Pope Benedict XVI

An operating room nurse asked me yesterday what I thought of the new pope. My initial impulse is that I really haven’t given the new pope much thought. Sure I’ve seen him on TV and have read the news stories that he was a member of Hitler’s Nazi Party during his youth, has a reputation for social conservatism, and served as the Vatican theologian under Pope John Paul II. I also know that he authored a letter during the US Presidential campaign ordering bishops to refuse Holy Communion to Catholics who supported abortion rights (never mind capital punishment.) None of these items is especially noteworthy, and having grown up Roman Catholic none is too surprising to me: except maybe the fact that he eventually denounced his Nazi affiliation as a youthful indiscretion.

I suppose we live in a free and liberal society and one ramification is that we feel inclined to formulate opinions on all sorts of current events; no matter how little we may know about the details. We seem to feel that we can know enough about Michael Jackson’s guilt or innocence, Terri Schiavo’s wishes about extraordinary means of life support, Tom DeLay’s ethical dilemmas, and the Constitutional rights of restaurant owners who allow smoking in their establishments, to formulate rock solid opinions. And we as a culture are not afraid to express these opinions, so why not a little banter about the new pontiff?

I initially demurred to expound on any opinion of the new pope, but this particular nurse, who converted to Catholicism as an adult, pressed me for my opinion. Although she admitted that she liked Pope John Paul II, she seemed pleased that the Roman Catholic Church would now have a new more conservative leader.

“The cafeteria is closed,” read one sign welcoming Pope Benedict XVI. Indeed, if his reputation is carried over into practice, Catholics will no longer be able to pick and choose which dicta of the Church are acceptable to their lifestyles. The word is that with Benedict XVI, nothing is negotiable: the Pope is again the infallible final arbiter of issues related to God’s plan for earthly mortals who ascribe to Roman Catholicism.

Upon further discussion with this nurse, I learned that she 1) plays guitar at her local church, 2) has never been Confirmed, 3) has not confessed her sins in years, let alone prior to each Sunday Mass, 4) eats meat on Fridays during Lent and 5) uses contraception. I had heard enough. Perhaps only someone who had grown up in the Roman Catholic Church would find this religious resume humorous.

I grew up in the Church and attended parochial schools through high school. I realize that it’s been a while since I left the church to be married as a Methodist, but I am sure that the last 17 years have not seen that much change. If my memory serves correctly, four of the five lifestyle habits practiced by this nurse are actionable by the Catholic Church and punishable with an eternal sentence in a very hot place (and I don’t mean the Caribbean.)

My initial instinct is not to formulate an opinion regarding the new pope, but I have to admit that a sinister part of me is glad that an ex-Nazi has taken over the helm. If any institution should serve as the bastion of hard-line behavioral control, it should be the Roman Catholic Church. Over the next several years, we are certain to see either the Pope soften his historical views on religious life, or a severe crisis of faith among such cafeteria Catholics. My money’s not on the former; and if nothing else, it is certain to be entertaining. Seig heil, Benny!

Friday News Dump

Huf’s favorite website www.dailykos.com has noted the “Friday news dump” in the past whereby the current administration seems bent on releasing potentially damaging stories on Friday afternoon. The blogger noted during the Campaign 2004 that many of the economy’s missteps were released on Friday afternoons and promptly lost to most news followers. The tactic seemed to work, and the evidence shows that such burial of information continues.

News releases by the administration are usually most interesting on Fridays, and this past holiday weekend they were especially noteworthy. Four fairly significant revelations came out from administration officials on Good Friday. Far be it from me to conjecture on the motivations of various officials, but the timing of the release with the Easter weekend, the Schiavo distraction and other big news items such as the Pope’s health bears some interest.

Saturday morning’s paper contained three stories: “US to sell F-16’s to Pakistan”; “Army investigation uncovers abuse at Mosul jail”; and “Army says 27 Afghans and Iraqis murdered in custody.” As a corollary to the last story, the Army also announced on Friday that 17 US soldiers implicated in some of the prisoners’ deaths would not be tried in court. Perhaps this is all a massive coincidence, but personally, I doubt it. Also this weekend, the conservative Judicial Watch released information from the FBI that after 9/11 Saudi officials and bin Laden family members were indeed given special privilege and flew out on chartered flights before general aviation traffic had resumed. Hmmm… it seems Michael Moore was correct.

Although each of these items seems alarmingly controversial, essentially no news coverage is forthcoming. As Monday rolls around, the media are perseverating on the inane death watch for Terri Shiavo, a woman who for all practical purposes died several years ago. So much for the duty of the fourth estate.

Not done yet....

Final Four!!!

Big Government Stomps!

