BITE SIZE
Re: George Neumayr’s Mosquito
Mike:
In his recent editorial, George Neumayr rightly takes Michael
Kinsley to task for describing week old human embryos with “fewer
physical human qualities than a mosquito” in what Neumayr terms
“rebuking George Bush”.
While it is certainly appropriate, and even honorable to take
Kinsley and other liberals to task on this type of issue, and to
defend the sanctity of even week old human embryos, a little
perspective is in order.
George Bush is the President of the United States. Regardless of
how you feel about him, he is one of the most important and
significant people, as well as the single most powerful person, in
the world today. Whether it is from love or hate, literally
billions of people can instantaneously identify him by name, title
or picture.
Michael Kinsley on the other hand, is a fairly insignificant
journalist in the overall scheme of things. He is unknown by sight
to almost the entire planet, save for a very few hard core
political junkies on either end of the spectrum. Even by name, he
is recognized by probably well under 100,000 people.
It is important to address and rebut liberal ideology, on issues
such abortion and their lack of respect for the sanctity of human
life, whenever possible. However, the idea that someone as
insignificant as Michael Kinsley can in any way deliver a
“rebuking” to the President of the United States is akin to
supposing a mosquito bite is traumatic to an elephant.
— Ralph Drury
Carlsbad, California
I feel very sorry for Mr. Kinsley because he seems to be so
shattered by his ill health. I am grateful that I do not have
Parkinson’s Disease. I certainly hope that sound treatment will be
developed. In the meantime, why does he constantly out stumping for
embryonic stem cell research even though adult stem cell research
is so much more promising? Also, I wonder what sort of insulting
diatribe he could formulate to refute the viewpoint of another man
who opposes stem cell research — namely, Pope John Paul II, who is
also a Parkinson’s sufferer.
Thank you for another fine column, Mr. Neumayr.
— Nora Peralta
Lakewood, Ohio
Wow. What a pathetic little narrow-minded bigot Michael Kinsley is.
Unbelievable. The guy actually thinks that to believe in the
humanity of the unborn, you must either be a “complete moron” or a
“hardened cynic.” That makes him more ignorant than Bull Connor on
blacks, PM Mahathir on Jews, and Charles Schumer on Christians put
together. I could give examples of people with 100x his IQ who also
manage to give a hoot about the unborn, but why bother? Clearly, a
rusty trapdoor with the Blob sitting on it opens more easily than
his mind.
As far as the disingenuous blather about how the real problem is
GW’s “inconsistency,” I have had about enough of this argument,
from any side. Obviously, GW is drawing the line where it is
politically possible to draw it. If he tried to unilaterally ban
IVF treatments, he would be written out of the human race by the
media and make no progress at all on protecting the unborn. Ya’
start where you can start. You pick fights you can win. In this
case he is up against the biotechnology industry and the most
extreme(-ly ignorant) death-before-letting-an-unborn-human-live
crowd. That’s a tough proposition, but not like picking a fight
with the constituency for IVF treatment.
If Kinsley is not a complete moron (and I used to think he
wasn’t until I read this ignorant load of bigoted propaganda), he
is a hardened cynic, pretending not to understand that a journey of
a thousand miles begins with a single step because he wants to
prevent that single step from getting taken.
But, in any case, he is right that this shore ain’t the end. GW
took the first step and established that we were not going to
create a thriving industry in spare baby parts, or at least not
charge headlong down that path at the rate Kinsley wants. Now we’ve
taken the second step and established that the unborn at least have
the right to be slaughtered humanely, or at least drowned in saline
solution rather than vivisected. In both cases these steps could be
made without directly affecting the constituency Kinsley represents
so well: those for whom their unceasing, unflagging, unremitting
self-indulgence is priority numero uno, coming well before the
lives of anyone who gets in their way (it would be an “insult” to
Kinsley, he says, to ask about those who have been carved up for
spare parts in order to get the cure he wants).
It would be hard to make further progress without confronting
this constituency to some degree. After all, even after the PBA
ban, a Kinsleyite can say “well, even if I knock her up I can still
get the baby dismembered earlier in the pregnancy, so a PBA ban is
no big deal”. Start trying to ban earlier abortions and that gets
harder.
So I recommend pushing for a ban on “optional feticide.” OK,
maybe some aspiring spin doctor out there can come up with a better
phrase. But what I mean is, quite a few abortions take place well
after the point where the baby could be delivered alive. How about
saying that in any case where the pregnancy could be “aborted” by
delivering the baby alive, that option must be taken? Kinsley could
still bonk all the hookers around his place without too much worry,
as the hooker could just have the baby delivered and given to a
loving family. She just couldn’t have her chopped up. Why should
Kinsley care? Either way, he does not have to be “insulted” by
being asked to give a hoot. There would be details to work out,
like how to prevent people from abusing this privilege, but it
beats the current system.
Similarly with IVF treatments. My guess is that there exist IVF
treatments that do NOT lead to “surplus” human embryos. It cannot
be beyond the powers of modern science to put one egg cell in the
IVF chamber at a time. It probably has a lower success rate; oh
well. I think a good politician could sell that as a reasonable
price to pay for not conceiving huge masses of embryos who have
hardly any hope of surviving to be born, with ghouls like Kinsley
slobbering over the possibility of carving them up for spare parts.
Then we get protection for the unborn without getting on the wrong
side of the bumper sticker(“GW Wants Infertile Couples To Be
Childless”).
Ya know, I just might bookmark that Kinsley article for every
time I am tempted to believe it when a liberal starts talking about
how open-minded they are. Wow. WOW. Unbelievable.
— R.J. Kozela
I find it telling that people like Kinsley don’t realize how they
sound when they say things like what he wrote in the Post
column. These things are spouted by these people on a daily basis
and they seem oblivious to the impression it leaves with
people.
I read in various conservative blogs and publications that it is
not a good thing for the country that one of its major parties —
Democrat — is imploding. I can’t bring myself to agree with this
sentiment because if that party is filled with people that think
the way Kinsley does then I don’t see how the country could benefit
unless it does implode.
— Michael K. Wright
mwright@normls.com
Thank George Neumayr for taking on the unbearable Kinsley, who is
truly the snot of all time.
— Noemie Emery
TAS TREASURE
Re: Shawn Macomber’s Wrong
Answer:
Shawn Macomber’s 28 October column about the weekend antiwar
demos is a treasure. Nurture and feed and pay and otherwise
encourage this writer.
Don’t let ‘em get away!
— Joseph Revell
Pensacola, Florida
THIRTY YEARS OF MISINTERPRETATION
Re: Brandon Crocker’s A
Constitution on Life Support:
Excellent article!
— Rick
Rochester Hills, Michigan
I don’t understand why every time some one writes about the
Constitution or Roe vs. Wade they leave out the phony
Senator from Illinois. Dick Durbin. I assure you, he’s right up
there with Leahy, Kennedy, and Schumer.
— unsigned
Bravo! Brandon Crocker’s thoughtful and well-reasoned essay truly
says it all. Thirty years of misinterpretation of the Constitution
has resulted in uncertainty in the population about their legal
rights, and a 180 degree shift in lawyers’ concept of their duties
to that population.
Nineteen seventy-three was the year of Roe v. Wade and
the year I was sworn in as a Member of the Bar of the State of
California. I was drawn to the Law as a means of righting wrongs
and providing service to humanity. However, over the ensuing twenty
years I became more and more frustrated and disillusioned as I
watched helplessly while the public image of Lawyers changed from
that of trusted counselors and respected professionals to that of
parasites who would lie, cheat, and steal to further their own
ends. Sadly, there was and is much to support that view.
In law school I learned to apply the rulings of the past to the
problems of the day and I, like my Brethren At The Bar, dispensed
advice based on logical extensions of Stare Decisis, thereby
advising our clients how to act legally, and defending them against
others who acted illegally.
No more. Today’s judges are as likely to ignore Stare Decisis as
they are to apply it to their rulings. As a result, the first
thought in a lawyer’s mind is how to circumvent the Law, or failing
that, to change it. Senator Schumer and his ilk understand this,
being for the most part graduates of law schools, and liberal
judges willing to ignore Stare Decisis are the tools of these
impotent legislators. The hue and cry about Bush’s appointees is
not from fear that they would change the law but rather that they
would not. And if legislators cannot change the law to suit
themselves, they will ensure that the judiciary is filled with
judges who will.
Thanks to Mr. Crocker I now better understand my own
disillusionment with a profession once so noble that, as
Shakespeare wrote in Henry VI: In order to overthrow the
king “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” thereby
leaving the people defenseless against anarchy.
Now then, what’s “the first thing” that we conservatives must
do? Interesting thought.
— Bob Johnson
Bedford, TX
HELP IS ON THE WAY
Re: Reader Mail’s Seeing Is
Believe/Intelligent Redesign:
To those complaining about the print size, I have a solution
which will help most people. If they are using Microsoft Internet
Explorer, they need only to click View in the bar at the top of the
page and then click Text Size. Here they will find five type sizes
from largest to smallest to choose from.
Other web browsers have similar features. They should go to the
browser’s Help file to find them.
— Steve York
Riverton, New York
Please let Mr. Losness know that he can adjust the type size in his
web browser. It’s the View / Text Size option if he’s using the
Microsoft (ptui) browser. With that, not only will TAS be
in larger type and easier for him to read, but all the sites he
views will be.
— Matthew Mitchell
PEOPLE CATCHERS
Re: Jeremy Lott’s Blood on
the Tracks:
A hundred years ago, someone jumping in front of a trolley more
likely than not would have been scooped up clear of the rails and
held secure until the trolley stopped. People catchers were on San
Francisco streetcars well into the '50s. It should be only a
trivial engineering problem to design a people catcher that would
be effective at the speeds entering a station, and with modern
materials and design tools, successful people catches at far higher
speeds might be possible. It is not done, because some people have
decided to make absolutely no attempt other than forbidding people
jumping on the tracks to resolve this problem. I wonder why. If I,
in the operation of my business, were to make no attempt to reduce
the hazard associated with my machinery I would damn soon be sued
out of business. Transit, alas, will not even try to save
lives.
— Walter E. Wallis, P.E.
Palo Alto, California
