Yawn.

Gee...I'm having a hard time controlling my laughter for Chris Rock's Anti-Bush jokes...

I guess it's impossible for Hollywood not talk about politics...even on a night that is supposedly dedicated to appreciating good acting...

A Pre-Oscar Rant...

Am I the only one who thinks that Halle Berry's acceptance speech for Monster's Ball back in 2002 was totally unmoving and void of meaning? (You may remember that her speech centered on all of the "women of color" who her award was for...blah blah blah.). I only bring it up because I just watched a replay of it as a candidate for "best acceptance speech ever." It won second place.

The winner was Tom Hanks speech following Philadelphia about victims of AIDS. His was poetic and touching, even if maybe a little too political...But it was a good speech nonetheless, and shouldn't have even been grouped with Halle Berry's annoying whining.

Of course, hers must have been a great speech in P.C. land...

Hollywood Politics (and Philosophy) I can get used to...

I'm the first to admit that I long have said I wished that the Hollywood crowd would stop giving political advice.

That said, I am very impressed with the writing of Michael Moriarty, who you might know from the series Law & Order. He's analyzing French vs. American thought, but in a very compelling and interesting fashion. Well worth the read.

I should note that Mr. Moriarity isn't your normal Hollywood Starlet ala Cameron Diaz or Michael Moore. He is a graduate of Dartmouth and a Fulbright Scholar. So I guess his accomplished writing shouldn't be a surprise...

Anyway, check it out.

Where is NOW about this?

Probably too busy attacking Bush and undermining the war effort.

I was sickened when I read this account relating to "honor killings" of women in Saudi Arabia. There must be something that we can do to stop it...Hopefully Iraq is a stop on the road to remaking the whole region...and if we're lucky killing those sick bastards that commit such crimes.

Cover your eyes!

Finally, we can all sleep again. It has arrived...

I give you the top 10 worst Album covers of all time...

Click if you dare.

Make sure once you get to the bottom of the page and click "Next Entry." Personally, I think the next page is even funnier.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I was crying from laughter...

How I miss Ronald Reagan...

As some of you may know, Ronald Reagan is my absolute hero. Just such a beautiful, decent man. I am truly saddened that some people will never be able to see beyond politics to see the greatness of the man.

Anyway, thought some of his quotes deserved their own post.

On Making the World a Better Place:

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."

On Moral Courage:

"There are no easy answers ... but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right."

On Blind Hope:

"To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last--but eat you he will."

On Language:

"We've heard a great deal about Republican "fat cats," and how the Republicans are the party of big contributions. I've never been able to understand why a Republican contributor is a "fat cat" and a Democratic contributor of the same amount of money is a "public-spirited philanthropist."

On War:

"History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

On Goals:

"My philosophy of life is that if we make up our mind what we are going to make of our lives, then work hard toward that goal, we never lose -- somehow we win out"

On Troubled Times:

"The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated."

On Politics:

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

On Sleeping and Leadership:

"I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting."

On Jellybeans:

"You can tell a lot about a fellow's character by his way of eating jellybeans."

On Congress:

"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."

On Facing Reality:

"Don't be afraid to see what you see."

and lastly:

On the Future:

"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology."

More Quotations...

Ok, so I'm addicted to a quotations site. Thought I'd share a few gems...

On Love:

"Perhaps the feelings that we experience when we are in love represent a normal state. Being in love shows a person who he should be."
-- Anton Chekhov

"Never pretend to a love which you do not actually feel, for love is not ours to command."
-- Alan Watts

On Perseverance:

"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just."
-- Abraham Lincoln

On Duty:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
-- Ronald Reagan

On Duty:

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."
-- Abraham Lincoln

On Man:

"I know in my heart that man is good.
That what is right will always eventually triumph.
And there's purpose and worth to each and every life."
-- Ronald Reagan

Quote of the Week

So I was just watching Tears of the Sun, starring Bruce Willis.

I really recommend it, as an interesting and heartwrenching look at African genocide, and makes you think about what the U.S. could/should do about it.