Big government and slippery slopes

Recently the argument drifted toward smoking bans in restaurants and the dangers of second hand smoke. Proponents of big government are pushing for broader legislation banning various activities in private enterprises, namely, smoking in restaurants and bowling alleys. When first discussed, and as presented Monday night, the ban was to exclude bars and bowling alleys, but no such exclusion exists in this Wayne County iteration.

The strongest argument made by these big government types is that waitstaff workers are exposed to dangerous carcinogens from second-hand smoke and their only protection is to ban smoking in their workplace. However, coal mines, steel mills and chemical plants likewise all expose workers to potentially noxious fumes. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration actually has fairly rigorous statutes regarding which airborne chemicals pose health hazards to workers, with various facemask and air-exchangers available for those workers. If a hazardous chemical from cigarette smoke can be identified, then I am sure our free market system will also provide a mask that will protect workers from it.


“Who is in a better position to determine what restaurant patrons actually want?" asks Tim O’Brien, executive director of the Michigan Libertarian Party. "We used to have a couple of powerful institutions in this country called 'private property' and 'the free market.' When you respect those concepts you have a society based on voluntary relationships rather than political muscle. Then you don't have to try and guess what people want -- in order to impose it on them. People vote with their money. If you leave the market free to meet the wishes of consumers, it will do just that. Some restaurants will cater to smokers. Some to nonsmokers. Some to those who don't care one way or the other. Instead of imposing a single standard which must necessarily exclude wishes of some, all preferences can thus be accommodated. And not only will the market show what people want, it will even tell you in exactly what proportion because its natural selection process will replace businesses that do not satisfy the wishes of their customers with ones that do.” For that matter, if restaurant owners want to allow mace and pepper spray, I say go for it, as long as the workers are provided face masks.


Current topics as wide ranging as the Terri Schiavo case and Ten Commandments display bring up interesting corollaries to the big government bullying that we see prevalent today. The tyranny of the majority not only tramples on restaurant owners, but also on the brain-dead. We have blurred the concepts of public and private and now the tyrannical majority, when they fail to win a court interpretation of current law, they scamper down the slippery slope and make new laws that further their various causes, only to be found (thankfully) unconstitutional. In the Federalist Papers, Publius warns that good leaders must ignore bad fads and the citizenry must not be taken in by “the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the avaricious, the deperate, by the artifices of men possessing more confidence than they deserve…” (Federalist 71:2). Publius agrees that the people commonly intend to do good with their laws, even when they err; but deceptive legislators may be different. The judicial and executive branches are designed to protect the minority from the wiles and errors of the majority, however, that does not negate the importance of citizens being ever vigilant for bad laws and self-promoting leaders.


While Terri Schiavo may seem far afield from local smoking bans, the case points out the propensity for “avaricious” legislators to inflict their will upon any issue whatsoever. Even assuming the best of intentions of Mr Delay and Dr Frist, the idea of the federal legislature successfully intervening on a local judicial case is unprecedented. What have the Florida courts been doing the past 15 years in regards to Schiavo? They have been deliberating the issues as they pertain to the best interests of Terri Schiavo, and have tried to ascertain what she would have chosen in this sorry circumstance. The courts have interviewed her physicians, family, friends and co-workers, and have judged that 1) she is in a persistent vegetative state and 2) she had stated on multiple occasions that she wished not to continue living in such a state. After years of careful thought and deliberation, the Florida courts have decided to order the withdrawal the extraordinary means of survival for Terri Schiavo—not because it is popular, nor because the majority want it. The judicial order came because, to the best of their ability, the Florida judges have determined that it is in Terri Schiavo’s best interest.


Enter the bungling Republicans, whose ideas of big government intervention show no limit. Senator Frist, a licensed physician, said that by looking at an undated video of Terri Schiavo, he determined that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. Whoa! Wait a minute! In a recent Boston Globe opinion, Leonard Glantz, a Boston University Public Health professor noted, “Frist's long-distance diagnosis clearly deviates from anything resembling good medical practice. It is nothing short of remarkable that this surgeon, who has never been in the same room with Schiavo, feels free to disregard the diagnosis of the neurologists who have had extensive contact with her and who have been subject to the scrutiny of the Florida courts.” Dr Frist seems to be a man “possessing more confidence than he deserves” just as Publius has warned us two and a half centuries ago. I have always given broad latitude to Frist over the years; perhaps because we are brethren within the same profession. But what does such wild conjecture on his part tell us of his skills at decision-making?


Terri Schiavo’s parents are empathic, loving people who deserve our compassion. Their daughter has been rendered brain-dead and their personal lives have unnecessarily been put on public display for over a decade. Perhaps coming to terms with their daughter’s dire predicament, as well as her wishes would serve them in a positive way. I find it hard to imagine a thoughtful and compassionate physician (or any physician, or any person for that matter) making flagrantly irresponsible statements such as those by Frist, and as part of the public record of the US Senate no less! Alas, Dr Frist has done a great disservice to the portrayal of a medical professional as legislator. I cannot know the intentions of gentlemen such as Delay and Frist, but if their purpose-- whether implicit or explicit-- is to further their political careers at the expense of the Schiavo family, then I would think that we have discovered a new form of evil. And quite frankly, I see no other motive for their legal maneuvers.

The Ten Commandments display is yet another example of the majority enlarging government and attempting to inflict its will on the minority. The Alabama case has been settled, and Judge Roy Moore has been removed from office for refusing to remove a religious display, but the “parasites and sycophants” continue to display the Decalogue in order to promote their own legislative careers. Michigan State Senator Jack Hoogendyk (R-Kalamazoo) has made the display his personal project, and is promoting the presence of a Ten Commandments display in public buildings. Why? What could be the purpose of such efforts, except for the demagogic appeal to his constituents? The current strategy is to marginally change the display—call it “historical”—thereby quieting the critics. (Never mind that the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with US or Michigan history.) Why does the state government need historical displays about religion? Why should my public buildings be cluttered with irrelevant pseudo-historical chachkas? Again, the big government legislators take another opportunity to enlarge government for suspect reasons. In Hoogendyk’s case, he cannot even make the feeble claim of promoting public health that smoking ban proponents claim; nor can he claim to follow Dr Frist’s (albeit faulty) logic about the best interests of a private citizen. No, Senator Hoogendyk’s demagoguery is pure and unadulterated and devoid of any claim to propriety or sanity.


Perhaps it is time for Republicans to seriously re-think the foundations on which conservative government is founded. To paraphrase Dr. Glantz, these people are not conservative; they are radicals who eagerly ignore the rights and wishes of others. These three cases exhibit the willingness to pander to the emotions and muddled thinking of the political base, when common sense and a cursory review of the US Constitution would indicate that such legislative shenanigans have no other purpose. The current Republican majority clogs our legislative chambers with moronic arguments—and for what? To pass unconstitutional laws that gain them political favor by attempting to limit the rights of private citizens such as bar owners, the brain-dead, or the religiously indifferent? We have already skidded down the slippery slope; can the avalanche be far behind?

Gitmo blues

Each day I anxiously check my email inbox for the latest humorous justification of our president’s daffy policies. Last week I was regaled with an essay by Charlie Daniels explaining that the Guantanamo prison camp should be a source of pride for America.

You can follow this link, but the upshot is that these detainees are “killers and terrorists” who are being “fed well” and obtaining “quality medical care” therefore the “left” should just shut up about the unconstitutionality of the prison camp. He then takes the opportunity to bring up Bill Clinton’s deficiencies as the reason for terrorism in the first place. Daniels finishes his senseless diatribe with a potshot at (almost) all lawyers -- his lawyer, of course, is among the few reasonable ones(!) Mr. Daniels conveniently left out this reference about the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose report last fall documented torture in contradiction to both the Geneva Conventions and the US Constitution.

The essay speaks for itself on the utter inability for Bushies to find rational evidence that the current administration policies are achieving anything in accordance with the stated purpose of this nation. Therefore, they send emotional essays designed to garner support for Mr. Bush’s failing policies, such as his Maoist internment camp. I can understand carefully rationalizing Gitmo on the grounds of national security as a temporary means to an eventual end. But instead, Daniels recklessly tries to make the case that the detainees are “better off” by being incarcerated, with no hesitation at all in abrogating human rights based only on some unknown allegations and wildly implying that Constitutional and human rights can be abridged by the fiat of one man. C’mon, Charlie, you must certainly have heard of Solzhenitsyn and the Soviet Gulag Archipelago and winced at the prospect of the government’s proverbial midnight knock on the door followed by the disappearance of fathers, brothers, uncles and cousins into decades’ long internment with no day in court. As Americans who have lived through the cold war, we must all still remember the disdain with which we greeted such horror stories and a previous US president who referred to it’s perpetrators as the “evil empire.” Are we now sending our own young men and women to fight wars in order to justify similar imprisonment at the hands of our own government? On the one hand, I read such email because it keeps me abreast of what the unwashed masses are percolating through their tiny redneck minds. But frankly, some things I would rather not know; this world is scary enough without Mr. Daniels sharpening the fine point of our national misdirection.

