A Road Diverged

I never knew parking lots could be so interesting.  Usually I see them as a tangle of cars and humans trying not to run into each other.  But I was driving through the parking lot on my way to the store and I noticed this man on his cell phone walking towards the cars (away from the stores).  He stuck out to me because at first I thought it was my dad.  And then I remembered that although my dad has a cell phone, I don’t think he ever uses it.  Anyway, I thought nothing more of it and parked and went into the store.  Fast forward about five to ten minutes.  I’m now driving through the parking lot to go home.  In front of me, in almost the exact same spot, is the same man.  Except this time he was walking towards the store and holding an empty plasitc bag in his hand.  To most people, this will not be seen as an extraordinary, or even interesting, post.  But I couldn’t help but wonder what the man was up to.  Was he speaking with his wife and she reminded him to grab the empty plastic bag out of his car?  Was the store out of bags (unlikely as that seems)?  Is the bag his friend and he felt bad about forgetting it?  Did he hide the phone in the bag?  Why did he need to go back to his car to get an empty bag?  I’m sure the store would have given him one.  Puzzling.  Hmmmm, perhaps I have too much time on my hands…

I was walking through the parking lot in the never ending quest for my car when I noticed a rather large truck backing out. Not wanting to be hit, I paused so the driver could pull out when I noticed a red car speeding down the aisle. My natural assumption, of course, was that the red car would stop since the truck was almost halfway out of his space. Not only that, but he was looking in the opposite direction of the car - a clear indication that it would be a wise move for the red car to stop and wait. However, the driver in the red car had his sights set on the parking spot across from the truck and about three spaces closer to the storefront and was determined that no one else would get that spot. Since the truck was leaving and I was on foot (and there were no other cars driving in the aisle) I am still not too sure who the red car was racing against. The thought crossed my mind (after I realized where the driver was heading) that perhaps I should have left my buggy in the road and run over to the parking spot and stood there, effectively stealing his spot. But, then again, if this guy wasn’t going to stop for a truck, there was no way he was going to stop for me, although I am only slightly less intimidating than a truck. Fascinated, I watched the truck continue to pull out and the red car continue to speed forward. I waited for the red car to honk, but obviously his horn was malfunctioning (or his hand - which never reached for the horn). Bracing myself, I waited for the crash. Much to my amazement, the car swung around the truck as it backed out and into the coveted parking spot. The truck, meanwhile, continued to back out and left. I’m not sure he ever saw the red car. Simply astonishing. There is no real moral to my story, or even a very good reason for sharing it other than a realization I have been horrible about updating my blog and a need to post to keep it current. But I suppose, if one practices, one can learn to manuver a car with the dexterity and sheer stupidity shown by the driver in the red car - perhaps that is a lesson worth learning.

The US Supreme Court has decided to hear a case regarding a 2003 law passed by Congress that would ban partial-birth abortion.  Two courts have said the law is unconstitutional because it does not give a clause allowing the procedure if the woman’s health is danger.  The proponents of the law argue that there is no need for a women’s health clause because if her health is in danger then you can induce labor and deliver the baby alive, there is no need to kill it.  I happen to agree with them on this matter.

For those of you who do not know what partial-birth abortion is, or what it entails, I will give you a brief description.  First, partial-birth abortion is formed in the late months of pregnancy, usually in the eighth or ninth month.  Labor is induced and the Doctor begins to deliver the baby feet first.  When the back of the child’s head is visible the Dr. stops the delivery and punctures the child’s skull.  At that point the baby’s brains are basically sucked out by a vacuum and the skull is crushed.  Why this is legal, or why people would even perform this abortion is beyond my comprehension.  If the child came all of the way out of the birth canal it would be considered a baby and to kill it would be illegal.  However, since an inch or so of the baby is still in the birth canal, it is perfectly legal to harm the child.  Let me remind you that this child is eight or nine months along, it is perfectly capable of living outside of the mother’s womb on it’s own.  Why kill it?

The last time partial-birth abortion came before the Supreme Court is was about a specific state law from Nebraska (the current one is a federal law).  The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it did not have the woman’s health clause.  It was a 5-4 decision with Sandra Day O’Conner being the deciding vote for� the majority.  It will be interesting to see what happens with the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the bench.  He appears to be more of a moderate than Justice Roberts and it is difficult to predict which way his vote will go.  Of course, it also depends on the government making a compelling argument that a woman’s health is not an issue in this particular form of abortion.  We should see a ruling from the Supreme Court in a few months.  It will be interesting to see which way the court goes and whether that will be indicative of what will happen to Roe v. Wade.  On a side note, South Dakota is in the process of (or already has) passed several laws that will make abortion illegal unless that woman’s health is in danger.  It will no doubt make its way through the court system.  Whether the Supreme Court will hear it, I don’t know.  I imagine lower courts will rule it unconstitutional based on Roe and possibly on Casey, which established undue burden.  But that’s a topic for a different day.

The United Nations is calling for the closure of Guantanamo Bay due to torture allegations.  They would also like for the detainees to be tried on US soil.  Interestingly enough, although the envoys who are calling for the closure have interviewed past detainees, they have never visited the site.

Whether torture has taken place at Guantanamo Bay will probably never be known by the public, but it does raise the interesting question of whether torture is ever acceptable.  For some the issue is black and white, but for me it seems to fall in more of a grey area.  If a detainee/prisoner/what-have-you has information that would stop the deaths of thousands, or even hundreds of people and you’ve exhausted all of your options, does that make torture acceptable.  Is the “discomfort” of one person worth the lives of hundreds, or even one?  What if that one is your mother or father or child?  Where does one draw the line?  Does the safety of a country’s citizens rise above the rights of another person.  Does that person even have rights or have they been forfeited by their actions?  Ironically, one of the crimes the US is being charged with is force feeding detainees who are on a hunger strike.  Why do I have the feeling that if the US let them starve that it would also be called torture?

This situation does raise another interesting question of whether the detainees at Guantanamo Bay (or similar places) have the rights afforded to American citizens - the basic rights of trial by jury, not to be held indefinitely, etc.  My answer to that would be no, they do not.  First, they are not American citizens, second, they have conspired to harm a large number of American citizens (or even a few), and third, they are not soldiers that fall under the Geneva Convention.  These detainees made the choice to go against the rules of warfare and against our country, they should not expect to be treated equally.

The last thing I want to mention is that the UN should look at itself before pointing fingers.  All one needs to do is look up the list of countries that are on the Human Rights committee to learn that they have little room to say anything at all.