This just in...

I stand corrected. David Brooks is a vile turd. He's a Mets fan.

Well...at least he's contemplating giving it up...

The Last Words. Hopefully

I'm going to stop saying "this is my last post on the subject of Schiavo." Every time I say that, I end up saying something else later. So what I will say is that I hope this is my last post on the subject.

Here are a couple good columns from two of my favorite writers.

David Brooks of the NYTimes sums up nicely the two different positions to the Schiavo argument. Actually, I think it nicely covers my debate between John, in a general sense. [NOTE: NYTimes login required]

As Brooks writes,

"What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force."

In case you've been too lazy to sign up for a FREE NYTimes login, here are some other money quotes:

"The core belief that social conservatives bring to cases like Terri Schiavo's is that the value of each individual life is intrinsic. The value of a life doesn't depend upon what a person can physically do, experience or achieve. The life of a comatose person or a fetus has the same dignity and worth as the life of a fully functioning adult.

Social conservatives go on to say that if we make distinctions about the value of different lives, if we downgrade those who are physically alive but mentally incapacitated, if we say that some people can be more easily moved toward death than others, then the strong will prey upon the helpless, and the dignity of all our lives will be diminished."

and

"The core belief that social liberals bring to cases like Ms. Schiavo's is that the quality of life is a fundamental human value. They don't emphasize the bright line between life and death; they describe a continuum between a fully lived life and a life that, by the sort of incapacity Terri Schiavo has suffered, is mere existence."

It's worth reading as a sort of "last look" at the issue.

____________


Well, almost last look, because Christopher Hitchens latest column is also a good read. It stems from the Schiavo case, but covers a whole slew of things.

Among other things, I hadn't realized that Hitchens seems "pro-life." Or as he writes,

"My own bias is very strongly for the "choose life" position. I used to have horrible and exhausting arguments with supposedly "pro-choice" militants who only reluctantly conceded that the fetus was alive but who then demanded to know if this truly was a human life. I know casuistry when I see it, and I would respond by asking what other kind of life it could conceivably be. Down the years, there has been an unacknowledged evolution of the argument. Serious Catholics no longer insist that contraception is genocide, and "pro-choice" advocates have become quite squeamish about late-term abortions. Sensitive about consistency in the "life ethic," the church has also moved to condemn if not to anathematize the death penalty. Things were improving slowly. Until now."

Anyway, Hitchens isn't at all happy about the whole Schiavo press/political affair, calling it a "most stupid and degrading argument."

Read it. It's entertaining and well thought out.

Last Thoughts on John's blog, Schiavo...

As per my discussion with John regarding the Terri Schiavo case, I am in agreement with John that I think the debate has run its course.

Fundamentally, he and I use different criteria for determining our "moral codes." To this end, we will never reach agreement. John's views under a Utilitarian mindset are here.

I think John has explicated his ideas pretty well, but I again revert to my original argumentation regarding that mode of thinking. Despite his distinctions and agreement that he must rely on some level of principles, I have major misgivings about utilitarianism as an encompassing or determinitive societal force.

At its heart, it seems to me that we can perhaps boil down our disagreement to this (of course, John may correct me if he wishes):

John believes that killing Schiavo will result in a greater number of beneficial results (or "maximizing good"), and as such is permissible, if not necessary.

For me, on the other hand, the sanctity of life is unassailable under all circumstances. I believe that the protection of life trumps all considerations, even if doing so results in a net negative result on the community at large.

There is an old ethical mind-bender that illustrates the differential. It goes generally as follows:

There are two rival villages, Alpha and Omega.

Village Alpha is poised to attack Village Omega. Because of it's overwhelming strength, there is no chance that Omega can defeat Alpha in battle.

Village Alpha gives Omega an option, however: If Omega turns over one member of their community to be executed (solely because they are an Omegan), Alpha will spare the entire rest of Omega. If they do not turn over one member, the entire Omega village will be slaughtered.

You are the leader of Omega. Do you allow the murder of an entirely innocent person for the benefit of your entire village?

I'll leave you to wonder which choice you would make...

I'm Back

Well, I'm back from my extended weekend away from politics and serious thinking...I felt burned out, so it was a much needed break.

So let the games begin anew...

Quick Take: John's Response

In our on-going discussion of the Terri Schiavo situation (which I promise I never had intended on writing very much about) John has posted an interesting and well-thought out response to my last post.

You can view it here.

I'm afraid I don't have time to respond right now (nor probably this weekend), however I will as soon as I'm able.

My quick thought is this: As I read through his piece I think he relies on many a distinction without a difference.

Secondly, I think John operates under assumptions about a variety of things that I don't think can be automatically inferred. Of course, ideology is defined by those things which we take as "obvious givens." But I still take issue with much of what he wrote.

Regarding the issue of anorexia, I must offer my apologies. I misinterpreted to what John was referring, in large part because I had somehow missed the accusations regarding eating disorders as a cause of Schiavo's condition in the first place (how I missed that, I do not know).

For what it's worth, Terri Schiavo's family maintains that allegations regarding an eating disorder are slanderous. That in itself isn't necessarily surprising, but also cannot be automatically discounted.

Anyway, more to come as time permits...

A Response to John's criticism...

Via my friend Nick's blog, I ventured over to John's blog. In addition to his comment below on my page, he posted on the Schiavo matter on his own, attempting to take me to task (sort of).

While he didn't for me, I will link to his blog so that you can decide if I am accurately portraying his views in this response.

First off, I should say that I appreciate that John took the time to read/respond to my posts. It's fairly obvious that he and I operate with entirely different lenses to the world, including our moral system. So in all seriousness, I appreciate that he extended the courtesy of responding to my thoughts given that he thinks, I gather, they are utterly devoid of meaning.

So now to begin:

In his comments on this page, John ties me into some sort of Axis with The Nation and FoxNews' Bill O'Reilly. He states:

"I feel like you, the Nation, and O'Reilly have all honed in on Schiavo's ability to feel pain, and then blamed it on a NYTimes conspiracy and a stronger foothold on a 'culture of death' (an obvious alliteration to abortion which I think you agree with me has a completely differently grounded set of arguments)."

If I am deciphering what he was actually trying to say (since I don't think he means to imply that my supposed 'cabal' is arguing that the NYTimes is the cause of Schiavo's ability to feel pain), then I think he is implying that I am singling out the NYTimes for promoting a 'culture of death,' as evident in their dealings with the Schiavo case.

This is simply a false attribution. I've never even mentioned the NY Times in any of my writings on Schiavo. His reference, I assume, is to my post entitled "It's hard to admit...". It should be fairly obvious that the references to the NY Times in my post are from an extended quote from Andy McCarthy of the National Review. McCarthy made claims regarding the NYTimes. I did not.

To the extent that I liked the piece I quoted from (and said so in the post, referring to it as "great"), it was in the context of his observations of a general trend among people to move on and forget about tragic circumstances. In truth, I actually didn't pick up on the anti-Times sentiment until I reread it later. My immediate thought was it was bizarre to single out the Times in such a regard.

In sum, John's observation is simply wrong: I'm not singling the Times out for anything.

Now regarding the notion of Schiavo feeling pain:

John is nice enough to provide a medical text from a Chicago-based hospital analyzing Persistent Vegetative States (PVS). I'll grant that the hospital certainly has more medical authority than I do to proclaim medical knowledge. But it would be quite an inductive fallacy to imply that one text can embody the entire spectrum of medical thought on a given topic. As I have repeatedly noted, there is disagreement among doctors at large (as well as Schiavo's attending physicians) over PVS cases, and to Schiavo's cognizance, inclusive of her ability to feel pain. I have also provided anecdotal evidence that at least one recovered victim of PVS has told of her ability to perceive pain during her ordeal. To this end, John's source is helpful, but it is merely another voice in a chorus of disagreement.

_____

Ok, now to my main point of contention with John's views, as presented in his blog post. It is two-fold.

First, he begins with "My two pennies worth for Terri Schiavo: I don't care.". Now, aside from the irony that he states this and then proceeds to write over 600 words analyzing the issue that he purportedly doesn't give a hoot about, it's a rather disgusting thought to throw around to so cavalierly. He doesn't care at all about a person dying after a terrible ordeal that lasted a decade? His reasoning? Well, apparently he is a utilitarian.

Indeed, further along in his blogpost, after once again pinning a quote of another person to me, he makes a passing reference to utilitarianism (in the context of euthanasia). I'll try not to get too bogged down in lingo, but the problem with utilitarian thought is that it falsely purports to get beyond any principle value in its advocacy. Yet when assigning a value-system with which to grade given options, it MUST rely on arbitrarily decided principles (be it hedonism or whathaveyou).

