Vacation

Why I Blog,” by Bill Rice, By Dawn’s Early Light, 15 May 2005, http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/05/why_i_blog.html.

Say, sometimes the blog really does piss readers off!,” by Thomas Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog, 23 May 2005, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/001856.html.

I’m going on vacation. In the meantime I will be posting my thesis. Here’s why:

Bill Rice from DEL gives the following reasons for blogging

This blog is a natural progression of engaging in the larger debate, of being a part of something larger than oneself. I have met many extremely competent and intellectually challenging people with high personal integrity in the blogosphere. I am fortunate to have a group of bloggers who are supportive and encouraging. The interaction with all of them has made me a better blogger (with much room to grow) and spawned friendships around the world.

This blog will not change the world, but it does have the ability to contribute positively to an important debate, not only here in America, but around the world about freedom, democracy and values. Liberty is dear, and I am thankful for the freedom, paid for at great cost, that I can be a part of this international debate over the future of individual freedoms.

Thomas P.M. Barnett gives a simpler reason

In the end, the blog only has to work for me. The minute that stops is the minute I stop. A simple rule, but it’s the only one that should matter in this very idiosyncratic medium.

My reason would be somewhere in the middle.

I will be out of communication from Friday, May 27th, until Monday, June 6th.

I’ve been considering what to do with tdaxp in the interim for a while. I don’t want it to become static, either for readers who actually care or search engines. I also want it to be useful for me, somehow: for automatic posts to reflect my ideas somehow and maybe even help develop them.

So just not having any posts for 10 days isn’t an option. Nor is just quoting wikipedia articles. I’m too impatient to save interesting (to me) topics until I leave. So then what?

I will post the main section of my thesis — from the table of contents to the bibliography — otherwise known as the first 78 pages (out of a total of 307). Splitting each of the seven chapters up into their constituent sections, this gives about 29 posts, or roughly three a day.

I’ve referenced my thesis four times already (on nations, neural nets, publishing, and banners), so this way I will be able to trackback from it. Additional benefits include

  • Additional text may generate some additional search engine hits
  • Maybe some poor kid somewhere is working on a similar concept, and can use the work
  • By posting the bibliography, I further thank the sources I used.
  • Google cache, and maybe even the wayback machine, will give some existance that it actually existed.

Maybe more importantly, a blank blog entry is less intimidating than a blank word processor document. Maybe getting some of the work up here will encourage me to write more on it, and bother with publishing it.

Thank you for your visits. They are appreciated.

Update: In light of Aaron’s guest blogging, I have pre-blogged two posts a day until the first saturday in June. Enjoy!

No Ko in Koku

High court rejects registering babies by surrogate mother,” Japan Times, 24 May 2005, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050524a5.htm (from Japundit).

Case Could Freeze Sperm Donation,” by Wendy McElroy, Foxnews.com, 26 May 2005, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157553,00.html.

A typically Japanese story from increasingly childless Nihonkoku.

Every major nation struggles with the birthrate. Too few children are being born in Japan, Europe, America — anywhere where people are rich, they are not having enough children. So how does Nihonkoku Japan respond to new technologies that allow more citizens to have children?

Typically:

The Osaka High Court has turned down a couple’s request that the twin babies they had via an American surrogate mother be registered in Japan as their children, court officials said Monday.

A surrogate mother gave birth to the twins in October 2002 in California after doctors conducted in vitro fertilization using eggs from an American woman of Japanese ancestry and the Japanese husband’s sperm.

In rejecting the couple’s appeal against a decision last August by the Kobe Family Court, presiding Judge Sota Tanaka of the Osaka High Court said, “Surrogate birth poses a serious humanitarian concern as it treats a person as a reproductive tool and causes danger to a third person through pregnancy and giving birth.

The contract for such surrogate births violates public order and morals and is invalid, as it could cause a serious feud over the child,” Tanaka said.

A typically American story from increasingly childless Beikoku

Every major nation struggles with the birthrate. Too few children are being born in Japan, Europe, America — anywhere where people are rich, they are not having enough children. So how does America Beikoku respond to new technologies that allow more citizens to have children?

Typically:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (search) is currently considering a legal appeal that could set a wide-reaching precedent for both child support policy and fertility clinics in the United States.

As one report states, “sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for their genetic material” — a standard clinic fee — and nothing more may be in for a real shock.

The case involves sperm donor Joel L. McKiernan (search) and his former lover Ivonne V. Ferguson (search). Ten years ago, they entered a verbal contract that a three-judge panel of the Superior Court said was valid “on its face.” In exchange for McKiernan donating sperm that led to the birth of twins through in vitro fertilization, Ferguson released him from any obligation toward the offspring.

Both the trial court and the Superior Court called Ferguson’s actions “despicable” and expressed sympathy toward McKiernan. Yet both found him liable to pay over $1,500 a month in child support plus arrearages to the now-divorced Ferguson. (McKiernan has married, moved, and now has two other children he is raising.)

Why was McKiernan considered liable? The original contract was deemed unenforceable due to “legal, equitable and moral principles.” The main abrogating principle: Biological parents cannot waive the interests of a child — a third party — who has an independent “right” to support from each one of them.

Introducing Guest Blogger Aaron

As I mentioned, during my vacation tdaxp will post my thesis. Additionally, I am happy to announce a guest blogger: Aaron. While a liberal Democrat, Aaron is very intelligent and we agree on the systematic nature of most issues. Aaron is an intelligent, creative, vertical, and horizontal thinker. He also runs aaron.mmi.net, a social blog that tdaxp spun off from. To use the cool hip lingo, Aaron would be my blogfather.

Please give him a kind welcome.