It's not in the same vein as, say Hotel Rwanda, by any means (it's an action/drama), but Tears of the Sun was both a great action movie and deeply moving (to me, anyway).

I bring it up because it gave me my quote of the week:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Evil is for Good people to do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke

Coming Back from Vacation...

In case you were wondering, I've been out of town this weekend, hence my lack of postings. I should get back into the swings of things this week though, so fear not.

In the meantime, feel free to check out this.

It's a site where you can imput any name and it will provide you with an interactive graph showing it's popularity throughout history...pretty cool.

Bernini, Michaelangelo...Katrencik?

Here's a piece from the NY Post illustrating why modern art is so great. Maybe the Post mixed up their stories with The Onion.

Best line from the article:

"The connection between concrete and baked goods hasn't been lost on Emily Katrencik, a 30-year-old conceptual artist whose ongoing project consists of gnawing through a wall in the apartment of Louky Keijsers, owner of the LMAKprojects gallery in Chelsea...

Katrencik does this by eating through 1.956 inches a day. The project started on New Year's Day, and the hole in the wall is now big enough that she can stick her head through it."


I do wonder what her neighbors think...

[Nod to Derb at The Corner]

Battle of (a couple) Titans

As far as public spats go, this one is pretty fun. Ironically it's between two columnists who I link to on the right side of my page: Susan Estrich and Michael Kinsley. They are apparently friends, but a public attack started when Estrich blasted Kinsley for a "lack of women op-ed writers" in the L.A. Times, where Kinsley runs the Op/Ed page. The link shows Estrich's original attack, followed by Kinsley's short but brutal response.

My favorite line from Kinsley: "I'm sorry that she has "never heard of" Charlotte Allen, but I think it may be possible to be a woman even if Susan Estrich has never heard of you."

Very entertaining.

I really shouldn't even take the time to argue this, but...

I thank God I don't live in the United Kingdom. Now, don't get me wrong. It's not because I don't like the people (it is a large part of my family heritage, afterall). I just couldn't stand the thought that I'd be forced to watch BBC News. Even worse I'd have to pay for it with my taxes.

Quite simply, the BBC makes MSNBC and maybe even the Nation even look like paragons of objectivism.

So it shouldn't have surprised me to find the BBC's 'cute' little pictorial before/after sequence seeming to offer proof of the existence of man-made global warming.

In short, the BBC has taken 12 pictures (6 subjects: 3 from the U.S., and one each from Europe, South America, and a Pacific island) and shown a shot of each many years ago versus today. The images show receding glaciers, rising tides, barren mountainsides, and dying forests. The images are by photographer named Gary Braasch.

Now, I'll give Mr. Braasch the benefit of the doubt and assume that he doesn't presuppose to say that his pictures offer proof that man-made global warming is a reality, though the fact that his shtick since 1999 is to 'document climate change,' I do wonder.

Regardless, the BBC certainly heavily implies that his images seem to prove something. It's important to note that they don't ever come out and explicitly say that the pictures prove anything. But placed beside quotations and "facts" from studies and organizations that advocate the existence of man-made global warming, it seems pretty apparent that the intention of the slide show is to provide demonstrable evidence of the veracity of environmentalists' extreme claims.

The utter lunacy of the attempt is incredible, even by BBC standards. The surface area of the earth (that is not underwater) is approximately 57 million square miles. The still shots represent one fraction of a second in a random year of 6 subject points that represent an infinitesimally small fraction of global land area. Thinking that such 'evidence' is even remotely representative of global climate effects is beyond description in its asininity. One might struggle to imagine a greater inductive fallacy.

Even pretending that the images are somehow representative, does it not occur to the BBC that perhaps there are other explanations to the portrayed effects documented in the pictures other than the aggregate effects of human CO2 pollution world-wide causing increased global temperatures?

To take one example they offer: the erosion of 200 meter section of beach in North Carolina. Now, admittedly I have no formal training in geology, oceanography, topography or any related fields, yet I'm pretty certain that beach erosion is a natural occurrence throughout history. The last time I was in Greece, for example, it was continually explained that the coast had shifted dramatically from erosion over thousands of years. So if such effects have been occurring for that long, wouldn't it be difficult to argue with a straight face that evidence of any beach erosion illustrates that extensive human creation of CO2 beginning in the late 1800s is to blame? Apparently not for the BBC. Instead they offer the image as dramatic proof of surging ocean levels.