For example, let's say Option A results in the death of 100 people. Option B results in the death of 10 people. Utilitarianism, arguing with a "greater-good" principle, advocates either A or B, depending on the decided value that either it is either better or worse to kill more people. This in itself is a principle. This is the fundamental (self-negating) paradox of utilitarianism.

In reality, then, to advocate a utilitarian argument in the case of Schiavo (as John appears to (half-heartedly do) is merely to say that your guiding value for what life is worth saving does not include Terri. Again, that is his prerogative, but it precisely proves my initial argument that advocates of killing Schiavo do so by using an arbitrary value as to what is a "worthy" life.

But as I said, the utilitarian notion seemed only presented half-heartedly.

_______

The main thrust of John's argument revolves around priorities. John poses questions about whether we care more about a "white middle-class Christian American woman whose heart stopped because of her anorexic condition" than a series of humanitarian disasters around the world. The implication being that we're misplacing our outrage. Where to begin with this?

First, it's disgusting and pathetic that John would refer to Schiavo as being "anorexic." (And I should note I sincerely hope that he wasn't implying "Anorexia Nervosa," which is often described as merely "anorexia.") Since John likes internet health encyclopedia's, let me provide a definition of Anorexia from the Joint Center for Radiation Treatment at Harvard University:

Anorexia: "A loss of appetite."

Anorexia, then, has no relation to Terri Schiavo. Schiavo is being forcibly deprived of food. Does John seriously think that deprivation is tantamount to a refusal to eat? Are those Ethiopians -- who John implies we should care more about than Schiavo -- all "anorexic" as well because their barren surroundings resulted in epidemic starvation on a catastrophic level? Anorexia is a proactive word. It cannot be ascribed to individuals who are forced to starve to death by their surrounding situation. To do so is to blame the victim for their demise, which is contemptible.

But I want to get beyond mere language analysis. The fundamental fallacy of John's thinking is that by arguing that we should care more about the series of calamities that he described, he is endorsing a false dichotomy.

The simply fact is that whether or not one feels injustice is being served upon Schiavo has no relation whatsoever to any of the tragedies that John writes about. I can care BOTH about Schiavo AND victims of genocide the world over. John's argument, therefore is hollow.

It is hard to admit...

but there is likely nothing that anyone can do to prevent the killing of Terri Schiavo.

Here's a great post by Andy McCarthy in National Review's Corner on the subject:

"As we pass 100 hours of starvation and dehydration it is worth remembering that the excruciating slowness of the execution here, the incremental-ness of death, is designed by its champions to inure us to it. After the first hour, the second passes with far less fanfare, and the third less still. I've been following this closely, and I needed to remind myself today how many hours Terri Schiavo has actually been without sustenance by counting the days since Friday afternoon and multiplying by 24. How much more easily the time passes, and the world around us changes, for those following only fleetingly, or not at all.

Why should we think this is intentional? Consider, say, a month ago, before Terri's plight took center stage, if you had asked someone in the abstract: "How would you feel about starving and dehydrating a defenseless, brain-damaged woman?" The answer is easy to imagine: "Outrageous, atrocious -- something that wouldn't be done to an animal and couldn't be done to the worst convicted murderer."

But then it actually happens ... slowly. You're powerless to stop it, and ... you find your life goes on. There are kids and jobs and triumphs and tragedies and everyday just-getting-by. An atrocity becomes yet another awful thing going on in the world. After a day, or maybe two, of initial flabbergast, we're talking again about social security reform, China, North Korea, Hezbollah, etc. A woman's snail-like, gradual torture goes from savagery to just one of those sad facts of life. As is the case with other depravities once believed unthinkable, it coarsens us. We slowly, and however reluctantly, accept it. We accept it. The New York Times no doubt soon "progresses" from something like "terminating life by starvation," to "the dignity of death by starvation," to "the medical procedure that opponents refer to as starvation." And so the culture of life slides a little more. The culture of death gains a firmer foothold.

Of course, the physical needs of the body are not limited to food and water. There is also air. But no judge, even in Florida, would ever have had the nerve in Terri's case to permit "the medical procedure that opponents refer to as asphyxiation." Too crude. Too quick. Too obviously murder of a vulnerable innocent. Brazen, instant savagery might wake us from our slumber. For the culture of death, better that we sleep."

What it's like to be starved to death...

The Galleyslaves has an article up on what it is like to deprived of sustenance in an effort to kill you. The story tells of a woman who was thought to be in a vegetative state and was being deprived of food and water in an effort to kill her. She would eventually 'wake up' from her state, and explain how she was cognizant the entire time, despite what the doctors thought. It's really a horrible story, but well worth reading. I'll post the bulk of the text here, but you should click the link to read it all.

"I refer readers, again, to the invaluable work of Wesley J. Smith, who detailed the case of Kate Adamson, a woman who, was diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state (like Terri Schiavo) and had her feeding tube removed (like Terri Schiavo). It turns out that she wasn't in a PVS and, luckily, she lived to tell us exactly what being dehydrated to death feels like.

Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor, Adamson was asked if having her feeding tube removed was painful. She replied: "Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. To say that--especially when Michael [Schiavo] on national TV mentioned last week that it's a pretty painless thing to have the feeding tube removed--it is the exact opposite. It was sheer torture."

Here is Smith's account of Adamson's story:

In preparation for this article, I contacted Adamson for more details about the torture she experienced while being dehydrated. She told me about having been operated upon (to remove the bowel obstruction) with inadequate anesthesia when doctors believed she was unconscious:

"The agony of going without food was a constant pain that lasted not several hours like my operation did, but several days. You have to endure the physical pain and on top of that you have to endure the emotional pain. Your whole body cries out, 'Feed me. I am alive and a person, don't let me die, for God's Sake! Somebody feed me.'"

Unbelievably, she described being deprived of food and water as "far worse" than experiencing the pain of abdominal surgery. Despite having been on an on an IV saline solution, Adamson still had horrible thirst:

"I craved anything to drink. Anything. I obsessively visualized drinking from a huge bottle of orange Gatorade. And I hate orange Gatorade. I did receive lemon flavored mouth swabs to alleviate dryness but they did nothing to slack my desperate thirst."

Apologists for dehydrating patients like Terri might respond that Terri is not conscious and locked-in as Adamson was but in a persistent vegetative state and thus would feel nothing. Yet, the PVS diagnosis is often mistaken--as indeed it was in Adamson's case. And while the courts have all ruled that Terri is unconscious based on medical testimony, this is strongly disputed by other medical experts and Terri's family who insist that she is interactive with them. Moreover, it is undisputed that whatever her actual level of awareness, Terri does react to painful stimuli. Intriguingly, her doctor testified he prescribes pain medication for her every month during the course of her menstrual period."

[Text from from Galleyslaves Blog]

Thoughts on Terri Schiavo...

I had been trying to avoid talking about the Terri Schiavo issue, but given a discussion yesterday, I figure I might as well put my thoughts down in writing. It's a very difficult issue both to reason and explain.

First, I don't particularly think much of Michael Schiavo, however I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his intense desire to kill his wife is out of love. I have no reason to believe otherwise. That he lives with another woman, has children with her, and is not on speaking terms with any of Terry's family doesn't inherently imply any impropriety on his part. But in my mind it doesn't speak well of him, either.

Ok, now to the heart of my sentiment. I find it deeply troubling if our society advocates the death of a person who is otherwise capable of surviving simply because we decide on an arbitrary threshold what life is worth living, and what is not.

Were this a case of an individual who was incapable of surviving on her own (ie life-support system-dependent), then I can understand to some degree the rationale for "pulling the plug." To do so, in effect, is letting nature take its course. But this is not the case with Terri Schiavo.

Schiavo is entirely self-sufficient and not on life-support. She merely needs food. In a physical sense, this requirement is a comparable physical condition as, say, an infant or an elderly person. If I am correct in assuming that starvation is not generally considered a 'natural occurrence' in modern society, then advocates of removing her feeding tube promote an unnatural (and awful) death for Schiavo. Her cause of death, afterall, will have no relation to her bodily condition, unless you are to argue that one's ability to feed oneself is a requirement for a right to live (though to do so is to promote the killing of children, the bed-ridden, the disabled, and the elderly, among others).

Now, a point can be made in saying that Schiavo's case is not quite the same as babies, etc. Babies and elderly people are, for example, more clearly cognizant of what is occurring around them. Ok, fair enough. They are not identical. But in Schiavo's case, she does indicate signs of awareness of people around her. Her eyes follow people around the room, she has been known to giggle, etc. She is not purely vegetative. At what threshold then should we deem a given level of cognizance worthy of life? What level is not? And who is qualified to make that determination?

Ultimately any decision on the matter is entirely arbitrary, including the person chosen to rule on the matter. And that the problem with the position. If all life is subject to arbitrary value, then all life is in danger of being defined out of acceptable status.

