So it's been over a year and...yeah. I don't really have much to say about that. But I googled myself (oh, come on, you do it, too sometimes) and this thing came up and I was like "shit! that's still there!" and, after some agonizing, I decided to take a stab at resurrecting this exercise in narcissism.
It couldn't hurt to just vent once in a awhile and, you know, practice writing? Right?
Anyway, after staring at the ceiling on this too-hot-for-me-to-not-have-air-conditioning night, I decided that I might as well jump back into this whole self-expression game. It's funny, but I am a writer with a guilt trip. I feel guilty for thinking that anyone will want to know what I have to say about anything. It's kind of sad, really. Or maybe it's not sad, I don't know. But every few months or so, I go into this thought spiral that goes something like this: "What the hell is wrong with you? Who do you think you are to think that you can actually contribute something useful by expressing your opinions? You're just a reasonably bright dude who may or may not have a knack for stringing words together - what's so fucking special about that?"
The fact is that there's nothing so special about that. I have no insider knowledge of anything. I am not an intellectual and my "perspective," such as it is, is probably not especially illuminating. Yet, this is what I do. Maybe it's what I do because it's the only thing that I'm kind of good at - I am one-dimensional talent, hear me roar! - but that's how it is. If nothing else, this blog got me writing about stuff and thinking about stuff, and maybe that's not so good for you, but it's good for me, so I'm gonna try to do it again.
With that half-hearted and somewhat sickening apology for this activity out of the way, I now present to you, blog, new, and probably not improved.
Of course, now I have to come up with a first topic. A real one. That will have to wait until another day, but it's coming soon.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
They have to actually ask this question!?
Iraq: Is Reconstruction Failing?
This is what the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee spends its time discussing? It's pretty clear that reconstruction is failing, and it's kind of funny that we avoid telling the truth about Iraq by instead phrasing it as a question. Is Reconstruction Failing? Are We Losing the War? Has it Become a Civil War? Are the Sunnis and the Shia Ready to Compromise? Yes, yes, yes, and no. It's about time we confront these truths and figure out what to do next. That's not necessarily (in fact it probably isn't) pulling out of Iraq, but it must be something radically different (not the "troop surge").
This is what the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee spends its time discussing? It's pretty clear that reconstruction is failing, and it's kind of funny that we avoid telling the truth about Iraq by instead phrasing it as a question. Is Reconstruction Failing? Are We Losing the War? Has it Become a Civil War? Are the Sunnis and the Shia Ready to Compromise? Yes, yes, yes, and no. It's about time we confront these truths and figure out what to do next. That's not necessarily (in fact it probably isn't) pulling out of Iraq, but it must be something radically different (not the "troop surge").
Monday, May 21, 2007
Ann Coulter is such an easy target...
But I couldn't help myself. When my mother e-mailed this to me (fully expecting that I'd formulate some kind of rebuttal) I had to go at it, point-by-point, Fire Joe Morgan style. The italicized words belong to Coulter, though you probably could figure that out.
C'est Si Bon
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
I'm off to Paris! I hereby revoke every churlish remark I've ever made about those lovely Gallic people. (But in light of former New Jersey governor and current "gay American" Jim McGreevey's latest career move, I redouble everything I've ever said about the Episcopalians.)
Well, congratulations, Ann Coulter. It's good to know you've gotten over your Francophobia. Care for a glass of Champagne?
With Nicolas Sarkozy's decisive victory as the new president of France, the French have produced their first pro-American ruler since Louis XVI.
Really? I can't claim to know the exact feelings of every French ruler for the past 230 years (as I'm sure you do), but considering that we've never once had an armed conflict with France, or even really came close, I find this difficult to believe.
In celebration of France's spectacular return to Western civilization, I bought a Herve Leger dress on Monday, and we're having croissants for breakfast every day this week. This delicate French pastry, by the way, is in the shape of a crescent to commemorate the Crusaders' victory over Islam. Aren't the French just peachy?
Croissants are tasty, yeah.
"Sarkozy the American," as he is known in France, called Muslim rioters "scum." Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Sarkozy did do that. He has a tendency to shoot from the hip, and it's not really much of a stretch to be pissed off at rioters, so okay. But, I betcha didn't know that he also created a national council of French Muslims to further Muslim integration and enhance their economic opportunity. He even supports affirmative action! Downright American, I say!
He explained his position on Muslim immigrants in France, saying: "Nobody has to, I repeat, live in France. But when you live in France, you respect its rules. That is to say that you are not a polygamist. ... One doesn't practice female genital mutilation on one's daughters, one doesn't slit the throat of the sheep, and one respects the republican rules."
