Log in

No account? Create an account
A Sorta Fairytale
October 2013
Mon, Aug. 2nd, 2004 12:52 am
A road, a bit of scripture, and a dilemma

Well, I finally got decent pictures of the funny thing I wanted to show you, which I mentioned in a previous post about Lomography, as well as my most recent post.

I found this thing before I moved to Tallahassee, one of the times I came up here to visit Tanya. I got terribly lost trying to find her place (I believe I had only been to her house once before at the time), and I was becoming very frustrated. Then I happened to stop at an intersection, and I looked up at the street sign. And I was so amused by what I saw there, that it caused my tension to dissipate. What's more, it happened to be a fairly large road running across the northwest corner of town, and when I consulted my map, I found it an easy landmark to help me find my way back to where I was supposed to be. So, I owe a debt of gratitude to this road.

I had to find a small, quiet intersection to get a good picture. I thought one of the larger signs at an intersection with a traffic light would have been nicer, but getting a good picture of one of those without risking the safety of myself or others proved to be too difficult. I am sorry to say I did attempt to take one picture while actually driving. I wasn't going to "aim", really, as I know that it would have been incredibly stupid to hold a camera in front of my face instead of watching the road. I was just going to sort of hold up the camera at approximately the right angle and shoot as I went by. Well, in doing so, I unfortunately distracted myself to the point of misjudging the angle of the left turn I was making at the same time, and I nearly ran into the curb. I had to stop and put my car in reverse to readjust while the college-age folks in another car that was stopped at the intersection literally pointed and laughed. *sigh* Is it any wonder that I confessed to Tanya a week or so ago that I lack common sense? Naturally, that picture did not turn out very well, and I promise to just say no to Lomo-ing and driving in the future.

Of course, this picture I am about to show you isn’t really Lomography, since it was much too planned. It’s just something that I felt the need to share.

Also, in light of the recent fandom snafu, I’ve been thinking about some Scripture that I would like to share as well. The first is a passage I have mentioned on this LJ before, but I think it bears repeating.

Romans 12:9-21

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

And James 1:19-20

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.

Last, I’m still pondering the upcoming election and various political issues obsessively carefully right now. I am still not sold on either candidate. I think that this article by Nat Hentoff has brought into focus precisely what my dilemma is. I could easily overlook differences with a candidate on H-1B visas or vouchers. What I am getting hung up on are the areas in which I see each candidate failing to adhere to the “consistent ethic of life” of which Hentoff writes. How can I vote for a candidate who is likely to veto laws protecting the lives of the pre-born, and who would appoint federal judges who won’t uphold their Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? But then, how can I vote for a candidate whose cavalier approach to military conflict unnecessarily endangers the lives of many human beings, both pre-born and already-born?


Well, I still have three months to decide…


ETA: The website for Consistent Life, formerly known as The Seamless Garment Network: All of life from conception until natural death is a seamless garment.

An excerpt from their mission statement:

Fundamentally each and every human being is unique and important. No person is defined by someone else's choices. No one exists as a means to someone else's happiness, therefore all choices we make, as individuals and as a society, must be weighed in light of their impact on human life and dignity.

The right to life is an inalienable one, as life is sacred. If human life is sacred, then it must be protected. Human life is not more sacred at one point than another. People of one race or nation are not more sacred than others. The lives of the rich are not more sacred than those of the poor. All people have an equal right to life.

This must be reflected in our constitution, our attitudes, and our practices in every field. It translates into a coherent social policy which seeks to protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, the unborn, the infirm, the refugee, the homeless, and the poor.

Found here.

Current Mood: depressed depressed
Current Music: "Into the West" ~ Annie Lennox


Mon, Aug. 2nd, 2004 06:48 am (UTC)

Good scriptures to remember. Thanks for pointing them out.

LOVE the street sign!

the second biggest jun ishikawa stan on the 'net
Mon, Aug. 2nd, 2004 04:08 pm (UTC)

Thanks for the Nat Hentoff article. Makes me wonder how many of these pro-abortion/euthinasia advocates know how they're about to make life into a scary sci-fi novel.

Chem TA Toni
Mon, Aug. 2nd, 2004 04:38 pm (UTC)

That street sign is teh awesome. Thanks for sharing!

Speaking of Lomography, I brought my cheapo old digital camera to camp with me this weekend, hoping to get some good Lomographic pix to share, only to find out that the batteries were drained. Bummer!

Mon, Aug. 2nd, 2004 11:29 pm (UTC)

This is off topic to the Right to Life movement, but is a particular pet peeve of mine so I had to comment.

The right to life is an inalienable one, as life is sacred.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote about inalienable rights, he wasn't trying to say that these rights shouldn't be taken away, but that they literally couldn't be.

Oh, and I love the sign.

Tue, Aug. 3rd, 2004 03:32 am (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. A person's life or liberty can be taken away. Was TJ saying that even though the thing can be taken away, the right to it can't? I'm not sure I see the distinction.

ReplyThread Parent
Tue, Aug. 3rd, 2004 09:59 pm (UTC)
Political Philosophy

What he's referring to here is the concept of "natural rights". A natural right is a right that a person possesses just by virtue of being a human being. The natural rights that everyone has heard of are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So long as a person continues to exist as a human being they will seek to live, will continue to make their own choices, and will pursue what they consider to be happiness, regardless of outside circumstances, such as religion, law, or physical environment. Although a person could be killed, technically they cease to be in existence and therefore have no expression of rights, natural or otherwise. A person's physical movement can be restricted, but not their ability to react to that confinement or choose, within those boundaries where to be. It is helpful to think of these rights not as externally granted, but as conditions of humanity: an integral part of our make up.

One can easily see that the framers of our constitution knew this political philosophy and felt that to be practical, a government could not infringe on a natural right (something we have lost sight of today). Ignoring this leads to the government losing credibility and spending all its time policing the people. Some other natural rights include communication, association, protection of self and family, right to property, physical liberty, silence and self-determination. You might recognize these from the Bill of Rights.

ReplyThread Parent
Tue, Aug. 3rd, 2004 01:26 am (UTC)
photos and other such thoughts

yes, a truly intriguing streetsign.... is that a lightning rod, or just a very strategic angle as to not read the other street name?

As for the rights folks, I agree that all life is sacred. I read through the beginning of their response to the beginning of the war on Iraq, and they had one statement that was rather off. the US was not bombing every civilian known to man without reverence, they were not even bombing civilians at all. The strikes were extremely specific and 'surgical'. During the majority of the strikes (there was, I believe, one small explosive that went awry, but only injured, in my recollection) there were no deaths of civilian casualty. And, I do believe, even most of the buildings struck were evacuated, as Sadam was given much warning that these strikes were coming.

still, though, the concept of defending life at all costs is a most venerable and agreeable approach.

Sun, Aug. 8th, 2004 01:30 am (UTC)
the picture of Tori

You know I love those pictures where two unrelated people look oddly alike...the ones captioned: "Twins--separated at birth?" Well, in this picture Tori looks so much like Michael Jackson...maybe the same artist painted their eyes. It's kind of creepy.

Sun, Aug. 8th, 2004 03:11 am (UTC)
Re: the picture of Tori

*snerk* You're wierd, Mom.

ReplyThread Parent