BIRTH CONTROL’S FALLOUT
Re: Lisa Fabrizio’s Pro-Life Lite:
I greatly admire when people can make a first class case for a conservative position without needing to mention God, the Bible, the Pope or religion, so my compliments to Lisa Fabrizio. It should put to rest liberal claims that such arguments run hopelessly afoul of the First Amendment, or at least their interpretation of one clause of it.
That said, consider how some of what are usually considered the most exacting aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine forecast consequent problems long before they happen. Consider Pope Paul VI’s 1968 Humanae Vitae, the famous “birth control” encyclical, the 55 mph speed limit of the Roman Catholic highway. I am not acquainted with any current era Catholics with families of ten or 12, so much for the Pope’s warning on artificial conception (I have two, a daughter and a son, ahem). And I don’t know any current era Catholics who might be infertile and then think twice about any of the “common” assists to correct a natural flaw (note no scare quotes). After all, Rome does get a little carried away at times, right?
Then again, consider that the entire ESCR debate that Lisa ably articulates is “unintended” collateral fallout of “common” assists to correct natural infertility. And consider that once sex and marriage were separated, and sex and the creation of family were separated, and sexual satisfaction became the first priority, the “unintended” collateral fallout of such satisfaction, i.e., children, became nuisances that only Harry Blackmun could sweep away.
A lot of getting carried away sure is happening. But not in Rome.
— Frank Natoli
Newton, New Jersey
I, too, am disappointed by Dr. Frist’s discombobulated thinking but not surprised. Since Roe v. Wade, there has been tremendous pressure in the medical profession to embrace the pro-abortion view, but over the years, a truce has been reached between the two factions that boils down to: you do your thing, I’ll do mine. It took many brave doctors to stand up to those who would force their colleagues to accept abortion. I am indebted to them for creating a sort of “conscientious objector” status for those of us who wanted no part of abortion during our medical training. As the years have gone on, the majority of medical students do not have any exposure to abortion during their training, regardless of their personal views on the matter, so we have seen pressure by pro-abortion groups to make such training mandatory.
Now, with the advent of embryonic stem cell research, the pressure to kill nascent (in Dr. Frist’s words) life has returned, and has been couched in terms of wanting to cure disease. (I mean, who can be against that, right?) What has yet to fully develop is the critical mass of physicians who will stand up to their fellow scientists who, in my humble opinion, are deliberately obscuring the debate and exploiting the will to live of people who have chronic, life-threatening diseases and our goodwill to help our fellow man. Unfortunately, faced with the pressure of being called anti-science and callous, Dr. Frist caved. The pro-life movement could have used a leader like Dr. Frist to re-focus the debate and draw attention to what the embryonic stem cell lobby will demand and actually require for them to have any chance for success: cloning in every way, shape, and form. President Bush is to be credited for holding the line and needs our support to continue to do so.
— Andrew J. Macfadyen, M.D., Pediatric Critical Care, Children’s Hospital of Omaha
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Decade of Illusion:
As an observer of the media, the reaction of the MSM to this Palmeiro story (esp. those national and local gasbags on sports talk radio/TV) has been absolutely fascinating to witness. Those guys will need chiropractors in a few days as they twist themselves around and around attempting to find an opinion that coincides with there decidedly liberal world view.
Here they go. They think Palmeiro was great and his legacy should endure and he really didn’t do anything wrong, and he’s so handsome and, well gee, there are so many other guys in the Hall of Fame who were really, really, really rascals and besides, George W. Bush was the owner of the Texas Rangers when it seems he began juicing and had to have been complicit in it thus making it all Dubya’s fault and not Palmeiro’s.
Great! We’ve got it!
But, but, but… he took an oath to tell the truth and on national television he lied (while wagging his finger) and that’s bad and we can’t sit in our ivory towers like the press’s purloined princes and let this gross injustice to all jurisprudence and ethical behavior stand!
