checks.  Or, heaven forbid, an assault weapon ban.  So, it is OK to go against the will of the people to eliminate what SCOTUS says is a constitutional right for something they dislike (abortion) but if it is something they like (guns) it’s called tyranny.  A bit of pot and kettle going on there, don’t you think? Not to mention the fact that Congress does not have the power to reverse a Supreme Court decision.

Will of the people and legal precedent aside, what the movement wants is for THEIR FAITH to be the definition for all life…something that is completely against the first amendment. Quick question…does every single celled zygote have a soul? If so there are a lot of souls in heaven. Does it matter if the zygote is Jewish? If a personhood amendment passed and a woman had a miscarriage after a car accident, say she slid on the ice into a ditch, could she be charged with manslaughter? If my embryo is a person can I claim it on my taxes? You want a slippery slope debate, this is where to have it.

Don’t believe it possible? That it is just a hypothetical? Consider this, a woman in Indiana attempted suicide. A week later she gave birth to a premature baby, who died 4 days later.  She is now being tried for murder. A 15 year old in Mississippi gave birth to a stillborn baby.  She had a past history of cocaine use.  She is being tried for murder though there is no evidence cocaine caused the stillbirth.  A study identified at least 413 cases of women being treated as criminals directly related to their pregnancies.  All of this and more while Roe stands, abortion is legal, and there is no definition of life written into the Constitution. What makes anyone think that such personhood amendments won’t just make this problem worse?

Why is it that the belief that life begins at conception is the only right one and therefore the one on which our laws should be based? The problem with the religious right is that they seem to conveniently forget that we have freedom of religion in this country…meaning you cannot force your religion onto others…or that other opinions out there exist and are just as valid. The problem with religious conservatives is they think they are right and everyone else is just plain wrong.

I know that my opinion is just that, my opinion. I know people disagree with me and that is okay…I disagree with them. I am not trying to legislate my opinion.  If you want abortion to be illegal then get the courts to review Roe v. Wade. As long as the courts uphold that decision I will support with my last breath a woman’s right to choose.

A zygote is not a thinking, feeling conscious human being. A zygote is nothing more than a cell formed by the union of two gametes (i.e. egg and sperm) SCOTUS ruled Roe based on the 14th amendment. The ruling was this: The majority opinion allowed states to protect “fetal life after viability” even though a fetus is not “a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment”. Get that, the court ruled that a fetus is not a person in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, a fetus is not a citizen of the United States and receives none of the protections mentioned within. If you want to argue Roe fine, but the courts have continued to uphold that ruling and as such it continues to stand.

For example, Planned Parenthood v. Casey in ’92 stated: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In short, the foundation of freedom is being able to define the meaning of life.  As such, the federal government cannot define life without forsaking liberty. The only place in the Constitution that mentions “life” is in the 5th and 14th amendments and all mention something called “due process.” Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that you have the right to life. All it says is that you cannot be deprived of life without due process. Maybe it is just me, but I think that SCOTUS ruling on the decision qualifies as due process.  Not to mention the fact if the Constitution guaranteed the right to life it would make capital punishment pretty tricky.

I always hear the argument, “Other countries made abortion illegal and they don’t have any problems.”  Yes, and let us take a look at those countries that have made abortion illegal shall we (though even the majority of those have life of the mother exceptions): Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Central African Republic of Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Myanmar (Burma), Mexico, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vatican City, Venezuela, and Yemen.

Yes, perfectly normal lives in totalitarian regimes and theocracies. Because I want the US to base citizens’ rights on what works in Myanmar (Burma), the Congo, Afghanistan and Iran. Is there irony there that most of these countries also have huge human rights violations? Ireland is what some will point to now. Fine, let us look at Ireland. Ireland’s abortion law dates back to 1861. Know what else was a law back then? People of color counted as 3/5 human. Forgive me if I don’t put much credence into what they considered human back then. Furthermore, the issue is a contentious one in Ireland as well. Due to recent events, Ireland may soon change their laws…and the majority of the people support it.

We live in a democratic republic. That does not mean you always get what you want. You can voice your opinion through speech, through vote…but that does not mean you are going to get your way.  Majority rules and the majority of people favor legal abortion. The majority of people do not favor personhood and such amendments have been ruled unconstitutional at the state level and arguments have been refused to be heard at the federal level. One can only assume that SCOTUS refusing to hear the case means that a) they standby the Roe v. Wade decision and b) they agree with the lower court’s rulings. Truth is, even if the bill passed, it couldn’t do anything.  It would take an amendment to alter the Constitution, to define life, and that will not happen. First of all, doing so would require ⅔ vote in both the House and Senate to propose the amendment. Second, to ratify said amendment requires ¾ of all state legislatures. So far 330 amendments overturning Roe have been up for proposal; only one got to the floor for a vote…it was rejected by the Senate. So other than pandering and a giant waste of time and taxpayers money what is the purpose of this bill? It is blatantly unconstitutional and we have many, more important things to do than try for an overreach of Congressional power.

I am passionate about many things.  Movies, Literature, History, and of course Politics are just a few of my passions.  Given the events of the past few months and the fact that I suddenly have a lot of free time on my hands, I have decided to write a blog about my passions.   These will be things that mean something to me.  They are my own opinions. I strive to make well informed and well researched opinions, but, they are just opinions.  Though I support my opinions with fact (shocker) if you can present an alternate view that I have not considered feel free to share it. Spirited debates are welcome, but keep them civil and use actual facts, please.  You don’t have to agree with me, but if you respect my opinion I promise to respect yours.

I call them like I see them.