The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Arrogant Nonsense

7.11.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 6)

Mr. Herring believes if a person, or at least a minor, let's assume he is not sexist and the minor can be male or female, is "hell bent" on breaking an existing law, enforcing the law becomes optional: the minor "is going to do it either way." Mr. Herring is clearly implying determination and safety trump Virginian law. This raises the question, when is a minor most likely to be safe while taking determined action?

A minor is most likely to be safer in an adult supervised environment than in an unsupervised one. (Evidence of this is abundant and can easily be produced.) In extending logically extending Mr. Herring's argument, the following extrapolation can be made: since a determined minor will take action and safety is paramount, then a minor is better served by taking action under adult supervision, where safety is more readily assured. If said minors want to partake in the use of substances prohibited to them, such as drugs and alcohol, and they are determined to do so, stopping them is not an option. This being established, logic dictates, the minors are safer if they use drugs and alcohol in an adult supervised atmosphere rather than an unsupervised one; therefore, laws such as prohibiting the endangerment of the health and morals of a minor are to be disregarded and not enforced, or certainly optionally enforced.

Other laws that prohibit behaviors that minors are "hell bent" to break will also have to be waived as long as the minors break the laws safely. While this argument seems illogical and certainly fatuous, even deserving applause by the Queen of Hearts, it is not. The argument follows the natural entailments of an asinine statement of policy. A minor's safety is an important issue but it is not the ultimate, penultimate or central issue. The central issue is the law. Is Mr. Herring willing to enforce the laws of Virginia and are its citizenry to be held responsible for their actions? Mr. Herring draws his pay because these very citizens employ him to enforce the law. If an employee is determined not to fulfill his duties, it is logical to dismiss said employee. To keep his job, the prosecutor is offering vapid statements that he hopes will distract all who are concerned with the moral and legal issues of allowing a 16-year-old girl, who is a ward of our federal government, to undergo an abortion procedure with the foreknowledge of an agency affiliated with the Catholic Diocese and a Catholic bishop's tacit approval; he is offering a confused argument to the people he serves so they will not notice his office's inaction. Thanks to Mr. Thunder, few will be willing to chase that red herring.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York

Perhaps it's just me, but I find the vocabulary of the abortion debate incredibly one-sided. "Pro life vs. "pro choice?" Spare me. The only "choice" the pro choice side promotes is the termination of a pregnancy, even by a minor without parental permission or notification.

"Anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" is a far more accurate description of the opposing viewpoints -- which is why the choice crowd scrupulously avoids the direct comparison.
-- Arnold Ahlert
Boca Raton, Florida

Why are we getting involved in providing services of any kind to a Guatemalan child? If her parents abandoned her here we need to send her back to Guatemala. Guatemalan social services can then locate her relatives and they can provide for her needs. Taxpayers should not be paying for abortions and they certainly should not be paying for abortions for non-citizens.
-- Louise
Maryland

HOMESPUN
Re: Quin Hillyer's You Can Go Home Again:

One is struck by the homespun structure of Mr. Hillyer's after dinner homily, and also the predictability of his conclusions. He begins with an anecdote involving someone well known by his audience, throws in an unpleasant situation that should have been remedied by an unresponsive government, and for humor adds a dead possum. There's nothing quite like a dead possum joke. (But one must wonder why, if Mr. Hillyer believes in the private citizen, and has only small faith in government, he didn't, during those three days of unbearable stench, get off his dead backside and scrape the carrion off the pavement himself.)

Then, as a glut of mosquitoes follows a wet spring, Hillyer lurches into a hymn about the sad status and future prospects of American conservatives. Things are bleak. But, bad as they may be, they can be salvaged by voting for John McCain, the thinking man's friend, democracy's last hope.

McCain opposed Bush's judicial appointments, which he alleged were "too conservative." He is said to have worked to obtain bottom place on a Democrat ticket headed by John Kerry (which pretty well neutralizes the assertion that "McCain may be an SOB but he's our SOB.)" And he's doing his best to insure that our southern border provides all the protection of a lace nightgown. But, trust me, he's our man.

Mr. Hillyer assures us that a judiciary appointed by McCain might well be "no worse than the annoying Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy..." You all remember Kennedy and O'Connor from all the shocks they have worked upon the republic in the form of a long string of 5 to 4 decisions. Big John's judges will be no worse than they are, probably. But it's hard to tell since John has so many "flinty, Goldwaterite proclivities." You gotta admire those flinty proclivities.

It seems the times demand a man who may, if he can and is so inclined, provide a besieged America with a presidency that will deliver a "net result... no worse than, and maybe a little better than, a holding pattern." And not only that, but he will be better than LBJ, Nixon and Jimmy Carter! And no doubt far more committed to individual liberty than Iron Felix Dzerzhinsky.

All of us now wonder if the stakes are too high to waste a vote, when, correctly applied, that vote could help keep Obama out of the White House. And it may well be time to beg conservatives of every stripe to hold their noses and vote for McCain.

But there is another scenario possible. This election may well turn out to be something like the one in1972, in which many committed Democrats voted for Nixon because McGovern was such an obvious dud. But in the wake of those votes, many of them felt obliged to vote straight Democrat in every other race, from U.S. Senate to township trustee. That meant Nixon took office with a Congress dedicated to frustrating him at every turn.

Maybe we should vote Libertarian, or American, or Vegetarian, in order to demonstrate to the GOP that we can't be taken for granted, and to get a good start on the veto-proof Congress the electorate will provide after two years of Obama.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Mainstream Media, Abortion, Environment, Constitution, Law, Military, European Union, Africa, Energy