Oh, wait! How can we say that’s bad? If we do, while sending him to the dustbin of history the comparisons to that handsome and oh so sexy Arkansas Rascal himself (old you-know-who) who found it in his heart to trash Thomas Jefferson, Newt, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde, etc., along with lying under oath and wagging his finger will become inevitable and we don’t want that to happen because, well, “we just can’t help ourselves.”
OUCH! I think I hurt myself.
To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, “I hate all sportswriters as rabidly as a sportswriters hate common sense.”
— Rick Osial
Well, now we know why he was so eager to shill for Viagra all those years…
— James R. Stevenson
San Diego, California
BLAME BUSH TOO
Re: W. James Antle’s Who Are You Calling Activist?:
Mr. Antle brings up a very valid argument in his article. The problem as he sees it is not so much judicial activism but legislative and executive inaction. The court may rule certain ways and try to legislate outside the scope of their authority but it is the other two branches who should bring these activists in line, either thru impeachment or Congressional overrule. However, he does not touch upon one of the underlying issues that should be looked at. That issue is collusion between all three branches of government to bring about certain aspects of social and economic policies. Whereas the Congress cannot pass a law they would desire, due to political fallout, and the executive branch couldn’t sign it anyway if passed, then the court would rule in its favor. Then all the good little Congressmen and president would boohoo and express outrage but declare it as “law of the land.”
Now, Bush has nominated a person to the bench who some think would go back to the constitutionally required process of original intent (versus what you would like it to be) but in essence is cut from the same cloth as the person he would be replacing. This person would not overturn Roe v Wade because it’s now precedent, even though it’s flawed (like Dred Scott) and who has engaged in gay rights litigation (pro bono for gay rights) in order to invalidate laws against socially dangerous behavior. In other words, Bush has nominated a person who would more than likely continue the status quo of collusion rather than act as a protector of original intent, which is the business of the judicial branch to begin with.
— Pete Chagnon
Liberals charging that “originalists” are in fact the ones who practice “judicial activism” is nothing more than the flip side of the coin of their instruction on what a “true conservative” would do once seated on the bench. By their version of “true conservatism,” such a judge would preserve (“conserve”) all liberal advances and enthusiasms enshrined in previous Supreme Court decisions. In other words, Gonzales v. Raich, Kelo v. New London, and Roe v. Wade would be carved deeper in stone than the Ten Commandments. Nary a challenge would be seriously entertained.
The liberals praise and admiration of such a “true conservative” is, of course, self-serving. Such a “true conservative” is also unprincipled and a card carrying member of John Stuart Mill’s “stupid party.” No past wrong and unjust rulings could be rectified and further encroachments of liberty will be justified as mere extensions of “established and settled law.”
Well, with ground rules like these, conservatives might as well stay home and let the liberals run things. Apparently only liberals are allowed to shake up things, comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable when the notion hits them.
— Michael Wm. Dooley
WHERE’S MY SLICE?
Re: David Holman’s Pork Roundup:
Following a lead from this story, I visited the Taxpayers for Common Sense website, and pulled up the list of earmarks for my state. I was looking for something with which to fuel my righteous indignation at my hard-earned dollars being spent on worthless fluff. But soon after I began to look at the list, I started curiously wondering what work is going to be done in MY city, MY neighborhood. I was surprised at myself — and it occurred to me that if I can start looking eagerly at pork-barrel spending after just 15 seconds, I’m not too surprised at our representatives in Congress. Perhaps the fact that they can’t seem to stop gorging themselves on spending is partially due to the months spent debating how much money to spend — I suspect it can become addictive. Now, I’m not giving them an excuse — they should all be able to get useful work done without needing to waste buckets of money to grease the wheels. And it’s sad that my fellow Republicans are every bit as responsible for all this nest-feathering as the Dems.
— Michael Hammond
Aurora, Illinois (#2 earmark-receiving state)
SINCERE AS A LAP DANCER’S SMILE
Re: Christopher Orlet’s A Phony Fatwa:
The subtitle in your fatwa article is proof that you really can find humor in this topic if you look long enough.
— Andrew Cochran, Founder & Editor, The Counterterrorism Blog
INDEX LEGISLATIVE WAGES
Re: Ralph R. Reiland’s Overblown and Overpaid:
Even though it would take an amendment to the state constitution, the frequent complaints about legislative salaries would be diminished if the salary was equal to the benefits and wages earned in the previous employment. That way, the pay could be an automatic election issue every cycle. Please don’t bother to tell me that is too complicated. It is certainly no more complex than any state tax code. Willy the Wino, living under a bridge, might be double dipping since he would be receiving free public housing, but no plan is perfect. I like the same rule for lobbyists too.
— Danny L. Newton
Would some Hebrew scholar out there please explain the meaning of Exodus 3:14 and God’s introduction to Moses as the I AM? My understanding is that God is telling Moses that He is the Self-existent One.
Of course, all you anthropomorphists out there will say, “Unbelievable!”
Why must man always try to create God in his own image? It was the other way around.
— A. Robinson
A lot of skepticism, speculation, and dissention drifting in cyberspace on the subject of Intelligent Design. So, this is what I want to know. How can we have been randomly created and turned out so perfectly — at least until it came to man, himself? You don’t see any peacocks strutting around with the random unmatched ostrich plume, do you? No daisies on rosebushes. No, God had an orderly and perfect plan. After creating all those sleek, graceful, beautifully designed animals, pelts and feathers in every hue, He just ran out of good ideas. He tried for variety in man, never dreaming that was just going to lead to hard feelings. Then he ruined it by giving man free will. Quite a few he gave puffed up egos instead of brains. Then He created Congress so they would have to work. That is the one place on God’s Green Earth where a brain doesn’t make that much difference. Bombast will substitute nicely.
Some have no brain, no ego but a double dose of doubt. They came to be known as atheists. Spouting atheism is OK while you’re on terra firma, but just try it at the Pearly Gates. You’re going to have some explainin’ to do…
Atheists will have suffer some minor embarrassment at their funerals — all dressed up with no place to go. No, wait. I think God is going to let them in, if they were only dumb and not blasphemous — into a sort of detention hall place where thy will have to sit down and write 1,000 times, “I was only kidding, I believed all along…”
And nobody is going to Hell because it finally did freeze over, blowing that whole global warming theory…
— Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California
Re: Gene Wright’s letter (“Go to Terror’s Source”) in Reader Mail’s Straight Shots:
Gene Wright has apparently not observed that James Arlandson has written repeatedly and extensively in The American Thinker on what the Quran and other Muslim teaching says about infidels, Jews, and Christians, as well as related topics of tolerance, intolerance, and justified use of violence.
— R.L.A. Schaefer
Re Jed Babbin’s Baghdad Barbarella:
(With a hat tip to Ollie North for the title)
What a prize to show for her life of toil,
A bus that runs on vegetable oil;
To keep it running will prove no strain,
Run a fuel line from her peanut brain.
As once again she shows us all
How wrong we are and how we’ll fall.
She’ll grant no quarter, cut no slack,
Get her picture taken on a camel’s back.
Jihad Jane will show us once again,
She’s smarter than all the President’s men;
I doubt Sun Tzu could tell us more
Than Jihad Jane when it comes to war;
She’ll save the world, bold Barbarella,
More wily and wise than any Army fella.
While she fancies herself truly Machiavellian
A more apt description is piggy Orwellian.
It’s true Jane could write an encyclopedia
On fooling the drooling mainstream media.
Princes of primetime breathlessly follow;
Sputum she spouts they eagerly swallow.
Trumpet her tripe as trustworthy truth,
Pushing her pap down the throats of our youth.
Reporters will climb right on down in that sewer,
Covering every mile of Jane’s veggie-fueled tour.
While wiser minds wait, holding their breath,
Warily wondering just how much death
All her agitprop antics will incite this time,
And whose lives will be forfeit for one fool’s crime.
In most scripts of life, we become wiser with age;
But this airhead actress cannot get to that page.
So she’ll be well remembered, as well she should,
As the dumbest damned broad in Hollywood.
— Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Infantry
101st Airborne Division