More randomness...

Why do some people make it and some don't? I just found out the other day that two of my dear friends have separated. They were both in my wedding and I love them dearly and it really makes me sad that the relationship they once had broke down to this point. About 14 years ago, they lost their 3rd son at 34 weeks of pregnancy. This loss triggered many issues that it wouldn't be fair for me to get into. However, before that, they had an incredible relationship...and after that loss, they lasted for many, many years despite the emotional fall out and issues. Why now? What caused it to finally fall apart? Its just not fucking fair that these two wonderful people have had so much shit piled on them. I am so sad for them.

I have found the place I want to visit if I ever win the lottery. I want to go to the Maldives to the Conrad Maldives Rangali Island. Not only is it an incredible hotel, but it has an Undersea Restaurant. Yup, an honest to god restaurant built 16 feet below sea level. I think it would be FABULOUS to go there.

click here to see more pics

I'm not too sure I am thrilled with our new Attorney General. Eric Holder is a brilliant and accomplished man but, he is a man who believes the constitution is a living document. "Holder described the Constitution as a unique founding document of US society, but ultimately an imperfect document...Holder expressed the view that within the spirit of the Constitution and the ideals of the founders of the country "there is contained the capacity for change. The choices the founders made were not frozen in time."" An article published by People's Weekly World says "This philosophical view of the legal system and the Constitution sharply diverge from the so-called strict constructionist view of the Constitution upheld by the right wing. Theoretically, the right wing believes the Constitution to be a static, unchanging document in which is contained all the legal precepts we need. " Holder believes the change should come from the interpretation of the Constitution. However, I believe that their interpretation of a constructionist is too narrow. A constructionist does NOT believe change should occur through interpretation. A constructionist believes that change should come from the method specifically built into the Constitution to accommodate change....amendments. Amendments have taken care of glaring flaws in the past...slavery and the right of women to vote. By processing changes in this method, there is never any question about the legality of it. If we allow the living document proponents to establish the idea of change through interpretation, their will be no longer term consistency in the law of the land. What we need as AG and on the Supreme Court are not liberals or conservatives who push their own agendas. We need strict constitutionalists who follow the document as its written and support change through amendment as was intended.

Thinking about the Constitution, got me thinking about the landmark cases the Supreme Court has decided and, of course, that brought to mind Roe v. Wade. This is a case I think is fascinating because I support the meaning of the decision (freedom to chose) at the same time I believe it wasn't a decision for the federal government to make. and, its a dichotomy I find very hard to resolve. The Constitution says that all rights/areas of responsibility not specifically given to the federal government remain the jurisdiction of the state. Deciding which medical procedures should be legal is NOT a right given to the federal government anywhere in the Constitution. However, we all know that without that ruling, the radical right and radical left would come to blows far more often and with even more devastating effect than they already do. As long as the right to chose is the law of the land (please God don't ever let women lose that choice), our public officials are duty bound to protect that right.

And, speaking of Roe v Wade, why do people believe the right to chose what happens with your body is the direct opposite of believing in a right to life? I believe that it is fundamentally immoral to use abortion as birth control. If you are going to go out and fuck around without taking any precautions, I find it morally reprehensible to abort. But, that said, there are many circumstances where pregnancy could be devastating physically or emotionally. Cecily would have DIED if she was forced to continue carrying her much loved son (whose twin had already died). And, how can you possibly tell a rape victim she HAS to carry a baby conceived that way? And, why do right to lifers think its ok to bomb clinics and kill adults to promote the right of a fetus to live? That is seriously fucked up. OK...I know not all right to lifers behave this way but some do and they are fucked up. I believe that if at all possible life should be supported and allowed to flourish but, dammit, not at the expense of my life or my right to control my body.

Can anyone explain to me why there are days when I can't think of a damned thing to write when I contemplate blogging but, if I just sit down and write, the words spill out and I hit on many topics that would make fabulous posts by themselves.