What Kool-Aid do GOP Senators drink?

It is bad enough that we have the MSM labeled "maverick" McCain criticizing the party or the President, and regulating free speech; Voinivich wussing out on the Bolton nomination and then tearing up on the senate floor when he is criticized; Lugar finally sending me a letter about Durbin's remarks and not doing much more than include Little Dick's "apology" and saying, "issue resolved"; but now we have Frist, bending over kissing the big toe of the MSM by going against the president on federal funding for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. Apparently, his pollsters/advisers think he must do penance for his stance on the Terry Schindler matter, in order to increase his chances of being elected President in 2008. Let's just point out one major flaw in that little theory, you have to be nominated first. Does he really think this move will work to his favor with Republican primary delegates?

That Frist's move, and I can think of a better term, is merely a cynical vote grab, can be seen by the utter incoherence of his position. When one begins by saying:

"I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science.

"Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

But then says:

"I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health."

It is difficult to draw any other conclusion. The only other explanation is that Frist is hopelessly confused, but the man is a doctor; he must certainly understand the complexities of the matter and how many have been misinformed. Yet, he does nothing but strengthen the hand of those who advocate the ends the means. Worse, yet, he does so in the context of defining how we should treat innocent life that is temporarily vulnerable to us, and merely disregards that little detail.

He had tried this before, but accepted the President's compromise. His change of view now, besides being a logical disaster, ignores a number of facts. There are no bans on embryonic stem cell research. The greatest practical therapies have been with adult stem cells. There have been none with embryonic, despite there being no ban on research. Why should taxpayer dollars be used to fund a morally repulsive act, when a better alternative is available?

Aside from the matter of Senators not doing very well at getting elected President, there is the issue of wooing Republican primary voters to your campaign. Does Frist really think they will be impressed by the plaudits he is given from the NY Times et al? If I were Frist, I would fire my advisors/pollsters or quit drinking the GOP Senate Kool-Aid.

Previous Stem cell posts:

Embryonic stem cells - Narcissism unleashed
Stem cell research

Previous GOP Senate posts:

Little Dick Durbin - should pay the price
George Voinovich - Let's start a support group
About that Senate compromise
McCain for President - NOT!
GOP Senators - Still wusses!!

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Let the games begin

Well, we now have a Supreme Court nomination, John Roberts of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. For some, on the hysterical left, he is guaranteed to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Others, on the right, are not so sure; in fact, some think we are risking another David Souter, due to the lack of historical judicial record on the issue of abortion and other activist court touchstones.

Michelle Malkin has several excellent posts covering the various views on the right and left:
SCOTUS WATCH: ROBERTS FILE
SCOTUS WATCH: HYPERVENTILATION AND SIGHS OF RELIEF
SCOTUS WATCH: ANN WEIGHS IN.

I find it interesting that Ann Coulter is not enthused with the President's pick due to the experience we had with Justice Souter. I wonder, does her lack of support make it easier for moderates to resist the knee-jerk reactions of Schumer and little Dick Durbin? I would find it quite hilarious, if some years down the road, Roe vs. Wade is overturned, with Justice Roberts in the majority and we find out Karl Rove asked Ann Coulter to come out the way she has. I am willing to bet that someone in the moveon.org crowd has or is about to propose that this is the case. All the more satisfying, for me, is that they are probably foaming at the mouth as they think about it.

So, some of use are not sure how conservative Roberts is or will be. But one thing is guaranteed; the rhetoric against him, will be, in a word, severe. NARAL is already fretting about "reproductive rights" and others about affirmative action, as if these things are actually supported by the Constitution. Focus group tested phrases are being used to paint the candidate as a danger to our hard won freedoms. One has to wonder why such over the top ranting has become normal for one particular side in these matters. Republicans certainly didn't act this way when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated, despite her involvement with the ACLU.

Besides Republicans, in general, not having the guts to fight hard, there is also a change that the other side first noticed with the Robert Bork nomination in 1987. What had changed is that the balance of the court was shifting closer to not legislating from the bench. The other side knows this, and realizes the stakes. If the court really does reject judicial activism, it will not be easily overturned at the next election. When the courts are one's primary means to advance an agenda, it isn't surprising to see such rhetoric. No matter how they spin it, this also shows that they fear Americans working out controversial matters for themselves.

If Roberts really is a strict constructionist, we may very well see the courts actually allowing the American people to decide abortion and other controversies by voting at the state level. Unfortunately, the Democrats, lately screaming about how every vote should count, seem to be against allowing Americans the right to vote on these issues.

It is instructive to see various Democrats mouth their tested words and phrases but then find out who has criticized the Kelo decision and which justices dissented from it. Sadly, for all the Democrats talk of freedom and the rule of law, those terms and phrases never rise above an Orwellian twist of meaning and deception.