History is rife with the horrors of societies that used arbitrary values of acceptable life. Once we have chosen an arbitrary value, it is not difficult to imagine that we might further allow for re-definitions to allow for more killings simply because we -- individually or collectively -- decide that we wouldn't want to endure a particular state, so no one must.

I believe that we must always avoid the path of the arbitrary. Whether we consider a life to be worth living should always be entirely irrelevant to whether or not another being remains alive. This guides my thoughts on abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and in Terri Schiavo's case, state-sanctioned murder.

I suspect that I'll need to write more to fully articulate my thinking on all of this, so this is just a start. Any comments are welcome.

__________________

Lastly, I close with a thought: Those who advocate killing Terri Schiavo often invoke it as an act of mercy. Why then, do they support the painful and terrible manner of starvation as a means to that end?

Wouldn't it make more sense to provide her with a lethal form of drugs, thus ending her life quickly and painlessly?

I haven't heard a reasonable answer for that yet. Has anyone?

Star Trek here we come...

Here's an interesting development in space exploration: The first time an alien planet has ever been seen, and not merely just 'detected.'

I don't quite understand how they can measure temperatures and wind speeds on alien planets, but it sure is cool.

Another random thought....

I've puzzled for a while over 'pen-names' of the guys at the Powerline. What sticks out to me is the (unintentional?) sexual overtones of their names...

I decline further comment.

Nick's Response

I'm posting it so it's more accessible. Hopefully Nick doesn't mind.

My quick take: It's a thoughtful response. And he's changed my mind: I now hope they "convert[] all 19.6 kajillion acres into one bigass awesome oil factory that runs on the skins of dead caribou." They could sell tickets to see that...though if all the Caribou were "wanting to have babies with the oil pipline," it might have to be 18 and older...

Here's the response:


Nah, good points. I enjoyed that article, and it made me look for some more info. It was well written, and had I read the article before I responded, I wouldn't have said that he "dumbed down the debate." I'd stick by my comments for those snippets in isolation, but that's (only to maintain my ego) beside the point.

I'm intrigued but not having good [luck] finding any good information. Anyway, he does write a very compelling piece, and I think the debate has been super saturated with folks who don't understand the concrete issues they're debating, but rather understand that they are in a war to "defend the environment from oil companies." I'm also sure many of them drive to work everyday in protest from high up in their SUV's.

But still I wonder what's the best position opposing drilling? What are realistic and qualified environmentalists saying about drilling? I actually tried to find the text of the bill which I quickly gave up. I didn't really want to slog through it after all.

The debate is not between Zero Drilling and converting all 19.6 kajillion acres into one bigass awesome oil factory that runs on the skins of dead caribou. So what happens to the drilling areas as a result of the bill passing? What are the relevent environmental concerns? I don't really buy Goldberg's argument that Caribou simply want to have babies with oil pipelines. But maybe they'll have minimal impact.

As much as his descriptions of mosquitoes grossed my shit out, that doesn't mean they don't serve an important purpose. And to the extent he covered it, that's still a live question.

Good article, good points.

Schiavo, Bush v. Gore, and the New Republic

Speaking of the New Republic, their blog "&c." addressed the Schiavo issue today. In a throw away comment (i.e. stated as if obvious fact), the blog's writer Noam Schreiber states:

"The Republican Party has been directly contradicting its ostensible federalist principles for narrower political purposes at least since Bush v. Gore (and surely long before that)..."

This is a typical gripe expressed by many on the left recently. What seems apparent to me is that many Liberals have no conception about Federalism really is, not withstanding their new found advocacy of it.

Either out of convenience (ie. straw-man argumentation) or stupidity, they equate Federalism as the notion that States' Rights always trump National interest. This of course is absurd. If a state passed a law, for example, that required that every second born child in a family is be killed, Federalism would not dictate that the Federal Government is not allowed to intervene.

Federalism is simply the belief that the Federal government cannot intervene in affairs with which is it not given purview over as per the Constitution. It advocates adherence to the 10th amendment that gives all power not enumerated in the Constitution to the states. The key phrase of course being 'powers not enumerated.' If such power is clearly given to the Federal government, then Federalist have no problem with Federal oversight.

Now, in regards to Bush v. Gore, the Court overwhelmingly found it clear that the Florida Supreme Court had inappropriately allowed numerous unconstitutional methods to be utilized in its ordered recount. As the decision in Bush v. Gore states, 7 justices felt that the Florida S.C. decision allowed for a recount with severe Constitutional issues, namely that "it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work."

Clearly, equal protection and due process are in the realm of Federal authority, and as such Federal action is consistent with the practice of Federalism. Liberal claims that Bush v. Gore was antagonistic to Federalism simply confirms their ignorance of what the term means.

So to with the Schiavo issue. There are numerous aspects to why the Federal Government would have a compelling interest to prevent a state allowing the murder of one of its citizens. At the least, Congress has a responsibility to investigate whether or not it has jurisdiction in the manner regardless of what a state court might rule.

Random Complaint of the Day...

Why is The New Republic so bent on having every article on their page available only to subscribers? It didn't used to be that way. This seems like an especially bad idea in a time where their "team" is losing pretty much every election and major office. You'd think it would be to their benefit to get their ideas out more easily to the masses...

Say what you will about The Nation, but at least you can read most of their articles without having to give them money...

Prescience?

Ironically, over at the Weekly Standard today Paul Mirengoff takes the idea I noted in my last post about environmentalist being anti-development simply for the sake of being anti-development. Here is the applicable excerpt:

"Environmentalists have expressed concern about the local caribou population. During some years, one caribou herd (there are 20 in Alaska) visits the part of ANWR at issue. In those years, the herd appears only in the summer when no exploration activity will take place. In all likelihood, the herd will flourish, just as caribou have flourished in nearby Prudhoe Bay. There, according to Hickel, the caribou population has increased from 6,000 to more than 27,000 since drilling began in the late 1970s.

But caribou are not the real issue. Rather, as Ben Prendergast of the American Enterprise Institute has written, caribou are a pretext of the kind used by environmental ideologues to oppose almost any attempt to develop a pure landscape for the benefit of mankind. Caribou in a desolate arctic landscape; Indian graves in a desert--any pretext will do. The real point is that humans should not gain an advantage through the exploitation of nature. It was this doctrinaire position that Senate Democrats attempted to uphold when they voted with near unanimity against developing ANWR."

The article itself isn't about ANWR, but instead about pragmatism. It's actually a good (short) read itself.

My response to Nick, ANWR

In response to my link to that ANWR article below, my friend Nick weighed in with the following:

"It's interesting to me that the argument is all about the "ugliness" of the land. I could[n't] care less, but what kinds of things makes the ecosystem important, how does it play a part in the food chain, and what impact is drilling going to have on that?

Against drilling, I've heard arguments about how it might affect the Caribou population, and I'm sure there are other positions as well, but most basically - the question is environmental not aesthetic.

I think these arguments are annoying and dumbed down. So what if ANWR is not pretty. Convince me by proving that drilling won't disrupt the natural ecosystem, and I'll talk."
________________________

I think Nick makes an excellent point. So excellent in fact, that I had the same thought when I began to read through the piece. But I think Nick is being unfair to Goldberg's piece in its entirety by selectively ignoring some of his arguments.

Now, it is perhaps in part my fault since I chose to excerpt parts that I found funny, without regard to if they are necessarily convincing or informative. If you read the entire piece, however, Goldberg does present argumentation beyond an aesthetic critique.

Let me list a couple:

1) Specifically to Nick's comment on caribou, Goldberg notes:

"One such place [where the Caribou flock to] happens to be Prudhoe Bay itself; specifically, the areas around the oil installations and pipelines, where the Central Arctic caribou herd has thrived in the shadow of extensive oil extraction. Since drilling started here, the herd has increased fivefold. The caribou throng to the roads and gravel pads because the breeze is slightly stronger, and hence a bit more free of the bugs. They hide in the shade under the pipeline on the warm days, and plenty of people will tell you they cozy up to it for warmth in the winter. At least for the Central Arctic herd, the oil facilities are less a disruption and more like the equivalent of the man-made reefs we make from old tankers, for sea life, off the Louisiana coast."

Clearly this addresses the issue of Caribou protection. At least according to Goldberg's sources, then, oil facilities created so far have been boon to Caribou herds; far from the 'destructor' that environmentalists have claimed. It is logical to conclude that similar oil facilities would likely have a similar effect.

2)Regarding potential effects on the food chain:

To my mind, the definitive impact that any action can have on the food chain is entirely unknowable. Theoretically you can make arguments that any action could start a chain-reaction that could end an ecosystem. To this end, if one's threshold is the prohibit any action that might negatively impact an ecosystem, then no action could ever be permissible.

That said, I think it is obvious that one can make a best guess as to what effects might result (for example, if you hunt all predators to extinction, it would follow that their prey would probably multiply, which could have detrimental effects on the ecosystem as a whole [though this is not guaranteed])

Now, specifically to ANWR. Goldberg's piece notes the following:

1)Oil technologies allow "zero footprint" to made, thus have no impact on the terrain in question.
2)(As noted above), Oil facilities have increased Caribou size.
3)Predators to the Caribou include bears, mosquitoes, and other insects.

Ergo, it would seem logical to conclude the following:

1)Oil facilities won't be detrimental to the physical ecosystem of ANWR since they leave "zero footprint;" so one need not worry that Mosquito nesting pools will be affected, for example.
2)It would seem to make sense that increased Caribou size would allow for increased populations of predators, which of course is good for the predators in that more of them could live.

Hence: Goldberg's argument allows for MORE Caribou AND predators. Now, it is entirely legitimate to argue such a result is a bad thing because we don't want too many Caribou, Mosquitoes, Bears, what have you. But I don't currently hear many environmentalists complaining about potential overpopulation of ANWR or that we should go blow away some of the Caribou before they affect the ecosystem.

They complain about just the opposite. Assuming that Goldberg is correct in his hypothesis, environmentalists then are arguing against policy that would enable their goal of animal population security to be achieved.

And ultimately, that is precisely what Goldberg's article is so critical of in the entire debate about ANWR. Environmentalists arguments don't hold water in any sort of environmental sense. Ultimately the only argument that they are able to advance is that there is some inherent positive quality to "pristine-ness" and unused spaces. Such an idea, of course, is ridiculous. Especially so when the cost of doing so has severe adverse effects on our society (like having barrels of oil cost $80).

And given that environmentalist utilize the "pristine-ness" argument, Goldberg it seems to me is permitted to note that the "pristine" areas that they are trying to save are nothing more than mosquito hellholes.

Where I think Nick goes wrong is that he blames Goldberg for "dumbing-down" the argument. In reality, the environmentalist already occupy that territory. Goldberg's 'aesthetic' argument is just operating in the argument-construct that they created. And as this post hopefully indicates, the bulk of Goldberg's rationale lies elsewhere, anyway.

The "Beauty" of ANWR

NRO posted a classic Jonah Goldberg column on his visit to the Artic National Wildlife Reserve back in 2001.

Recently the Senate passed a bill that will allow drilling in a tiny portion of it, much to the outrage of environmentalists like Ted Turner.

Goldberg's article gives a great amount of detail on what the area in question is actually like. It's a long piece, but worth reading.

Here's an excerpt:

"Two decades have intervened, and an environmental fatwa has been issued declaring that the word "pristine" is synonymous with "beautiful" or "sacred." Of course, anyone who has seen a mint-condition AMC Gremlin knows that pristineness and aesthetic appeal have only a coincidental relationship. Even ANWR fetishists concede that in the winter, with its complete darkness and 70-below-zero temperatures-not counting wind chill-this is no paradise.

But then, it's no paradise in the summertime either. During the winter, the entire coastal plain is covered by a vast tarp of ice; when the sun comes back, the resulting thaw creates, well, lots of puddles. These patches of freestanding water pock the flat tundra for as far as the eye can see; that's why this barren region is the only place the U.S. government recognizes as both a desert and a wetland. The water in an old tire can breed thousands of mosquitoes; a puddle in a junkyard, millions. ANWR is the Great Kingdom of the Mosquitoes."

Mr. Buckley on Human Cruelty

It's hard to think of writers on the level of William F. Buckley.

I suspect it would be more accurate to say that there simply aren't other writers like WFB.

One imagines that he could write of a dog eating it's own vomit and make it sound poetic.

Mr. Buckley's piece today doesn't disappoint. It addresses human cruelty.

[Added Forgotten Link]

What hyperbole has wrought...

Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece about the ease with which people throw around "Bush = Hitler" comparisons, and how it debases and minimizes the horror that Nazism truly was.

For those of you who don't know, Hanson is one of the most famous military historians in the country, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. His website is here.

Here's an excerpt from today's piece:

"Thus, if former Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore breezily castigates Bush’s Internet supporters as “digital brownshirts”; if current Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean says publicly, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for" — or, “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good"; or if NAACP chairman Julian Bond screams of the Bush administration that “Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side,” the bar of public dissent has so fallen that it is easy to descend a tad closer to the bottom to compare a horrific killer to an American president.

Is there a danger to all this? Plenty. The slander not only brings a president down to the level of an evil murderer, but — as worried Jewish leaders have pointed out — elevates the architect of genocide to the level of an American president. Do the ghosts of six million that were incinerated — or, for that matter, the tens of millions who were killed to promote or stop Hitler’s madness — count for so little that they can be so promiscuously induced when one wishes to object to stopping the filibuster of senatorial nominations or to ignore the objection of Europeans in removing the fascistic Saddam Hussein?"

Peanut Gallery weighs in...

Below is a comment that I received for a post down the page. You might have found it on your own, but I thought I'd highlight it, if only because it's...interesting.
I gather this guy (or girl) is British, though I kinda wonder why they would refer to Tony Blair as "President Blair." Britain doesn't have a Presidential system, hence Tony Blair is the Prime Minister. Maybe it's a reference I'm missing...
Ignoring the nihilism they seem to believe in, I do wonder what the hell the last sentence means: "And remember its not my words that may cause you to be angry or upset, its your emotional reaction to those words." Uh? Ok. So the "anger" that I apparentely feel is caused by my emotion (which apparently is anger). So in short, my anger is caused by my anger. Indeed.

At the least, I do appreciate the comments. It's nice to get feedback, good or bad.

Here's the comment:


Either this site is new or no-one cares. No comments and one track back.
I will make this the first comment on your insomnia-reducing site.
At the end of the day its all history, good or bad, better or worse and in a few years the new Saudi Arabia will be the US of A. Fundamentalist, dictatorial and with both an attitude and money but no altruism.
History will tell whether your site will make any difference.
I wont hold my breath.
I appreciate the work you have put into this Blog but only because I know how long it takes to type all this stuff up and format it for viewing and add all the links and other cosmetics, not for the contents.
Maybe its correct to think that the people have the leader they deserve.
I know we do (President Blair).
And remember its not my words that may cause you to be angry or upset, its your emotional reaction to those words.
Have a nice day.

The Amazing Story of Ashley Smith

Peggy Noonan's latest column really isn't her writing. Instead she opened up her page to the words of Ashley Smith, the woman who was hostage to the killer Brian Nichols near Atlanta earlier this week.

The story of how she convinced Nichols to give up by reading from the Bible and talking with him is amazing. It tells of the power of love that is the central message of Jesus, I think. It's a great lesson in Love and Compassion, even (to my great surprise) to convicts and criminals.

You can read it here.

The Good Rev. Byrd?

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Some leading Senate Democrats (Kennedy, Byrd, Durbin, Boxer, Clinton, and others) held a rally with MoveOn.Org (you may remember them as the 527 group that created ads morphing images of President Bush into Nazi Rallies, etc...moderate stuff, don't you know).

Anyway, the rally was about judicial appointments and a protest of Republicans changing Senate rules to overcome the Democrats filibuster of every appointee to any high court that Bush proposes. Apparently the elderly Sen. Byrd (a former Grand Dragon Klansman from West Virginia I might add) was so riled up that he thought he was at something akin to a Southern Baptist church service.

During his compatriots' speeches he kept screaming out encouragement and agreement (ala 'Praise Jesus!') from the front row near the microphone, throwing off the ability of his fellow senators to speak in coherent thoughts...

I kinda wish I was there, if only for the laughs....

The article is here.

Are we leaving our real allies in the lurch?

Here's an interesting piece from Michael Ledeen of NRO.

First, many of you might not be aware, but if you ever read anything from Reuters (the news company similar to AP) you can safely assume it's false (and likely from an anti-American perspective). This isn't my conservative bias causing an overreaction. The evidence against Reuters is stark and plentiful. It's not by coicidence, afterall, that many people have began calling it Al-Reuters. It really is about as reliable as Al-Jazeera...

Ledeen offers an example in his piece.

The main thrust of the column however is a criticism of President Bush for his handling of the Iran/Syria/Lebanon situation. Ledeen argues that Bush's desire to take a slower approach (thereby appeasing the Europeans) is in the end a poor strategy that will leave Democratic protesters throughout the Middle East demoralized and impatient.

That a large Iranian protest against the ruling Islamic Regime recently began a chant of "Bush, you told us to rise up, and so we have. Why don’t you act?" lends evidence that Ledeen may be right.

For me, I'm sympathetic to Ledeen's point of view and I'm less concerned about securing international support for U.S. actions. But given Bush's successes these past couple of years, I'll allow that he might know what he's doing. My patience will only last for so long though...

Anyway, I encourage you to read it and judge for yourself. At the least, it's interesting to see an attack on Bush from his right.

The Inescapable grip of Politics...even on holidays...