Fair enough. I'm pretty sure Sarkozy recognizes, however, that most Muslims do respect France's rules, just as many Americans recognize that most immigrants respect America's rules.
Sarko never issued an apology or entered rehab. To the contrary, he said: "I called some individuals that I refuse to call 'youth' by the name they deserve. ... I never felt that by saying 'scum' I was being vulgar, hypocritical or insincere."
All right. I think we all can agree that property-massacring rioters are not very nice people. Score one for the Coult-master!
Is there a single American politician who would speak so clearly without then apologizing to Howard Dean?
Yes, actually. His name is Tom Tancredo, and he's running for President (unfortunately). And Howard Dean? Where the hell did you get Howard Dean from? Don't tell me you're still fuming at him for, you know, being mostly right about Iraq back when the rest of the Democrats were too afraid of Bush's 9/11-machine to say anything. I mean, seriously, when I think of powerful political figures in this country, "Howard Dean" is not exactly the first name that pops into my head.
It looks like the Democrats are going to have to drop their talking point about Bush irritating the rest of the world. Evidently not as much as Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world. The politicians who hate Bush keep being dumped by their own voters.
It's probably still true that Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world more than President Shrub, but you gotta hand it to the guy, he's done his very best to close the gap. And let's see some evidence of this contention about Bush-hating international politicians.
At the Democratic presidential debate a few weeks ago, B. Hussein Obama carped that Bush had "alienate(d) the world community" and vowed that he would build "the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years."
Very nice rhetorical flourish with the B. Hussein Obama, even though it makes about as much sense as me calling the President "G. Walker Bush." But don't you know that Obama's a secret Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy liberty and establish an American caliphate? Even though he's Christian. And from Chicago. So, yeah.
Democrats are terrific at building alliances. Remember how Jimmy Carter won the love of the world by ditching our ally the Shah of Iran, allowing him be replaced by a string of crazy ayatollahs? Since then, we haven't heard a peep from that area of the world.
You blame Jimmy Carter for that? Oh, how Americans have such short memories! In 1953 (under a Republican president....a decent, non-crazy one, but still) the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and installed the Shah because said government had socialist tendencies. Understandably, this kind of annoyed most Iranians, and it was compounded by the fact that the Shah was, to put it lightly, not a very nice man. So one day, because they were pissed off at us and the British for all the meddling, they overthrew the Shah and your "string of crazy ayatollahs" took power. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame Dwight Eisenhower. Or
Queen Victoria. Leave poor old Jimmy Carter alone.
The smartest woman in the world sniped that she would "create alliances instead of alienation."
I assume you're talking about Hillary? Well, I wouldn't say she's the smartest woman in the world, but I think she has a very good point.
Yes, it was spellbinding how her husband charmed North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and his sociopathic son Kim Jong Il by showering them with visits from Jimmy Carter and gifts from love-machine Madeleine Albright. And that was that: No more trouble from North Korea!
I don't know if I'd quite describe Clinton's North Korea policy in such terms, but I do know this: Clinton did speak with them. They signed an agreement. The North Koreans, as is their wont, tittered and tattered and kind of broke the agreement and pissed everyone off. But they still had no nuclear weapons. Bush comes into office, adopts the very strong, indisputably patriotic and manly policy of "I'm not listening!!!! Lalalalalalalalala!!!!" Five years go by and, hey, North Korea tests a nuclear weapon, which made such a loud noise that Bush & co. heard it even though their index fingers were jammed up their ear canals all the way to the amygdala. So, like the kid sulking in the corner who finally got hit with the dodgeball, they decided to get up and play, and lo and behold, a new agreement! Moral of the story: I'm pretty sure it was Machiavelli who said, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I know it was James Baker (Bush family friend!) who said that you've got talk to your enemies. They were both right.
As I understand it, the center of the supposedly America-hating world is France. But now it turns out even the French don't hate America as much as liberals do.
Man, you really don't understand it. If France were the "center of the supposedly America-hating world" we'd be loved more than Caesar when he got back from Gaul (modern-day France, coincidentally). Try Iran (you were going on about them before, right?). Or Syria. Or Afghanistan. Or Pakistan. Or-wait for it-Saudi Arabia! Oh, and can you please just shut up about liberals, already? Please. It's getting kind of old.
Au contraire! (We can say that again!) Our Georgie is the most popular American with the French since Jerry Lewis.
I seriously, seriously doubt that.
All over the civilized world, voters are turning terrorist-coddling liberals out of office and voting for politicians friendly toward Bush, the world's sworn enemy of Islamic fascism.
They are? Thus far, you've provided one example, Nicolas Sarkozy. Who, mind you, opposed the invasion of Iraq and is of the same party (the UMP) as the supposedly terrorist-coddling Jacques Chirac.