The BBC also highlights Japanese Beatles destroying a forest in Alaska as a clear sign of climate change. While it may be true that the Beatles would thrive more easily in warmer weather, the 'logic' employed is beyond description in its illegitimacy. Drawn out explicitly, it would look as follows:

A. Japanese Beatles like warm weather.
B. Here is a picture of Japanese beetles.
Ergo: The existence of Japanese beetles in said picture proves the existence of man-made global warming.

It should be apparent that such a line of thinking is totally illogical. Since "global warming" did not create the Japanese beetle and therefore would logically predate any potential man-made warming, it simply cannot be inferred that pictures of the beetles prove anything related to climate change. The beetles are killing forests whether global warming is real or not.

Anyway, I hope my point is made: The BBC's picture show proves precisely nothing, least of all their extreme position of global calamity from man-made CO2 production.

I might not have cared enough to write anything about this, but the BBC decided to include an image of Mt. Hood just outside of Portland. Given that I look at the mountain every day, and know that their 'representative' image doesn't note that 2002 was an unusual year, and that glaciers are present year round any other time, including all years after 2002, I had to weigh in.

Well, at least some of the BBC's pictures were pretty...

Some conservatives aren't funny...

I don't want to write a lengthy post on the Chris Rock "controversy," but I did want to comment briefly.

Criticism over Rock's recent material regarding abortion, homosexuals, etc. is not limited just to right-wing groups. But that said, some are demanding that Rock be fired from his upcoming role as a MC for the Academy Awards.

I want to note that every time a right wing group comes out swinging about something as trivial as Rock's humor, or Janet Jackson's nipple, or any number of other things, I die a little inside.

It's idiots like them who give Conservatism a bad name. It is any wonder that the stereotype of conservatism is that is has no sense of humor? I'm tired of it. What we need is more conservatives to come out and tell these ninnies to shut up and get a life.

In Rock's case, it's stand-up comedy for God's sakes. It's not some political declaration. It's meant to be funny. But then, these critics are deeply unserious (or more accurately, overly serious. all the time). I mean, you'd have to be to think that a 1/1,000,000 of a second shot of Janet Jackson's nipple would scar children for life. Or that grown people would be damanged by hearing a joke that says that if you are wanting to "get some action," you're better suited to go to an abortion rights rally than a bible-study group...

It's a funny line. So you whiners should get over yourselves. And incidentely, I'd guess that Chris Rock is probably right..

It begins...

Just in case you didn't know: TODAY IS A NATIONAL HOLIDAY.

Today is the first day for pitchers and catchers to report to Spring Training. Yes sir. Baseball season is upon us. God Bless us everyone! And God Bless the Chicago Cubs.

Happy Belated Valentine's Day

I hope everyone had a wonderful Valentine's day. I know mine was fabulous. I watched a marathon of Stargate SG-1 on the SciFi Network...

I just can't figure out why I have no girlfriend though:-p

Anyway, hope yours was lovely.

Saviors of Europe

I'm am shocked yet happy to report that there is indeed still sanity in Europe. Witness Il Ideazione, an Italian periodical representing a small but vocal group of intellectuals and journalist who advocate American conservatism. Their site is all in Italian, however, even if you don't speak the language, you still get the sense of what they believe in.

My favorite portion: "Remembering Ronnie."

Maybe Italy is my new favorite European country. Hard to believe that the savior of the Old Continent might be the historically inept and pathetic Italians...

Though hey, it is home to the Vatican. God bless them all.

Artist of the Month

Ok, so I'm joining this bandwagon a little bit late, but I just discovered this guy for myself and I'm really into him. Hope you enjoy. He's an Irish folk/pop/rock singer named Damien Rice

If you go to "Music" you can listen to audio clips. The .asx links open in Windows media player.

An Evening with Mr. Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens is brilliant. I know it's a word that is bandied around far too frequently, but in Hitchens case, it's simply true. I don't know a more intelligent, more witty, more insightful commentator in the public sphere right now. And let me say that I'm sure he and I don't agree on a lot of things (given that he is an avowed socialist, or at least was, and is still quite liberal). I don't think he's brilliant because he expounds what I think, I think he's brilliant because of the cogence and clarity of his thought. In hearing and reading him, it's obvious that you are in the presence of greatness.

Someday, I hope to be him. Unfortunately, my accent isn't a cool as his...

Anyway, I mention all this because I just read an account of Michael Totten's experiences with Mr. Hitchens on the evening of the Iraqi elections. Read it to get a great view of Hitchens razor sharp wit.

BREAKING NEWS: Evil exists. Who knew?

I wonder if the NYTimes will still scoff every time Bush utters the 'simplistic' thought that some people, like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jung Il, are Evil.

Money Quote: "Among themselves, a few forensic scientists have taken to thinking of [some criminals] as not merely disturbed but evil. Evil in that their deliberate, habitual savagery defies any psychological explanation or attempt at treatment..."

[Note: Requires login to NYTimes.com. It's free]

The Road Less Traveled: Politics or Policy?

Dick Morris offers an interesting take on the prospects of President Bush's social security program (vis-a-vis Private Accounts). He touches on an interesting concept that might be one of those "blindingly obvious" points that no one ever vocalizes.

From a romantic standpoint, our government and parties aim to do what's best for our people and our country. But the political calculation that goes along with action precipitates that 'power-plays' trump positive policy when necessary. Morris quotes former President Clinton analyzing Republican motives saying that:

"...the GOP feared any program that benefited the middle class because it gave the government — and therefore the Democrats who push these programs — power over swing voters."

This is telling regarding both parties. Clinton is fundamentally right about Republican motives, at least so far as it is part of the equation. Republicans are likely skeptical about the merit of such programs, but equally, if not moreso, Republicans do not want to enable Democrats to increase their political muscle.

Clinton doesn't vocalize that his ability to make this calculation is indicative that he understands the fundamental logic of the Republican's position. Indeed, Democrats encourage such programs both because they think they're a good idea, and also because it gives them political leverage by creating constituencies of dependents.

The calculation runs both ways. As Morris notes,

"And now [their mistrust of Republican motives] leads the Democrats to fret over the personal retirement accounts Bush would establish. It is not that these programs are likely to fail. Democrats fear them because they suspect that they will succeed — that government-run Social Security will henceforth only be for those so poor that they could not amass much in their retirement accounts."

In case that is not clear enough, Morris is asserting (rightly) that Democratic opposition stems not because they don't think Bush's policy will work, but because they realize that its success, the policy will remove a pool of voters who the Democrats can control through government bureaucracy.

As for Republicans, they surely believe in the concept of individual determination (such thought is, afterall, a tenant of Conservatism). But Republicans also realize the added benefit that in their plan lies the formula to remove Social Security as a political poison to Republicans, that Democrats have so loved to unleash for so long.

The point then, is that Washington never simply (and only) looks at ways to better the country. Politics trumps policy. Most people are likely able to perceive the political calculations of the opposing party, while turning a blind eye to their own party's maneuvering. Ironically, both parties rationale for ensuring political power is because they believe in the ultimate righteousness of their ideology, and so the ends justify the means. Somehow, they never comprehend that other opposition works to the exact same ends.

Interestingly, successful Presidents find a way to contain (or rise above) the political calculations involved in big issues, while failed presidents get lost in the rancor. Great Presidents seem to promote the "politics-be-damned attitude". This provides the contrast in George Washington's success to Thomas Jefferson's failed tenure; Jimmy Carter's impotence to Ronald Reagan's accomplishments...

And likely George W. Bush's achieved vision to Bill Clinton's wasted potential...

"Stupendously Overweight Birds", Feral Dogs, and James T. Kirk

Ok, so I have a very serious scientific question with dramatic implications to the greater world.

It seems, in the news at least, that science has reached a point where they can clone pretty much anything, right? (Or at least they're on the cusp of it). So MY question is why hasn't anyone tried to clone the DoDo bird? They have the DoDo's DNA, since they've been able to establish that it was related to the pigeon [clearly the Dodo was the pride of the family, of course. The pigeon is more of the Roger Clinton of the line]. I mean, frankly, I don't see any downside. Who wouldn't want a pet Dodo? According to the FarSide (an authoritative source on extinct species), the Dodo would offer a lot to society. Plus you could open a theme park. Call it "Stupendously Overweight Bird-World," perhaps. And luckily, there's a good chance that the Dodo wouldn't escape and eat the tourists (although if they did, how awesome would that be. You could even charge more). But I'm digressing.
I think we should start a letter-writing campaign and get federal funding for DoDo cloning. Who could be against it? I picture PETA freaks and Feral Dogs everywhere holding hands and singing songs. It would be a beautiful thing. And we can make it happen.

Naturally, I've given a lot of thought to this Dodo thing, searching deep down in my soul. In the course of my introspection, another thought came to mind. In Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, you may remember that Kirk and crew had to steal a Klingon Warbird and go back in time (naturally, by speeding around earth in the opposite direction as its natural rotation. Duh!) in order to capture a Humpback whale (which were extinct in the future present of the world where San Francisco was the world capital [with Berkeley as the spiritual?]), so that they could bring it back to the future and save the Earth from a giant glowing cigar (I might be approximating the plot a bit). Anyway, Star Trek is normally pretty good as an general predictor of scientific/technological trends. How, then, did Mr. Roddenberry not consider that the impact of cloning (which is clearly present in the Star Trek universe) could eliminate the concept of extinction? What gives? If anyone has any thoughts as to the answer to this vexing question, I'm all ears. My vote is for liberal Hollywood bias...naturally.

On a lighter note, Europe's screwed...

Ok ok, so I'm not so jaded or cavaliar to wish destruction on Europe. Actually, I love Europe. I just can't stand much of their political leadership...or their self-righteous attitude (If you don't believe me, read this, this, this, this, this, and this series reporting on the recent Davos conference.)

Anyway, this article analyzes the CIA's prognosis for the future of Europe. Really interesting stuff. And scary if you're a European...

A not uninteresting piece from a disinterested Source

I'm amazed at the lack of coverage of the U.N. Oil for Food Scandal, especially since even uninterested observers tend to acknowledge that it is the biggest fraud ever committed in history(!). Anyway, Mark Steyn has a great piece in the London Telegraph analyzing some of the latest developments, as well as the U.N. in general. It's worth reading, if only to get caught up on what's going on.

Money passage:

"As you may have noticed, the good people of Darfur have been fortunate enough not to attract the attention of the arrogant cowboy unilateralist Bush and have instead fallen under the care of the Polly Toynbee-Clare Short-approved multilateral compassion set. So, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the UN to set up a committee to look into what's going on in Darfur. They've just reported back that it's not genocide. That's great news, isn't it?...Instead, it's just 70,000 corpses who all happen to be from the same ethnic group – which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, and Polly and Clare don't have to worry their pretty little heads about it...

That's the transnational establishment's alternative to Bush and Howard: appoint a committee that agrees on the need to do nothing."

What a great description of the U.N. at "work."

[Nod to Jonah at NRO]

Hitch on Iraq and Vietnam

Well, I had originally thought to blog on the asinine equation of Iraq being a Vietnam Redux. Luckily, Christopher Hitchens has saved me the effort. I only add that it seems like there are two options as to why this comparison keeps reoccuring:

1)Either the proponents of the theory want it to be true,

OR

2)They simply don't fathom that there is no comparison by any objective analysis.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume that the proponents just ingested too many drugs during the 60s to think clearly...[i sense some hate mail coming from this post. muhahaha]

Some people deserve deportation. Like people who sue for no reason.

For wanting to be a lawyer, I sure do hate them...

Another reason why:

Girls in Denver sued for delivering cookies to their neighbors door...

[Nod to Jonah at NRO]

Rob Schneider is the man

Rob Schneider is my hero. I'll admit, he's not on par with Bill Murray. But Schneider makes me laugh with glee like a little girl nonetheless.