Well, today is a day of celebration, but there is still politics to think about.

In that spirit, here is a good article by Jonah Goldberg of National Review analyzing a number of things about Liberalism's new claim to be the "Reality-Based Community," as well as a dissection of the supposed new leader in Liberal Thought, George Lakoff.

Enjoy.

Erinagh Annainn!

HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY!

Slaynt Vie!

March 2005 Belongs to the Irish...

In case you weren't aware, President Bush issued a Presidential Declaration to decree March 2005 to be "Irish-American Heritage Month."

Here is the text of the declaration:

Irish-American Heritage Month, 2005

A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

The story of the Irish in America is an important part of the history of our country. This month, we pay tribute to Americans of Irish descent who have shaped our Nation and influenced American life.

Long before the great wave of Irish immigration in the 1840s, people of Irish ancestry were defining and defending our Nation. Charles Thomson, an Irishman by birth, served as Secretary of the Continental Congress and helped design the Great Seal of the United States. Irish-born Commodore John Barry fought for our country's independence and later helped found the United States Navy.

Irish Americans have been leaders in our public life, and they have retained a proud reverence for their heritage. In June 1963, President John F. Kennedy spoke to the Parliament in Dublin and told the story of the Irish Brigade, a regiment that fought valiantly for the Union and suffered terrible losses during the Civil War. Two decades after President Kennedy's visit, President Ronald Reagan returned to his great grandfather's hometown in County Tipperary, Ireland, and greeted the crowd in their own Irish language.

The industry, talent, and imagination of Irish Americans have enriched our commerce and our culture. Their strong record of public service has fortified our democracy. Their strong ties to family, faith, and community have strengthened our Nation's character. The Irish are a significant reason why Americans will always be proud to call ourselves a Nation of immigrants.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 2005 as Irish American Heritage Month. I call upon all Americans to observe this month by celebrating the contributions of Irish Americans to our Nation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty ninth.

GEORGE W. BUSH

God's Chosen People: The Irish

Here's a Boston Irish-American on St. Patrick's Day.


Excerpt:

"Being Irish means you drink to forget. But you forgot what you were drinking to forget. Being Irish means you don't know the words but that doesn't stop you from singing. Being Irish means there wasn't a huge difference between your last wake and your last party."

In the shadow of Brilliance...

I once took a challenge to come up with a list of 10 Americans that I considered to be true intellectuals. Not merely smart people, but people whose brilliance was of the sort that changes the world.

It was a fun (and difficult) excercise. Perhaps I'll eventually post my list, along with a notable columnist's list that first made me consider the exercise.

Anyway, I mention this because on my list I included Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Recently he gave a captivating speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington D.C. about the the concept of the "Living Constitution" and how it is destroying our founding document.

Here you will find a transcription of the speech.

I realize that some parts may seem esoteric. But the speech offers a glimpse into the mind of one of the greatest Constitutional Scholars our country has produced. I implore you to take the time to read it (if it helps, he is also a funny guy).

Here are some excerpts:


"...The very next case we announced is a case called BMW verses Bush. Not the Bush you think; this is another Bush. Mr. Bush had bought a BMW, which is a car supposedly, advertised at least as having a superb finish, baked seven times in ovens deep in the Alps, by dwarfs..."

and on a serious note:

"[With the notion of the 'Living Constitution,'] we have arrived[] at the point of selecting people to write a constitution, rather than people to give us the fair meaning of one that has been democratically adopted. And when that happens, when the Senate interrogates nominees to the Supreme Court, or to the lower courts, you know, “Judge so and so, do you think there is a right to this in the Constitution? You don’t?! Well my constituents’ think there ought to be, and I’m not going to appoint to the court someone who is not going to find that.” When we are in that mode, you realize, we have rendered the Constitution useless, because the Constitution will mean what the majority wants it to mean. The senators are representing the majority. And they will be selecting justices who will devise a constitution that the majority wants.

And that of course, deprives the Constitution of its principle utility. The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take that are favored by the majority is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for two-hundred years."

Read his full speech. Please. The issue of Supreme Court jurisprudence is one of the few battles in Washington that actually affects the future our our way of life. By comparison, Social Security is a Tonka truck in a sandbox.

"Soviet Canuckistan"

Or "Our Canadian Problem." Or "The Great White Waste of Time."

All are ways that Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard describes Canada during his ruminations on U.S./Canadian relations.

It's funny and worth reading.

Take off, eh?

Hitch and WMD

Of all the articles I'll post this week, this is perhaps the one I most want you to read (well, after the Hasselhoff=anti-Christ one).

But seriously, this piece by Christopher Hitchens is typical of his writing: clear, poignant, and convincing.

The article tears to shreds the notion that WMDs were not in Iraq, among other things.

[Update: I thought actually adding a link to the article migh be conducive to you actually reading the article, so I added it. Not sure how/why it didn't show up before. Sorry for the oversight]

The Fruits of our Labor...

Does anyone doubt that these incredible scenes are the result of President Bush's decision to change the way we act in the Middle East, when we invaded Iraq?

A nice excerpt:

"In Beirut yesterday, it was clear that message has been heard. Unlike the Hezbollah demonstrators with their chants of "Death to America," many in the crowd were friendly to Americans. "Thank's Free World," (sic) said one poster, held high by a woman in a bright red jacket, Rawya Okal, who told me: "We thank Mr. Bush for his position." Overhearing this in the throng, a middle-aged man in a green baseball cap, Louis Nahanna, leaned over to say, "We love the American people" - adding, "Please don't let Bush forget us. Your support is very important."

Asking more people what they thought of Americans turned up the same refrain. From a young driver, Fadi Mrad, came the message: "We want to change. We need freedom. Please don't let Bush forget us." From a group of young men came not only the message "Our hope is America," and "We believe in democracy in the Middle East," but also praise for Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. There was also an invitation from one of them, young Edgard Baradhy, for his heroine, Ms. Rice, to come to Beirut "and I am ready to take her for coffee."

The full article is here.

The Beast among Us...

I await Vatican confirmation of this, however it looks as though David Hasselhoff might be the anti-Christ.

[Nod to Jonah at NRO]

Ireland and Terrorism

As he is apt to do, Mark Steyn has written a great column.

This one is about Irish terrorism from the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and on President Bush's welcome decision to bar Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams (who represents the political wing of the IRA) from St. Patrick's Day ceremonies at the White House.

Among other thing, it notes the visciousness of IRA violence against dissident Catholics, and notes how the IRA's ultimate goal is the takeover of southern Ireland.

Also noted is America's shameful support of the IRA for the last 30 years. Until W. Bush, that is.

Well worth the read.

Is War with PRC Coming?

Here's a thoughtful and disturbing analysis that claims that China is finalizing its plans to invade Taiwan.

The implications of such a move are (in a detached sense) fascinating, but truly frightening. One gets the feeling that China is becoming less and less scared of fighting a war with the U.S..

Militarily, such a move would be a disaster for the Chinese, but China does possess nuclear weapons that can reach the western American mainland (That I live in a major West coast city makes the issue especially frightening to me).

One thing seems clear to me: We've kowtowed Communist China far too long. Had we armed Taiwan when China wasn't in a position to do anything about it but complain, we wouldn't find ourselves approaching the brink of war.

Condi in 2008?

Is this old news? Yes. But I haven't blogged for a couple days, so I'm catching up.

Here's an interview with Condoleeza Rice in the Washington Times talking about her political views and a potential run for the White House in 2008.

For me, I like her and a Hillary vs. Condi election would be interesting. But I don't know about having the Presidency be the first office you run for. Eisenhower and Grant did it, sure, but they also just led massive armies to victory in tremendously important (and uncertain) wars.

Personally, I'd rather have Condi run for governor of California....or as a VP candidate.

We really are one people, afterall...

[UPDATE: So apparently my eyes so glazed over that I totally missed the entire point of the Op-Ed. It pretty much advocates the exact opposite of what I thought it was saying.
The argument is that race IS real, and not a social construct.

I'll leave up my old text up to verify that in fact I AM an idiot.]
- E

___________


[I picture "It's a Small World Afterall" accompanying that title]


There are times where I have to literally force myself to read something because I think that having the knowledge is worth the punishment of having to do the research.

This op-ed in the NY Times is kinda like that. My eyes started to glaze over towards the end.

BUT, this short piece is actually very interesting. It talks about how "race" is a social construct and not a genetic trait.

In the event that you are too lazy to read it (What? Was it my initial glowing account?), here's a worthy excerpt:

"The dominance of the social construct theory can be traced to a 1972 article by Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, who wrote that most human genetic variation can be found within any given "race." If one looked at genes rather than faces, he claimed, the difference between an African and a European would be scarcely greater than the difference between any two Europeans. A few years later he wrote that the continued popularity of race as an idea was an "indication of the power of socioeconomically based ideology over the supposed objectivity of knowledge."