The Bush supporters who send such trash are monolithic in their wanton lack of insight regarding history and the failures of previous empires. If only one could seek the counsel of Caesar Augustus or Winston Churchill on the folly of trying to impose outside government in the Near East. I imagine that the Bush supporters are emboldened by the recent elections in Iraq as proof of the impending success of the president’s experiment in pre-emption and imposed democracy. Any student of history will tell you that we are in the second inning of this game, and their best hitters are just warming up. The resentment and strife caused by US’ heavy-handed support of despots does not go unnoticed among the masses in that part of the world. I would recommend the reading of Thucydides’ classic The Peloponnesian Wars (or at least review the Cliff’s notes) for further evidence of the difficulties of imposed government and peace through force. For a more readable review of the history of such failed missions, John Judis’ recent Folly of Empire would be appropriate.

Somehow, however, I have a feeling that anybody who would go to the trouble of actually emailing an essay about Constitutional law by Charlie Daniels is certainly not interested in any type of intellectual distillation of history. I can imagine this person reading Daniels’ rant and thinking, “Hmmm, this makes so much sense. I just have to email it everyone I know so they can feel proud of Bush shredding the Constitution, too.” Weird.

Over the past several years, I have become amazed at the utter lack of curiosity by the most vocal Bush supporters. My email inbox has been the resting place of innumerable anti-Hillary cartoons and John Kerry jokes, but rarely is a serious policy piece sent or discussed. At times I have been encouraged that the diatribes were meant just to get a response out of the opposition (i.e., me), and perhaps that was the primary purpose of the Daniels email. But on further review of past emails and discussion, I can honestly say that almost no thoughtful discussion has taken place. I love jokes and sarcasm as much as the next guy, but an occasional Dan Henninger or Charles Krauthammer opinion could provide some meat to chew on. Instead, prior to the Iraq War in 2003, this same emailer who forwarded the Daniels piece sent an article by a stockbroker stating that we had to attack Iraq because it would have been too expensive to bring the soldiers home now after all the trouble of deploying them during the winter of 2002-03. Then, of course, the author finished his spiel about how March of 2003 was a “great time” to start buying stocks. Sales pitches by stockbrokers seem to pass for policy discussion about the most important decisions made by our president. No wonder Bush got re-elected after such a total cluster fuck of a first term.

Needless to say, I am increasingly unimpressed with the dialogue by Bush supporters such as Mr. Daniels and the current emailer. Almost all of it is sophomoric blather that is based on irrational beliefs or jingoist emotion. Whether it’s abstinence-only education and the perceived value of faith-based federal programs or the fatal miscalculation that US soldiers would be warmly greeted as “liberators” in Iraq, Bush and his ilk seem to fail on every argument. The latest salvo against the Social Security pseudo-crisis is another testament to irrational fear mongering and lack of insight. Imagine what the $200 billion dollars wasted in Iraq could have done to shore up Social Security (or Medicare, or Medicaid, or any one of about 20 federal programs that are probably in worse shape than Social Security.)

The American people are a forgiving lot. Most seem to favor the simplistic way Bush envisions the world without seeing the absurdity of it. After the US supported Saddam, the Shah of Iran and the Saudi despots for several decades, Bush and 52% of the American people actually thought that the Iraqi people would throw flower petals the as the US soldiers paraded in their tanks and half-tracks down streets of Baghdad. How simple. How beautiful. How predictably wrong. You can say what you want about Clinton, but he was never that stupid. Even the usually delusional French look downright lucid next to the Bushies.

I will wrap this up. In the future, while you are perusing the Wall Street Journal, AP reports and the Washington Post, perhaps a quick forward of a valid opinion piece would be in order. I’m pretty sure our nation doesn’t need legal advice from the country music crowd. What’s next, fellas, a personal finance seminar by Neil Bush?
Grodge

Pastor on abortion

Maybe there's some hope for this world after all. I've chosen to publish an article by a man of the cloth who is pro-choice but anti-abortion, much like the majority of sensible Americans (and Australians who are in the throes of a national debate at this time.)
Grodge