Those foreign leaders so admired by Democrats for hating George Bush and loving Saddam Hussein are being replaced by rulers who pledge their friendship to the United States.
Still no evidence, Ann. Perhaps it is time for a primer on the nature of logical argument. You make a contention (you're really very good at that). Then you find some evidence, in order to back up your contention. You then summarize how these two things relate to each other, and repeat. You really ought to try it sometime. It's fun.
Retrospectively, B. Hussein Obama's answer about our most important ally being "the European Union" may eventually become true, thanks to Bush's ceaseless ally-making.
I'm not even going to discuss your shameless, partisan, twisting of Senator Obama's name again. However, weren't you just praising Bush for breaking alliances? Now he's making them, and you're happy with that? Which is it, Ann? Pick a side, you flip-flopper.
In Germany, pro-American Angela Merkel crushed the mincing anti-American chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 2005.
Hey, evidence! Yay! Were you listening to me? You were, weren't you? Though I do feel compelled to mention that Merkel won because Germany's economy has been hobbled by over-regulation, not because the German people suddenly decided to have a George W. Bush love-in. Ditto for Sarkozy, actually. And I don't see Merkel committing German troops to Iraq or anything. Maybe she's a terrorist in disguise?
Last year, conservatives swept Canada, making Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper the prime minister. I haven't loved Canadians this much since the New York Rangers won the Stanley Cup.
The Canadian Liberal Party was in power, alone, for years, and had grown ideologically tired and scandal-ridden. Sound familiar?
Australian Prime Minister John Howard is both the longest-serving Australian prime minister and -- by his own account -- the most conservative. As The New York Times rooted for his defeat in 2004, claiming Australians were furious with him for his support of the Iraq war, he won a historic third term.
You know what's kind of funny? John Howard is actually from the Liberal Party, which is the "conservative" party in Australia. Did you know the word "liberal" has many definitions, and in its original iteration it meant one who favors personal liberty and free markets? Also, Howard is increasingly unpopular and looks headed for defeat in the next election. And while I can't recall the New York Times' take on Howard in '04, I find it difficult to believe that they get that worked up about Australian politics.
Along with Howard, Bush's staunchest ally in the war on terrorism has been Britain's Labor Party leader Tony Blair. He's about to leave office -- only to be replaced by a leader from the even more pro-American Conservative Party.
What? Are you serious? Do you, like, read news from outside America? Tony Blair is going to be replaced by Labour's Gordon Brown, who has a more anti-war reputation. It does appear likely that Brown will fall to the Conservatives in the next election, but that's not due until 2009, so this truly is shamelessly misleading.
American celebrities who threaten to move out of the country every election rather than live under a conservative leader are running out of countries to move to.
Um, maybe. Though I should note here that right-of-center parties in most other Western nations are far less conservative than the Republican Party in the U.S. In Europe, I'd be a conservative.
Only Spain remains a nation of women. As long as Spain exists, it will not outlive the shame of its gutless capitulation to terrorist bombings in 2004. It is worse than Sweden's neutrality toward Hitler.
I don't even know what to say about this. Hitler killed 11 million people, Ann. Think about that.
But France! Until this week, France seemed a less likely place to find someone who supports America than a meeting of Democrats.
Because Democrats hate America. That's why they, you know, vote, and serve in our government, and pay taxes, and engage in public debate and run for office. They really, really hate America. You know what we should do? We should make America a one-party state. Like the USSR. Those guys understood democracy.
Apparently, even the French prefer Western civilization to clitorectomy-performing, car-burning savages.
Yes, they do. So do I. So do Democrats. Though I don't recall ever hearing of Jacques Chirac burning a car, and if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Segolene Royal still has a fully functioning clitoris.
The Democratic Party is now officially the only organization on Earth that does not take the threat of Islamic fascism seriously. Between the Democrats and the media, America has gone from its usual position as the world's last hope to radical Islam's last hope.
It is? Is that certified? Has it been notarized? I suppose it has, because you said so. I have an idea. Let's all write Ann Coulter to encourage her to move to France.
P.S. You may also want to read this interview.
C'est Si Bon
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
I'm off to Paris! I hereby revoke every churlish remark I've ever made about those lovely Gallic people. (But in light of former New Jersey governor and current "gay American" Jim McGreevey's latest career move, I redouble everything I've ever said about the Episcopalians.)
Well, congratulations, Ann Coulter. It's good to know you've gotten over your Francophobia. Care for a glass of Champagne?
With Nicolas Sarkozy's decisive victory as the new president of France, the French have produced their first pro-American ruler since Louis XVI.
Really? I can't claim to know the exact feelings of every French ruler for the past 230 years (as I'm sure you do), but considering that we've never once had an armed conflict with France, or even really came close, I find this difficult to believe.