Previous post:

"It's good to be the king"

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

The "sophisticated" French

Ok, this article I'm going to reference is not entirely about the French. But, one excerpt is really great about the supposed superior "sophistication" of France, compared to the United States (in bold).

Understanding America by Qwen Harris

The fact is, though, that the United States is an older country than Germany, Italy, and a dozen other European states, not to speak of Latin America, Africa, and most of Asia. It is the oldest extant democracy on earth, the oldest republic, and the oldest federal system—as well as the largest, most complex, most open and most tested (something that one might not readily have grasped from the facile attempt to ridicule and patronise America during the last disputed presidential election). Consider that during the time that this supposedly young country has existed, France, that epitome of European sophistication, has gone through five different republics, two emperors, two monarchies, and a puppet regime. How sophisticated can you get.

Another good point (emphasis added):

Certainly the United States has been fortunate in some important respects: in having wide oceans on either side of it; in having pretty harmless neighbours to its north and south; in having, for a long period when it was potentially vulnerable, a non-threatening British navy between it and Europe. It was probably this combination of advantages that Bismarck had in mind when he once remarked that God seemed to have a special place in his heart for drunkards, idiots and Americans. History is replete with examples of countries that were well endowed with advantages but who blew their luck (think of Brazil and Argentina). There should be a strong presumption that Americans did not compile their record of success merely due to a remarkable run of good fortune, that they have been getting some important things right.

Do read the entire article. It is quite interesting and worthy of thought and discussion.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

"It's good to be the king"

"It's good to be the king", I wonder how many people know which movie that line is from. But, rather than focus on such a film, I am going to discuss the serious issues of power and law.

From Henry Bracton, father of English common law, mid-thirteenth century:

"Let the king render back to the Law what the Law give to him, namely, dominion and power; for there is no king where will, and not Law, wields dominion."

Bracton's wise words state a principle we inherited from the English experience of law and politics. Unfortunately, we are moving very much away from this and headlong into a type of despotism. A small change to Bracton's quote will illustrate this.

"Let the judge render back to the Law what the Law give to him, namely, dominion and power; for there is no judge where will, and not Law, wields dominion."

With a Supreme Court vacancy and more to come, during the Bush administration, there will be much debate about the role of the courts in shaping our culture. For some, activist judges have brought important freedoms to the country. The problem with that is it is merely the ends justifies the means. Such a person will have no defense should the judges start creating law that they suddenly find themselves disagreeing with. For their justification of activism is grounded in nothing other than subjectivism. They cannot appeal to the Constitution because they have already advocated that it be ignored.

But the Constitution is where the judge's powers originate. If it is ignored on all other issues then Bracton's quote clearly applies in it's modified form. This is not the only problem though.

When we become ruled by men, rather than by law, we have no certain knowledge of what laws we will be breaking. Increasingly often it will become something that must be decided by whoever sits in the courts. But if they are not constrained by law or the Constitution, then we cannot be secure in the knowledge of what they will decide this time or in the future. Sandra Day O'Connor is a good example of a lack of clear and consistent legal principle. Then there is Kelo, the most recent and startling example of a ruling based entirely on the personal views of judges, with no regard for the text of the constitution.

Those beholden to judicial activism will say we can fix such errors by legislation. That may work now, but it is very difficult to fix errors due to judicial activism when judges claim supremacy to legislatures and such judges are still being placed in power. Furthermore, society can fix laws that "strict constructionalist" judges have decided for or against, as well. Laws are written and the constitution is amended as need be. Both ways result in society changing but by working through legislatures rather than activist judges we have the support of the Constitution, as well as more effectively reach compromises that satisfy a broader range of the population. We also have the protection of law, rather than merely rely on the vain hope that there are still men or women in those robes who will be merciful to us as they gaze down upon us from the lofty heights they have created for themselves.

There really is no Constitutional support for activist judges. One may like the current results and think, "It's good to be the king". However, such thinking doesn't rise above the level of an entertaining comedy and is beneath serious political though. If Dred Scott doesn't prove the point, then Kelo should make it clear that such a benevolent despotism can very easily turn against society.

Today, property rights have become much less secure. Who knows what will come tomorrow, except activist judges, as they roll the dice in their heads rather than subject themselves to the Constitution from which their power is actually derived.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

My condolences

To all who suffered loss from the attack in London, my prayers for you in this time of need.

God bless

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

July 4th

Happy Birthday America!!

I hope everyone had a great holiday. Let's make sure we do not forget our soldiers who have fought and are fighting for our freedom and the freedom of others. Also keep in mind the sacrafices their families must endure.

I can't really think of much more to say since it has been covered well by others on my blogroll. Take the time to check it out. You will find excellent commentary on a number of issues.