Don't say I never did anything for you...

In favor of ANWR drilling...

For what it's worth, here is Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton in the NY Times on the proposed drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

It's largely a fluff piece, but it does get to the heart of some of the arguments. Also, I had no idea that modern techonology lets all the drilling work be done on top of the winter ice [[they build roads out of ice. How cool is that?], so that all work is over by summer, thus protecting the plantlife, etc..

Especially interesting was this factoid:

"If approved by Congress, the overall "footprint" of the equipment and facilities needed to develop the 1002 area would be restricted to 2,000 acres, an area about the size of a regional airport in a refuge the size of South Carolina."

Given that ANWR is "potentially the largest untapped source of oil and gas on American soil," and how dependent we are on foreign oil, it might not be a bad idea to drill there.

I don't say that lightly either, as I'm generally averse to developing protected lands.

[As per usual, NY Times requires a free login.]

Objective Reporting by Italian Communists...

I normally don't like to post large sections of text taken from other blogs, but this one is worth it I think.

You no doubt heard about the Italian Communist journalist, Guiliana Sgrena, who was kidnapped in Iraq recently. The Italian government paid a ransom for her, and after she was released Americans military personel accidently shot at her, killing an Italian Secret Service agent.

Sgrena is proclaiming that the Americans tried to kill her for various reasons.

Keeping that in mind, check out this translation of a Dutch news article posted in the Corner. It tells about a journalist who happened to sit next to Sgrena on the flight over to Baghdad:

"...Harald Doornbos, was working in Iraq as an embedded journalist for a small Dutch newspaper. He happened to be sitting next to Giuliana Sgrena on the plane to Baghdad. He describes a conversation he had with her and two other female Italian journalists heading for Iraq. Here’s a translation of the main sections:

“It might not be a nice thing to say about a fellow-journalist, but Sgrena’s attitude is a complete disgrace to journalism. Didn’t she observe while sitting next to me on the plane that “normal journalists like you” aren’t supporting the Iraqi people? “The Americans are the greatest enemies of mankind,” the three women told me, because Sgrena was travelling to Irak with two Italian colleagues who shared her enormous dislike of the Yankees.

“One I’d told them I wasn’t just heading for Baghdad, but was heading into Iraq as an embedded journalist (with the American army), I was treated like a Big Traitor. “I just don’t fancy getting kidnapped,” I told them. “That’s the only reason I’ll be travelling with the Americans.” They ridiculed me. “You obviously don’t understand the situation. We are anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, communists,” they said. The Iraqis only kidnap the servants of the Americans; the enemies of America have nothing to fear.

“I then told them they were out of their minds. I said there’s just no denying the fact that Al-Qaeda-like groups are operating in Iraq, targeting western journalists. And Al-Qaeda, that’s the Arab exponent of fascism: anti-American, anti-Jewish and – especially – anti-communist. But they insisted they knew better. Once we arrived at Baghdad airport, I waited for an American army jeep to collect me. I saw one of the Italian women of Sgrena’s group walking around crying, because an Iraqi had stolen her computer and television equipment. They were standing outside shaking, waiting for a taxi to take them to Baghdad.

“With her preconceived ideas Sgrena didn’t just risk her own life. Her behaviour has now gotten a man killed, while the Italian government (Prime Minister Berlusconi) had to spend millions of euros to rescue her life."

Obviously, the experience of being kidnapped didn't change any of Sgrena's preconceived notions...

[Hat Tip: K-Lo in the Corner]

AOL: We own you.

Just in case you didn't get the memo, AOL sucks.

George Will: Guidance on not throwing up.

Here's a great article by George Will (fellow Cub fan, I should add.) in the Washington Post.

It addresses the Social Security debate and notes the stupidity of both extremes in the argument. Well worth the read (especially all you '20-somethings' who haven't been paying attention).

Hopefully the younger generations will overpower the old geezers, and we won't be screwed at their expense (well, technically at our expense, but you know what I mean)

[FYI: It requires a free login. But you should all already have that, because the Post columns section is a wealth of information. And there will be a test...]

This is the year of the Cubs. Just please stay healthy...

Call me crazy, but I'm not particularly calmed by the Cubs assertion that everything is dandy with Mark Prior's arm, pending rest.

This is not the way you want to start off the season. Well, hopefully the elbow fairy will bring Mark a new one...I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Sorry Sorry Sorry...

Sorry to everyone for being very behind in my postings duties. I've been pretty busy with various things the last couple of days and have fallen behind in my readings and whatnot. I promise to have something up here by later tomorrow (Monday).

In the meantime, check out this and this for a little musical diversion...

Iranians 'Sit In' on an Airplane

Normally Iranians taking control of of an airliner is a frightening thought, but not in this case.

Looks like 50 Iranians are refusing to to de-board a plane in Brussels, as a protest against the EU's continuing political/economic support of the theocratic regime in Tehran.

For simplicity's sake, here's a synopsis from NRO's The Corner:

"Today 50 Iranians, inspired by the comments of Iranian scholar and righteous activist, Frood Fouladvand (who runs a TV station out of his home in London) gathered in London, boarding a plane to Brussels. In Brussels they refused to get off the plane that is still sitting on the tarmak of the Brussels airport and they are conducting a very quiet and peaceful protest against the heads of the E.U. who refuse to stop doing business with the bloodthirsty regime of the Islamic Republic and the Mullahs in Iran. The protestors have been verbally abused by the Belgian authorities, being accused of hijacking and though the protestors are doing nothing but singing Iranian national anthems of a free Iran and asking to speak to the UK, French and German representatives to the E.U. they are being nonetheless abused by Belgian authorities who are refusing to allow the media on plane.

They are chanting: "We are the messengers of peace. We are against global terrorism. We will remove the malignant terrorist regime of the Mullahs..."

The world media should respect these forms of peaceful and righteous protests and should expose the refusal of governments like those European nations who have actively ignored the pleas and cries of the desperate people of Iran in favor of cheap trade with a terrorist-financing government."

Let's see how much coverage this gets in the mainstream media...

(Looks like ABC Online did pick up a wire report here)

[Nod to Drudge and Jonah at the Corner]
[Update: Spelling, spelling, spelling. It'll be the end of me...]

The Next Sean Hannity...

I suspect this kid would probably annoy me to talk politics with, and I'd end up arguing to his left (He sounds like a straight-up Republican, which I am most definetly not.)

Anyway, it's interesting nonetheless. I had to force myself to read the whole article. At the least, the first page is worth reading in its entirety. The latter 2 are semi-interesting and make the kid (at least to me) more likeable.

He doesn't seem overly thoughtful to me (He reminds me of Sean Hannity: A Republican who's loud, and not terribly adept at really grasping complex issues beyond the obvious).

One thing I will say, though, is the kid has a bright future with all his connections.

_________


One other thing about the article: It's written by a liberal (as the author notes), so you get a number of Liberal myths presented. They're not important to the story, exactly, but they did kind of annoy me. For example, the section that talks about how Republicans are super-organized at message-shaping, while the Democrats are woefully inept is a bunch of bull.

One need look no further than the current efforts to scuttle President Bush's Social Security reforms to see that. Does the author think it's by sheer coincidence, for example, that every Democrat is referring to Bush's plan as "risky scheme." More to the point, the Clinton's DNC mastered organization long ago.

Still, the myth persists, likely because it's easier to believe that you keep losing elections because of poor organization, and not because no one believes in your policies.

Coffee, Romulans, and the SitRoom

I wasn't aware until recently that Starbucks features quotes from notable people on some of their cups. Soon they will release a cup featuring a quote by National Review's Jonah Goldberg.

In addition to creating the quote, Starbucks also did an interview with Jonah, which you can find here. It's on the short side, but offers some insightful (and funny) observations.

An excerpt:

"...[P]eople usually say they’d defend my right to speak as way to avoid having an argument. It’s a cop-out. In other words, it’s non-responsive and irrelevant but it sounds bold and principled. You could just as easily say, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight side by side with you when the Romulans attack.”

It's worth reading.

[Note: If you get an error saying that you have to enable "cookies," hit refresh a couple times and it should load. Otherwise follow the directions offered on how to enable cookies.]

On Fixing Hockey...

Here's an interesting argument on what the NHL can to do from a rules standpoint to make hockey popular again.

I know most Americans probably didn't care that the season was cancelled, but I like NHL hockey. Hopefully they'll get their act together.

We'll see...

Michael Kinsley on Spin

Here's an interesting piece from last Sunday that i just got around to noticing.

It's by Michael Kinsley and addresses the notion of "spin." I don't agree with some of his quips, but it's really an interesting look at misinformation wars and public perception.

An excerpt:

"Spin is not just a technique. It is not just a political phenomenon. It permeates our culture and our daily life. And it's an industry -- almost a sector of the economy. That one day's stories quoted lobbyists, public relations specialists and professional "damage control" experts. If computers and communications go by the acronym "IT," for information technology, the perceptual industry might be "MT," for misinformation technology."

It's worth the read.

A World Court?

I don't have time to comment too much right now, but here is a great column by Jonah Goldberg over at NRO, talking about the trend of Supreme Court justices to cite international legal rulings in their decisions...

Definitely read it.

Party of Hyperbole

There are some really stupid bumper stickers out there. Especially since I'm living in Portland, I get to see a lot of them.

My favorite Portlanders are the ones who have 10 different bumper stickers illustrating their insights into the evilness of our President (although apparently "he's not MY president"...er, theirs, I mean). These people tend to have their entire back window largely covered, preventing them, for example, from seeing that they are swerving their Volvo SUV into my lane just in time to cut me off. I tend to wonder, though, if their driving style is a result of their lack of vision or from their inflated aura of self-importance and wisdom...

Or maybe they somehow know that I'm conservative and therefore am not worthy of blocking their path to the next protest...(Some people go bar-hopping. Portlanders go Protest-Hopping).

Anyway, a bit ago I saw another copy of a pretty popular bumpersticker here in Portland that says:

"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."

The concept illustrates, at least in my mind, a major problem with the American Left today. And it's something that has plagued them since their creation in the 1960's.

It seems to me that the Left today markets itself as the party taking a stand against the "Outrages" in our world. In the American Liberal framework, the world is faced with imminent doom from (in no particular order): nuclear holocaust, global warming, ozone destruction, rainforest depletion, melting icecaps, flatulating bovines, overfishing, nuclear energy, and overpopulation, just to name a few (though at least the first 8 would solve the last one, right?)

This is not to mention that before we all die from said calamities, we will become corporate media zombies, blithely grinning under our Glass Ceiling while we're lied to by the Inquisitional, racist, puritanical Nazi government, and exploited by Halliburton (the most omnipresent, horizontally monopolizing corporation in world history). This is all of course, as we put our starving, healthcare-less grandparents and their corner store out of business with purchases of plastic Wal-Mart blenders made with the last, struggling breath of a 5 year old Malaysian sweat-shop worker who was imprisoned thanks to Karl Rove's secret deal with an HMO.

[If you don't think this is an accurate portrayal, go here, here, and here]

What's the problem with this platform/worldview, you say? Yes, it does seem rather moderate, doesn't it. If by moderate you mean delusional.

Party of Hyperbole

It seems to me that American Liberals, who have come to dominate a once great Democratic Party, are the Party of Hyperbole.

The reason I think they continually lose elections is because the majority of people simply aren't outraged like Liberals. And it has nothing to do with them not paying attention.

I think most people, by and large, are pretty content with the world they live in. People assume that others are mostly like them: hard working, caring, imperfect individuals, trying to overcome occasional faults -- not the "spawns of Satan trying to poison the world and kill every last person in the name of an extra dollar or two" that Leftist would lead one to believe.

The Left can't gain any traction because, frankly, its exhausting to listen to someone who takes everything to fantastical heights. Is it any wonder that when faced between Chicken Little and a more optimistic figure like President Bush, the American people choose a Bush or a Reagan or a Kennedy, often in overwhelming numbers?

Now I don't mean to say that people don't think that we could or should do some things better in our world. Part of Americanism, it seems to me, is to admit our faults and strive to makes things better.

But most people don't see a burned out lightbulb and assume some perverse corporate plot by GE. Liberals do. As a people, we may recognize an area for improvement, but we don't assume malfeasance. Once again, it seems Liberals do.

That we --the general public -- don't is why we aren't continually outraged; it isn't rational to be "outraged" by every failing done in good faith that occurs in the world.

Even as a conservative who is leery of big government, I don't believe that government programs are an evil trying to crush us. I believe they are created in good faith to try and help. I just think that Government action tends to resemble a surgeon conducting heart surgery with a mallet.

At any rate, as long as Liberals travel down the Michael Moore/Noam Chomsky Highway, I don't think it's likely that they'll win any elections any time soon (or ever) if they present themselves honostly.

Policy-wise, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Can you name anything that American Liberalism has done? Civil Rights? Nope. That was accomplished by a coalition of northern, mainstream (by today's standards) Democrats and Republicans. Environmentalism? Nope. Nixon, for example, created the EPA, and Bush has enacted some of the strictest air quality standards of any president. So can Liberals claim? Anything? Nothing comes to my mind [Feel free to email if you think of something, and if true I'll gladly post it. And just to preempt, keep in mind that early Liberals like Hubert Humphrey and those like him have very little in common with the modern Liberal movement.]

All that said, the Left's situation is not exactly a good thing, either. The tragedy is that Liberals are dragging the Democratic Party down with them. And America is at its best when it has two strong, competing parties.

It seems all we can hope for is that Liberalism will falter and die before it drags the Democratic Party so low that it can't recover. Until that happens, we'll get more comments from Robert Byrd explaining on the floor of the Senate how Republicans are Nazis, more platitudes about "Halliburton!" at DNC luncheons, more moans of Howard Dean on how he "hates Republicans and everything they stand for," and more 'documentaries' on how Republicans cheer and enable mass murder.

A smart businessman, I do believe, would get into the bumper-sticker making business...

Islamic Apologists...

I just caught the end of the O'Reilly factor. I'm not a huge fan of the show anymore. O'Reilly has become a 'bit' narcissistic for my liking; even as he continually talks about the "folks" (which has to be one of the most annoying terms on tv...and he says it approximately 400 times a show)...

Anyway, I'm not intending to post about all the reasons O'Reilly gets on my nerves. But his show brought something to mind.

On a later segment of the show, he had two 20-something women from an Islamic school here in the States. They were, by all indications, very devout Muslim women.

Towards the end of the interview O'Reilly asked the women if they agreed that the U.S. should destroy al-Qaeda.

It seems to me that an unequivocal answer shouldn't have been hard to muster. Apparently it was. The first women started her sentence by saying: "Let me say that I am coming from the Islamic cultural and educational experience...." She then continued on essentially saying nothing other than she does not like targeting buildings, but would not agree that the U.S. should destroy Al-Qaeda.

The second girl started off seeming to agree with O'Reilly's assertion, but it quickly became obvious that she wouldn't condemn the terrorist organization. She noted repeatedly, however, that al-Qaeda does not practice according to Islamic dogma, and therefore should not be seen as Islamic. Her fellow student nodded enthusiastic agreement.

The whole dialogue brought some thoughts to mind. It seems to me (at least based on casual observation) that like the aforementioned women, many Muslim commentators, scholars, and academics can't bring themselves to condemn al-Qaeda.

I am at a loss for why this is. Partly, it seems that these individuals are leery to speak against other Muslims. I frankly don't understand the sentiment -- surely there are limits to collective identity when one is faced with allying with mass murders -- but it certainly appears part of the equation.

Strangely, they are quick to point out al-Qaeda doesn't adhere to true Islamic teaching. Now, I think that’s an accurate assertion. But in making it, they provide the exact reason for why they logically shouldn't feel any hesitation to criticize al-Qaeda and call for its destruction. If you have a value which says that you won't criticize fellow Muslims in public. And your second value is that al-Qaeda isn't Muslim, a refusal to criticize al-Qaeda doesn't logically follow assuming your value system.

In fact, Muslims should be the most vociferous opponents of al-Qaeda precisely because Bin Laden and his cronies pervert their religion to ends that are antithetical to its teachings.

I am an open, loud critic of the Irish Republican Army because it claims my beliefs as a Roman Catholic of Irish descent as justification for evil ends. Why don't Muslims have a similar reaction towards al-Qaeda?

This is especially troubling due to the nature of the conflict America finds herself in.

In the current world situation, there are only two possible positions:

1) You are for the United States

OR

2) You are for Al-Qaeda.

There is no nuance in our scenario precisely because al-Qaeda is philosophically antithetical to the United States' advocacy of Liberalism. Academics might like to be cute and say that such a dichotomy can't exist in the real world (Absolutism is akin to cretinism in higher education), but any reading of Sayyid Qutb -- the philosophical creator of the Islamism in which al-Qaeda is based-- clearly indicates that Islamist fundamentalism is completely at odds with the basis of Liberal Democracy in the United States. They are mutually exclusive systems.

Quite simply, al-Qaeda cannot permit the United States to exist.

That many Muslim scholars (who must be familiar with Sayyid Qutb) still refuse to speak ill of al-Qaeda in light of this is deeply troubling.

Ultimately, as the previous dichotomy indicates, if they are not for the United States then only one conclusion can be drawn. While it’s their prerogative to choose a side, it's our prerogative act off their decision. If, like those women on the O’Reilly factor tonight, Muslim scholars are unwilling to oppose al-Qaeda, then we must treat them as they are: propagandists for enemies in our war against Islamic fundamentalism.

Are we on the verge of a new attack?

Here's is a disturbing and convincing argument about how Al-Qaeda may very well be ready to attack the United States on a level that would dwarf 9/11.

Essentially, the argument boils down to this:

After 9/11 Bin Laden faced criticism from Islamic Scholars because his attack hadn't coincided with certain rules of Islam. Namely:

(1) insufficient warning;
(2) failure to offer Americans a chance to convert to Islam; and
(3) inadequate religious authorization to kill so many people.

Bin Laden apparently accepted the criticism and set out to remedy the shortcomings in a series of speeches.

This work outlines how he has changed his rhetoric to meet the criteria. As well, it discusses how a radical cleric recently wrote a fatwa entitled "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels," thus giving Bin Laden the necessary religious authorization for an attack.

Most disturbingly, the article talks about DCI Porter Goss' recent testimony to Congress that indicated that Al-Qaeda might have acquired Soviet Nuclear technology.

It's a really frightening account. Read it.

Remembering Michael Kelly

[As should be obvious, I'm catching up on my Corner reading. While doing so, I noticed that K-Lo quoted Michael Kelly.]

I am reminded that I've been meaning to post on Mr. Kelly for some time now. I believe that he is and will remain my favorite columnist for all time.

I'm not quite sure what it is in his writings that I love so much. What I do know is that his cogency was refreshing and his humanity evident in his work. In a similar manner as Christopher Hitchens (whom I also adore), he captured complex ideas and presented them in a way that was accessible. Yet unlike Hitchens, Kelly did so with mostly frank and regular language. Like great writers do, of course, he made it sound elegant.

I think we all have our own moments when we realize that some situations in life aren't merely theoretical exercises for our sense of wonder; by that I mean points when something finally "hits home."

And while I feel guilty saying so, the war in Iraq "hit home" for me, not when I heard of soldiers being killed (even though I had friends fighting over there), but when I heard the news that Michael Kelly was killed while covering the story.

I was moved and profoundly sad. I felt and still feel that as a country we were better off with Mr. Kelly's sobering observations and guidance. At a minimum, I surely miss the pleasure of reading his columns.

I often wonder why no one (at least until K-Lo's citation today) has talked of Michael Kelly and remembered all of the predictions and guidance that he offered. More and more, it seems that -- as tended to be the case when he was with us in life -- history is proving him to be prescient about so many things.

After Mr. Kelly's death, the Washington Post printed a sort of "Best-Of" section of his works. The one that has stuck with me is not a work on politics, but his work "Not a White-Lights Person." In it, Kelly uses his thoughts on Christmas lights as an avenue to speak in the end of his love for his family and the many blessings of his life. He is thoughtful, sincere, and touching. It is a perfect piece by a wonderful writer.

It makes us remember what we lost.

Response to The Corner

Over at NRO's Corner Ramesh and Jonah addressed my take on Thomas Geoghegan's attack on Private Accounts. In differing degrees, they feel I was too hard on Geoghegan.

To the extent that I could construct a valid argument in the direction that Geoghegan was ostensibly attempting to go (that being that it is at least theoretically possible that privitization in a given realm is not desirable when doing so would create too much of a burden on the average citizen), I can understand their sentiment. But I don't retract any of my argumentation.

Jonah touched on the sentiment that spurred me to write in the first place. As he says:

"How are conservatives going to possibly make any headway about the need for smaller government and more individual responsibility if we're prepared to stipulate that it's a respectable position to be too slothful to keep your own money and hand-it-down to your children..."

I fully agree. As a Conservative, I am fundamentally against the "nanny-state" that Geoghegan and his ilk necessarily advocate in pieces like yesterday's.

Now, were it merely a philosophical disagreement, I would not have gotten as riled up by Geoghegan's article (For example, when John Derbyshire of NR/NRO offered a similar argument, I wasn't compelled to respond even though I absolutely disagreed). But the sarcasm, personal vitriol, and utter lack of compassion to working class Americans that Geoghegan exhibited seemed to me worth responding to forcefully.

Do I lightly throw around words like "a**shole" and human slug? No. But sometimes we must call things what they truly are. Or at least what they choose to present themselves to be.

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

[While I create other posts, feel free to take another look at this. I'm still looking to answers...]

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.

The Rare Morality (Redux)

"[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. 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.

Template Update, and new posts coming...

Well, having given it some consideration, I went ahead and altered my comments template. Hopefully everyone (this means you Stan) will cease having seizures from looking at it.

On a serious note, though, thanks for the input. Using heavy adjectives won't always sway me, but in this case your complaints were appeciated. And for those of you who wondered, the comments sheet always annoyed me too. I just was too busy reading Kafka to alter it. I was waiting a federal program to take care of it for me.

IN CASE YOU WONDERED, I've been busy this morning, hence the lack of new posts. Should be posting a little later on though.

Cheers.

Whoa. Talk about a traffic surge

But Welcome to all Corner readers!

[many many thanks to Jonah for the link]

Thomas Geoghegan: Human Slug?

I just read Thomas Geoghegan's piece in Slate about why he's against Bush's social security plan to allow personal accounts. It doesn't happen often, but I think I'm at a loss for words. I guess 'disgusted' might be the closest word to it. Let me see if I can sum up my thinking.

There are two fundamental premises Geoghegan argues from:

1)He doesn't like personal accounts because he doesn't want to take the effort to make sure he will have money to retire on.

and

2)He doesn't know if there's a problem with the system, but he'd rather not think about it.

Am I over-simplifying? I'll let you decide.

Geoghegan writes:

"Under the Bush plan, we'd be partly responsible. We'd have to hatch our own nest eggs. It's one more job the Republicans would give to us. This is my gripe against the Bush plan: I've already got enough to do...In real life, we ignore our Social Security. That's the glory of it. We have the freedom not to think about it. With all the time I have not to think about my "private" account, I can turn on the Cubs game. Or open up Kafka.

I can even pray, if I want."

He adds,

"Privatization is one more damn thing to distract and upset me. I read a bit less...I volunteer a bit less...In one way or another, I spend less time being responsible for other people because I'm more responsible for me. I don't like it."

So let me get this right, Mr. Geoghegan. You don't want to be bothered with the ability to manage your own personal savings because you'd rather go read Frank Kafka and maybe sit on your couch and watch a baseball game? (Of course, the sarcasm drips off his statement about 'praying' which is why he goes out of his way to set it as its own paragraph. I think we can safely assume that he doesn't have time to meditate about his own existence, which in his case actually might be a good thing. I wouldn't want him getting 'upset.')

Can you imagine what our country and economy would be like if such laziness was encouraged? I wonder if Geoghegan has children. If so, does he have the same attitude about saving for their education? "Well, you know Billy. I know you'd like to go to college, but frankly, I just got sucked into Hillary's memoirs, and then there was all those Cubs games -- 162 of 'em every year actually. I'm afraid I just couldn't find the time to save any money for you. But hey, just don't think about it, k? Hey! The Cubs are on!"

I really am curious as to how Geoghegan, who apparently is a lawyer, ever made it through law school. How can one find the time to study when Metamorphisis is just dying to be read.

I am appalled that Geoghegan is even given a chance to promote his pathetic viewpoint in such a mainstream and major opinion-outfit like Slate.

Most disgustingly, during his primary argument, he states:

"Oh, sure, at these presidential drop-in discussions in Fargo, N.D., a cop or cook will say, "I worry Social Security won't be there for me." But come on, they don't really worry. If they did, they'd open a damned savings account."

What a smug a**hole. Hey Tom. I realize that while you are raking in the dough and writing books about how great of a lawyer you are (in between Cubs games, of course), you may not interact with "the little man," but not everyone is as rich as you are. That cop who you're calling a liar doesn't make six figures like you. He isn't giggling with glee over turn-of-the-century writers, because he has to worry about putting his kids through college. He worries about social security because he knows he can't save enough to guarentee his retirement security.

Geoghegan says he's "exhausted." He begs for no more privitization unless he can "do it while he drives." I guess driving from book signing to book signing in your mercedes probably is pretty tiring, huh Tom?

Geoghegan closes talking about the future of the current Social Security system. He writes,

"But what if the existing system is doomed? Of course, being a liberal, I don't believe it. Raise the amount of payroll tax that Bill DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds have to pay, and the crisis goes away. At any rate, at this point no one knows the extent to which we may or may not be in trouble in the future. That's also the glory of Social Security: not to know."

So it's glorious to potentially be on the brink of a total system failure that would leave millions of elderly Americans without any financial support? Well, one things for certain in the realm of not knowing, Tom. You haven't got a clue.

Geoghegan decries the Right for claiming that people like him are lazy "slugs." His article proves that that is exactly what he is.

[Note: Fixed Formatting]