News-Leader.com True Ozarks
Published Wednesday, February 9, 2005
To end abortion, address poverty
Rev. Roger Ray © 2005, Springfield News-Leader -->The subject of abortion is one I have resolutely tried to stay away from, not because it is so controversial but because I am a man. As desperate as the decision to abort a pregnancy is, I have always felt that it was not the business of men to legislate a woman's decision about her own womb.
Still, this matter of governance of women's reproductive life has been made political fodder in the last presidential election and more recently in a series of Cal Thomas articles, which are so full of out and out lies that I feel that I must say something. Thomas has sought to make the topic of abortion a Republican vs. Democrat issue with Democrats being the cause of abortion and Republicans being the knights in shining armor setting out to save the lives of the unborn.
What Thomas knows (and what politicians know) but would never say, what he knows but would find to completely undo this horrible manipulation of uninformed voters, is that the abortion rate over the past 20 years has risen while Republicans have been in the White House and fallen while Clinton was in office.
During the eight years that Clinton was in the White House, the abortion rate fell by nearly 50 percent. Ironically, the anti-abortion rhetoric of the Republican candidates becomes a reality of more than 500,000 more abortions per year than during Democratic administrations.
If we could just get this topic out of the despicable partisan manipulation of voters and look for the truth, some clear insights emerge. Why did abortion (as well as violent crime and homelessness) decline during the Clinton years? Because of the economic circumstances of America's poorest people.
Abortion is almost always a decision of desperation. Poverty is the single largest issue in the abortion rate. We can teach sexual restraint, but we all know that sex still happens. Poverty can be changed. If you remove the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion while leaving young women in desperate poverty, then you will have little impact on the real abortion rate.
What would dramatically reduce the rate of abortions in the USA? Here is a list of absolutely effective measures:
• Raise the minimum wage to a livable level.
• Make health care universal.
• Give universal access to higher education.
Great, you say, but who would pay for it? Take a look at the European nations that already do these three things. The drop in crime, welfare and prison populations will more than balance the economic equation. We can be a better, healthier society and economically thrive at the same time.
The myth is that somehow democracy depends on continuing the rapid rate of transferring wealth from the poor to the rich, as if Jesus went to the cross to give the rich a capital gains tax cut.
The message of the gospels is clear: Show compassion to the poor. When we take that mandate seriously then we find that not only the poor suffer less, but the whole of civilization becomes much more healthy. Jesus seemed to know what was important.
Roger Ray, Springfield, is pastor of National Avenue Christian Church, Springfield , MO.
Copyright © 2005, The Springfield News-Leader, a Gannett Company.
Click here to return to http://springfield.news-leader.com/opinions/today/20050209-Toendabortion,a.html

Germans who like Bush...

Commeonsensical has asked for me to post an article he has sent about Germans and their definition of appeasement, so I will acquiesce. However, this idea of appeasement sounds more like Truman's containment policy, and hardly an act of "cowardice", as I will opine in the comments. History is a funny thing.
Grodge

Comonsensical offers:
ONE GERMAN WHO GETS IT
Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
"A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement... How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice."
--from Commonsensical

Abortion: What's the Goal?

A previous president once said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. While the first two may not be universal goals, the third can be considered the holy grail of both sides of the abortion debate. The goal should be to reduce the numbers of abortions.

Halifax (name withheld on the internet) has opined that Bush will be forgiven by pro-lifers on his “nonchalance” regarding gay marriage and abortion because he has passed the partial birth abortion (PBA) ban and the Unborn Victims of Crime Law. Granted, pro-lifers most likely view these two items as significant, but I will argue contrarily. And I will not argue because I want more third trimester abortions, nor because I feel that crime against pregnant women should go unpunished. I will argue that these two items are poor legislation because they will not reduce the number of abortions, nor will they reduce the crime against pregnant women. The goals are lost amidst emotional rancor that panders to the socially conservative base, and the women and children will be the losers. Solutions are found in a pragmatic, multifaceted approach that would improve quality of life for the most vulnerable members of our society with education and access to health care.

First, a few truisms. Number one, abortion is here is here to stay. Since time immemorial women have attempted to terminate their pregnancies and this trend will continue regardless of any legislation humans might pass. Especially with the advent of pharmacologic agents that have made abortion more private, more safe and more accessible. If outlawed, abortifacient agents—RU486, methotrexate and cytotec-- would still be available on the gray and black markets. The desire for some women to terminate their pregnancy is strong enough that the demand will be met by supply regardless of any attempt to limit it. Even if every other state would outlaw abortion, right or wrong, the surreptitious leakage of these medications across state borders would surely commence.

Number two, fetuses are not children, and under the law, fetuses do not have personhood rights. I am not a lawyer, and this may seem like a technicality, but it’s true nonetheless. In the McCorvey opinion of a few years ago offered by Halifax , the judge refers to a fetus as a "child", which is at best a sloppy use of the legal language of the time, and at worst, an emotional plea that belies her prejudice under the law. The Unborn Victims Law of 2004 attempts to give more value to the fetus, and even calls fetuses "children", the legality of which will most likely be argued in the courts in due time before anybody serves time for “murdering” a fetus. Regardless, such legislation as written will not prevent one abortion, nor will it likely reduce violence against women, which to my knowledge is already illegal. (In 2002, the Bush administration attempted to give personhood rights under executive regulation for the State Children’s Health Program (SCHIP), but of course, overstepped reason by not only trying to define “childhood” as beginning with conception, but did so without legislative support.) Call me cynical, but that’s the way I see it. I’m pretty sure you could see strong support for giving, say, 32 week fetuses certain (albeit very restricted) rights under the law that no legislator would or could oppose, but even then, the impact on protection of fetal life would be negligible since terminations at such an age are exceedingly rare and universally for good reason.

Number three, the partial birth abortion ban is a sham. The term itself is not found in the medical literature. The law as written only prohibits one very specific form of the procedure that is described as delivering a live fetus in breech position and then opening and collapsing the skull for delivery. Apparently, a similar procedure would be legal as long as the fetus is rendered lifeless beforehand by some other means, say, umbilical artery potassium injection (or conceivably, electric shock or purposeful blunt trauma.) This law is just plain stupid, and acts to limit the woman’s and physician’s choices while not materially changing the outcome for the better. The majority of third trimester abortions are for severe fetal anomalies, severe maternal medical disease, or both. Of the 1.3 million abortions in the US every year, those after 21 weeks make up less than 1% . Forcing these women to undergo an invasive umbilical artery catheterization prior to the termination may increase her risk; therefore, those exact women who would most benefit from a late trimester abortion are thus put at greater risk because they cannot undergo the very safest procedure. The federal government, under President Bush, has now attempted to enter the medical decision-making field. (Mr. Bush’s decisions regarding pre-emptively invading countries is bad enough, let’s leave him out of the doctor’s office.) As had been predicted by Clinton, the PBA ban has been found unconstitutional because of the lack of provision for the well-being of the mother. (Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000) So, Halifax, what good is a law if it is innately flawed and found unconstitutional, other than to stir up the pro-lifers in time for election?

Number four, abstinence-only programs are educational malpractice. In a perfect world, all sexual intercourse would occur between consenting adults with adequate social and family support. Such support would necessarily include health insurance, access to prenatal care and contraception, with a lack of threats to one’s personal well-being. Unwanted pregnancies would be avoided by the proper instruction in the use of birth control. Unfortunately, the perfect world doesn’t exist. Teen-agers have sex. They have sex with for a myriad of reasons, under a plethora of circumstances, with an uncountable number of partners. Statistically, the majority of US teens will engage in premarital sexual activity by age 20. Haranguing about celibacy does not change this statistic—90% of those “choosing” abstinence-only will eventually fall to the siren of illicit sex; only now they do so without knowledge of contraception and STD prevention, thus leaving them more vulnerable. According to Planned Parenthood (with multiple supporting references): “When they do become sexually active, though, they often fail to use condoms or other contraceptives. Meanwhile, students in comprehensive sexuality education classes do not engage in sexual activity more often or earlier, but do use contraception and practice safer sex more consistently when they become sexually active.” Without birth control, 85% of sexually active women will become pregnant within a year. Therefore, the public health dictates that sex education and birth control should be available to all people who require it (which is ALL women and men BEFORE they become sexually active.) As long as we as a society deny this fact, we will live in a world of unwanted pregnancy and preventable abortion. Addressing this most vulnerable segment of the population, we can work on the highest proportion of young women who choose abortion, thereby getting the greatest benefit. Not only do we avoid the loss of an unwanted fetus, we save the young woman the anguish of having to face such a heartbreaking decision, which the real lesson of McCorvey has shown can lead to lifelong distress.

The solution: If the goal is to decrease the number of abortions, then common sense would dictate that we should address social factors associated with abortion. According to Alan Guttmacher Institute, of the 1.3 million abortions, almost 90% occur in the first trimester, almost all of which are unwanted pregnancies (see “agi-usa” reference above.) Over half are in young women (under 25 years old) with the largest proportion among 18-19 years old (19%). Regrettably, the US has the highest abortion rate in the developed, western world. As Huf would remind me, causality for any phenomenon, especially abortion, is hard to generalize, but we do see strong associations worldwide; and more importantly, negative associations.

For example, some of the highest rates are in countries where abortion is illegal, namely Latin America, thus showing us that simple prohibitions are not satisfactory; and the lowest rates are in countries with very liberal laws, namely Northern and Western Europe. The strongest associations are that abortion rates are lowest in nations where women are empowered financially, health insurance is guaranteed and government-run quality sex education is either mandatory or strongly recommended in the early teen years.

Even in that minority of instances where women are married prior to first sexual experience, quality sex education and access to healthcare would still be empowering. By linking health insurance to employment or spousal support, women are left vulnerable to the whims of their husband or their employer. This arrangement has the potential effect of decreasing their access to birth control or prenatal care, thus increasing the likelihood that abortion would become a choice for that woman or couple. Furthermore, pro-life groups fight access to morning-after pill which has been implicated in decreasing the number of abortions by tens of thousands per year in the US (see “womanissues” reference above.)

Planned Parenthood has been much maligned by many pro-life activists because they are the largest single provider of pregnancy terminations in the US. The fact that is lost is that PP is also the number one single entity working to prevent abortion—with education and affordable and accessible birth control. In effect, PP is performing the function that public health departments and secondary schools perform in other civilized nations. As a society, we should be ashamed at the abysmal state of our national health that we must rely on a philanthropic organization to be the primary purveyor of such an important and necessary function.

While the Bush administration and pro-life groups dance around the periphery of the abortion debate, and try to appeal to the lowest emotional level, we continue in our national health nightmare. Our president accepts kudos by his misguided political base because he supports worthless laws, such as PBA ban, and ridiculous policies, like abstinence-only education and “life begins at conception.” Meanwhile, American children live in ignorance and deprivation and get pregnant prematurely. Ironically, many of these same adults who gush about the virtues of the PBA ban and abstinence-only education also protest the very things that would likely lead to fewer abortions because of some ideological aversion to big government, or national health, or federal deficits, or whatever. We argue endlessly about allocating a few hundred million dollars to reduce abortion—a yearly budget that would be equal to a couple weeks’ expenditure for our Iraqi occupation. I maintain that for a president, and other leaders, to stoke the flames of controversy with talk of abstinence-only and partial-birth abortion, etc. is to act immorally, and with forethought. Mr. Bush should know better. A true leader would use his Ivy League education to interpret the data, and present the cold hard facts to his loyal constituency. Until he does that, the blood of every preventable abortion is on his hands.

Deuce of Spades...

UBL's cousin, Dubya-al bin Laden

War on Mail

UPS wins!!

Bush's Moral Collapse?

After all the fuss made by "religious conservatives" and their loyalty towards Bush in the recent election, I was wondering if they felt duped with the latest revelations about the newly re-elected president's nonchalance toward the two issues held most dear to the voters who cast ballots based on "moral issues": gay marriage and abortion (see below articles' excerpts.). The hypothesis pointed out in pre-election emails, from ideas broached by Thomas Franks in his book What ever Happened to Kansas?, is that right-wing politicians do not want to actually resolve these problems associated with lifestyle; they would rather be divisive during election season and get the evangelicals in a lather for voter turn-out, but then back-burner these issues after the election in order to save them for the next election cycle. Like clockwork, every election they drag out the gay issues, the abortion issues, etc., to get the wanted turnout at the polls, but predictably Bush is now distancing himself from these moral crusades.
Now, are evangelicals miffed that Bush has tabled the gay marriage ban and has appointed an AG who thinks kids should have abortion without parental approval? Where's Jerry Falwell when you need him? At least one person I know voted for Bush solely for his "moral issues" stances, and actually had called Bush a "loose cannon" on foreign policy. Do we now have the worst of all worlds? Just wondering if you feel used?
Grodge

From CNN: "As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, in a written statement.... As a member of the court, Gonzales ruled with the majority that some teenage girls should not be required to get parental permission for an abortion. www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/

From MSNBC/Washington Post: 'No push on marriage amendment. On the domestic front, Bush said he would not lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
While seeking reelection, Bush voiced strong support for such a ban, and many political analysts credit this position for inspiring record turnout among evangelical Christians, who are fighting same-sex marriage at every juncture. Groups such as the Family Research Council have made the marriage amendment their top priority for the next four years.
The president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously. . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate."
Bush's position is likely to infuriate some of his socially conservative supporters, but congressional officials say it will be impossible to secure the 67 votes need to pass the amendment in the Senate.' www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6831621/

Illini take over #1 from Wake Forest

Go Illini!!!

Marine Petition

Recently I was sent a petition via email that discussed the recent killing of a wounded Iraqi insurgent that had been televised by an embedded pool photographer. The petitioner stated that it was his/her opinion that "NOTHING should happen to the American Marine," and then asked recipients to sign a petition in support of the marine. http://www.petitiononline.com/as123/petition.html

My bias to allow the military investigation to ensue and allow those qualified to make this decision to do so. I am not an expert on international law, the Geneva Conventions or the military rules of engagement. Any opinion that I could make on this issue would be based on hearsay news reports and a video taken out of context. I would not be allowed to view witness testimony and cross-examination. In sum, there is no way that my opinion could be based on anything but jingoist support for an American marine solely because he wears the flag of my country on his shoulder.

The event was obviously tragic. The entire war in Iraq, like all wars, is tragic. The threats to US soldiers and the deaths of Iraqi people are equally disastrous. Nowadays, wars are fought on worldwide television, with various opinions clouded by the “fog of war.” My belief is that we should wish the best to all the individuals involved, but allow the military experts to determine the outcome of the investigation of this event.