God Bless America

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Brainstorming and sexual harrassment

From the London Observer:

'Brainstorming', the buzzword used by executives to generate ideas among their staff, has been deemed politically incorrect by civil servants because it is thought to be offensive to people with brain disorders.

Instead staff at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) in Belfast will use the term 'thought-showers' when they get together to think creatively. A spokeswoman said: 'The DETI does not use the term brainstorming on its training courses on the grounds that it may be deemed pejorative.'

If this kind of thing is considered legitimate then no doubt, we will eventually hear that someone feels sexually harrassed by the term thought-showers. Just sayin.

H/T NRO The Corner

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

War of The Worlds - Robby must die

I saw War of The Worlds tonight. Overall, a pretty good movie. I liked how the special effects were not overused and therefore did not overwhelm the story. Spielberg also chose to focus on the experience of one family trying to survive such a tragedy. The more conventional route would have been to focus much more on the actual warfare and much larger explosions. A gutsy decision and it will be interesting to see how people react.

But, I must warn some who may find themselves enjoying the film, only to have it ruined by the narration at the end. For me it was enjoyable to hear, though to others, hearing God mentioned, may cause a coronary event. Apparently, Spielberg is confident enough to not shrink back from allowing such a "controversial" word to be uttered.

In all seriousness though, I do have a problem with the film, as some might be wondering due to the title of this post. To put it bluntly, Robby is the new Jar Jar Binks. At the end of the movie I was hoping he had died, as many people hoped Jar Jar would be killed.

In focusing on a troubled family, Spielberg brings in the typical teenage, all about me, character. He tries to redeem this walking bag of narcissism by having him perform a heroic act. Predictably, the father (Tom Cruise), witnesses this and we see a moment of admiration for his angst driven offspring. But this is completely ruined later.

Per the needs of the story, the boy must be separated from his father and younger sister. This is done in such a way as to make one really hope the boy ended up being killed. In leading up to the separation, it is made very clear, that Cruise's character has been a less than attentive father. He doesn't know his daugher is allergic to peanuts. He, somehow, is also not aware that his daughter has panic attacks and needs to perform a particular exercise to calm down. The son, knows and the son is also who the daughter runs to in time of danger. Even with his typical brooding attitude, the boy appears to have been a good sibling and picked up the slack where his father had failed.

But now the separation. In running from the brutal alien attack, the family is caught up in the fighting. Troops are rushing to the front line. The father tries to lead them away but Mr. Teen Narcissist must see what is going on. He is so caught up in his own desires, he forgets how much his sister depends on him. He doesn't even see that while his father struggles to convince him to follow, that another traumatized couple are trying to lure the daughter away. It was all about I have to see this, I have to see this. No thought whatsoever, of the danger in even delaying one's departure, or how a band of two would be more vulnerable than a group of three. Nope, just me me me. For being such a lousy father, it is a wonder that the kid didn't get knocked out by dad and dragged away.

I suppose one could say, the boy was in shock, traumatized and not thinking clearly. I don't buy it. It's not as if this happened suddenly. He had to walk quite a ways to the front line, all the while his sister is saying slow down.

So, be a brooding lump of narcissism, abandon your loving and dependent sister to a father you do not respect and that you know can't help her with the anxiety attacks. It's all ok, because the happy reunion will be there, as usual. Fortunately, there is much good in the movie despite this, and best of all the narration and that controversial God word are the final ending.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Sandra Day O'Conner and the Supreme Court

Get ready, the war for the Supreme Court will now commence. Already, you have the Democrats demanding that the President not change the court by selecting someone who disagrees with their views. They will of course, spin this as a "reproductive rights" issue. Silly euphemism as that is, for the destruction of innocent life, simply because it is temporarily at your mercy.

The problem with all the hysteria that will be raised, is that all the Supreme Court would really do is overturn Roe vs Wade. This merely places abortion regulation in the hands of the states, from which it never should have been taken in the first place. Obviously, there will be a range of decisions across the country. Some states will severely restrict abortion, others will not.

Something else that needs to be kept in mind is that the baddest conservatives on the Supreme Court protected our property rights in their dissent to the Kelo decision. True, Justice O'Connor was also part of the dissent, this time, but her history of judicial decisions give no guarantee that she could be counted on to always make such decisions.

This shouldn't be surprising, when someone makes the middle their ideology, they really have no solid bearing. They are merely splitting the difference between what they perceive as extreme positions. But how do they define extreme and why should one assume the extreme is always wrong or that splitting down the middle is correct? Perhaps, the split is 60/40 to the right or 80/20 to the left. Shouldn't truth be the guide, no matter where it leads? Yes, that takes courage and will not win you applause from the NY Times. But why should someone care about that?

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions