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
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
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
Thank George Neumayr for taking on the unbearable Kinsley, who is truly the snot of all time.
-- Noemie Emery
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
THIRTY YEARS OF MISINTERPRETATION
Re: Brandon Crocker's A Constitution on Life Support:
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.
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
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
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
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article