My hope is that a soldier representing my interests would act within the confines of humane behavior, but that may be too much to ask in a time of war. Republican Senator Hiram Johnson recognized in 1917 that “the first casualty when war comes is the truth.” Indeed, we have all suffered from indifference to the facts over these past two years, and our soldiers have been the most exposed. My heartfelt concern certainly goes out to the coalition soldiers as well as the Iraqi civilians and also the insurgents, who are all caught in this morass of war.

I do agree with the petitioner when he/she states that our young men and women should “not take an extra second” to decide if its right to shoot and that the “lives of our soldiers should be the single most important factor…” Following this reasoning to the next logical level, I believe that all our soldiers would be put on the next transport home. The US military was dispatched to Iraq in order to make sure that weapons of mass destruction were not in the hands of Saddam Hussein; none were found, so why are our marines still there being thrust into these ethical dilemmas?
Grodge

Evolution for Real

I feel compelled to enter the debate regarding the theory of evolution as it pertains to modern science education and support the viewpoint of Sander Mutsaers presented in his November 21 letter. Mr. Gary Hoke, in his December 2, 2004 letter, has cited Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box as the definitive response to the elegant theory of natural selection as proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859. The ideas of “irreducible complexity” and “intelligent design”, as recently extolled by Dr. Behe, date back to the 1700’s but have gained a fair amount of traction lately among the nonscientific lay community, especially with those who feel that their religious faith is being threatened by Darwinism.

Dr. Behe has proposed that complex organs, such as the eye, and complex cellular mechanisms, such as blood clotting, could not be explained by the gradual evolution of biological development as proposed by Darwin. Behe asserts that such mechanisms had to be designed intact since simpler examples of these processes would be nonfunctional, and therefore could not be refined through the gradualism of natural selection. However, Behe’s “design theory” is countered by scientific understanding of cell biology. Many examples of the gradual development of complex processes have been described, such as the simple light sensing chemicals in algae that have presumably led to the immensely more complex animal eye. Simpler blood clotting cascades have been described in lower animals, and solid explanations exist as to how these could gradually evolve into the present human clotting process. If he were alive today, Darwin would be assured that his ideas have been supported with each and every new piece of biological information. Furthermore, nothing has been discovered in that time that would lead to any refutation of any part of his initial theory of evolution based on natural selection.

Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has authored a very accessible review of Darwinism called Finding Darwin’s God, and he specifically responds to Behe’s “intelligent design” theory on pp 129-165. I would recommend this short book for anybody, lay or professional, who desires a concise explanation of perhaps the least understood theory in America: the theory of evolution, or Darwinism. Numerous scientists and researchers, including but not limited to Richard Dawkins, Robert Pennock and Lawrence Krauss, as well as innumerable scientific societies and journal editors have spoken out against the rationale of Dr. Behe’s idea. It’s just bad science. Period.

The most amazing attribute of Mr. Darwin’s theory is that it has become increasingly irrefutable over the past 145 years, which makes it more than “just a theory.” With every advance in biochemistry, cell biology and genetics, the elegance of Darwin’s proposal has been supported, not diminished. Even Dr. Behe himself states “…I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing and I have no reason to doubt it (Darwin’s Black Box, p 5.)”

I personally know highly educated people, and even fellow physicians, who do not understand Darwin’s immense contribution to science. Merely because certain individuals, or an entire community for that matter, cannot grasp the intricacies of a particular scientific concept does not make that science untrue— just ask Galileo, who was nearly executed for espousing the “theory” that the earth was not the physical center of the universe. Your electric lights still work although the local nuclear power plant operates on the atomic “theory.” Similarly, the effectiveness of antibiotics to treat infection is not diminished because such therapy is based on the germ “theory.”

Likewise, to use Dr. Behe’s arguments to remove Darwin from schools or edit evolutionary theory within science curricula would make no sense at all. Some may argue that intelligent design should be presented alongside Darwin’s theory. But Behe’s concept is older than Darwinism itself, and has been systematically disproved with advancing science, only to be resurrected recently in order to offer a weak assault on the fortress of evolutionary theory. In educating the next generation, we have to decide whether we will present science in its purest form, or allow it be diluted by political and religious agendas.
Grodge

Welcome

Welcome to the Kalamazoo Post

The purpose of this Blog is to converse on the issues of the day-- politics, religion, stocks, golf or whatever is captivating your fancy.

Let's keep it clean, and we'll all try to refrain from personal attacks (I promise). If we concentrate on positive energy, and avoid the negative, maybe we can shed more light than heat on the given topics.

Moreover, this will save everyone from getting unwanted emails: they can participate if they want, or stay away if they don't. Feel free to use aliases, although we'll probably figure out who you are from your opinions.

Grodge