Rob recently proved his genius once again.

In this article in the L.A. Times, reporter Patrick Goldstein took an uncalled for stab at our hero. Schneider responded with this full page ad in Variety. People should know better than to mess with 'third rate comics.'

Booyah.

[Nod to K-Lo at the Corner]

The Rare Morality

"[Our] core beliefs and values. can guide us in reaching our goal of keeping abortion safe, legal and rare into the next century."
Hillary Clinton speaking to NARAL, Jan. 22, 1999


It's all but impossible to ignore that these days Hillary Clinton is steadily positioning herself for a run for the White House in 2008. To do this, of course, she is steadily aiming towards the center on issues (rhetorically, anyway), in the hopes of counteracting her reputation (read: actual ideology) as a staunch liberal. Most recently (or at least last I noticed; she seems to be giving "major speeches" every day now), she addressed the issue of abortion.
Now, I don't care to argue here the merits of "allowing abortion good"/"allowing abortion bad." But in listening to the coverage, and of Sen. Clinton's actual remarks, I fought the urge to tune-out, and noticed the notion that I've outlined above in Sen. Clinton's (then Mrs. Clinton) quote:

" [keep] abortion safe, legal, and rare..."

Can someone explain to me the significance that the frequency with which abortion occures has to the Pro-legal-abortion position? That is to say, when operating under the belief that abortion should be legal, who cares how frequently abortions occur?

I don't wish to delve too deeply into the actual text of Roe. v. Wade, but (using general terms) the Roe decision as written by Justice Blackman revolves around the central issue of whether or not a women's (implied) 14th Amendment protection of privacy outweighs any potential "compelling interest of the state" to prevent the killing of the embryo/fetus that the woman carries.

Blackman and the majority of the Court maintain that because they (and everyone else) are unable to determine if a fetus can be defined as a "person" under the Constitution, the State cannot be assumed to carry such "compelling interest," and therefore cannot inhibit the 14th Amendment rights of a women to have an abortion.

Logically, the implicit argument involved is that because the Court cannot determine that a fetus is a "person," that therefore it is not a person, unless or until science can prove it (From a court standpoint, this makes some sense; jurisprudence can't infer an absolute without grounds to do so; even "just in case.").

Ok, so now I've finally come to what annoys me about the phrasing that Hillary and many abortion advocates use. Using the definition provided in Roe, there is no benefit or significance from a moral standpoint as to the frequency with which abortions occur. A fetus is not alive. It has no inherent value beyond the context that it should be seen as a part of a woman's body. So who cares how frequently women remove it from their bodies?

Hillary's argument is tantamount to seeing moral rectitude in limiting the number of appendectomies that occur, or the frequency that someone cuts their fingernails.

Ok, so maybe I will delve into abortion as a concept. The obvious reason that Pro-Choice advocates include the little qualifer of "rare" is that it appeals more to the sensibilities of the average American (and were they open to admitting it, I suspect to the Pro-Choice advocates own as well). Fundamentally, people have an aversion to abortion, even if they can't rationalize why. By allowing that "we'll keep abortions rare" it allows people the ability to feel like they are still preserving a moral coherence to their argument, no matter how slight. "Yes it's killing," they might say, "but at least were making sure it doesn't happen too often." And while it might be "more moral" in a technical sense to kill only one instead of 100 (though that's debatable), the fact remains that the act of killing in and of itself is an immoral one. Such is the fundamental problem with the logic employed by Hillary and company.
And ultimately, this indicates the precise problem with the Roe decision itself. If the rationalization and logic provided in Roe were accurate, people from sea to shining sea should feel ok to flaunt their ability to have an abortion, without any feeling of guilt or queasiness. Afterall, it is a right that they enjoy thanks to their status as an American (and the fetus' status as nothing). Yet American's approach abortion as almost an "apologetic right." People seem to intuitively sense that there is something fundamentally wrong with abortion.

That Hillary promotes the goal of the "rare abortion" indicates that even she intuitively understands that. Even if she won't admit it.