In celebration of France's spectacular return to Western civilization, I bought a Herve Leger dress on Monday, and we're having croissants for breakfast every day this week. This delicate French pastry, by the way, is in the shape of a crescent to commemorate the Crusaders' victory over Islam. Aren't the French just peachy?
Croissants are tasty, yeah.
"Sarkozy the American," as he is known in France, called Muslim rioters "scum." Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Sarkozy did do that. He has a tendency to shoot from the hip, and it's not really much of a stretch to be pissed off at rioters, so okay. But, I betcha didn't know that he also created a national council of French Muslims to further Muslim integration and enhance their economic opportunity. He even supports affirmative action! Downright American, I say!
He explained his position on Muslim immigrants in France, saying: "Nobody has to, I repeat, live in France. But when you live in France, you respect its rules. That is to say that you are not a polygamist. ... One doesn't practice female genital mutilation on one's daughters, one doesn't slit the throat of the sheep, and one respects the republican rules."
Fair enough. I'm pretty sure Sarkozy recognizes, however, that most Muslims do respect France's rules, just as many Americans recognize that most immigrants respect America's rules.
Sarko never issued an apology or entered rehab. To the contrary, he said: "I called some individuals that I refuse to call 'youth' by the name they deserve. ... I never felt that by saying 'scum' I was being vulgar, hypocritical or insincere."
All right. I think we all can agree that property-massacring rioters are not very nice people. Score one for the Coult-master!
Is there a single American politician who would speak so clearly without then apologizing to Howard Dean?
Yes, actually. His name is Tom Tancredo, and he's running for President (unfortunately). And Howard Dean? Where the hell did you get Howard Dean from? Don't tell me you're still fuming at him for, you know, being mostly right about Iraq back when the rest of the Democrats were too afraid of Bush's 9/11-machine to say anything. I mean, seriously, when I think of powerful political figures in this country, "Howard Dean" is not exactly the first name that pops into my head.
It looks like the Democrats are going to have to drop their talking point about Bush irritating the rest of the world. Evidently not as much as Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world. The politicians who hate Bush keep being dumped by their own voters.
It's probably still true that Muslim terrorists irritate the rest of the world more than President Shrub, but you gotta hand it to the guy, he's done his very best to close the gap. And let's see some evidence of this contention about Bush-hating international politicians.
At the Democratic presidential debate a few weeks ago, B. Hussein Obama carped that Bush had "alienate(d) the world community" and vowed that he would build "the sort of alliances and trust around the world that has been so lacking over the last six years."
Very nice rhetorical flourish with the B. Hussein Obama, even though it makes about as much sense as me calling the President "G. Walker Bush." But don't you know that Obama's a secret Muslim terrorist who wants to destroy liberty and establish an American caliphate? Even though he's Christian. And from Chicago. So, yeah.
Democrats are terrific at building alliances. Remember how Jimmy Carter won the love of the world by ditching our ally the Shah of Iran, allowing him be replaced by a string of crazy ayatollahs? Since then, we haven't heard a peep from that area of the world.
You blame Jimmy Carter for that? Oh, how Americans have such short memories! In 1953 (under a Republican president....a decent, non-crazy one, but still) the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran and installed the Shah because said government had socialist tendencies. Understandably, this kind of annoyed most Iranians, and it was compounded by the fact that the Shah was, to put it lightly, not a very nice man. So one day, because they were pissed off at us and the British for all the meddling, they overthrew the Shah and your "string of crazy ayatollahs" took power. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame Dwight Eisenhower. Or
Queen Victoria. Leave poor old Jimmy Carter alone.
The smartest woman in the world sniped that she would "create alliances instead of alienation."
I assume you're talking about Hillary? Well, I wouldn't say she's the smartest woman in the world, but I think she has a very good point.
Yes, it was spellbinding how her husband charmed North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and his sociopathic son Kim Jong Il by showering them with visits from Jimmy Carter and gifts from love-machine Madeleine Albright. And that was that: No more trouble from North Korea!
I don't know if I'd quite describe Clinton's North Korea policy in such terms, but I do know this: Clinton did speak with them. They signed an agreement. The North Koreans, as is their wont, tittered and tattered and kind of broke the agreement and pissed everyone off. But they still had no nuclear weapons. Bush comes into office, adopts the very strong, indisputably patriotic and manly policy of "I'm not listening!!!! Lalalalalalalalala!!!!" Five years go by and, hey, North Korea tests a nuclear weapon, which made such a loud noise that Bush & co. heard it even though their index fingers were jammed up their ear canals all the way to the amygdala. So, like the kid sulking in the corner who finally got hit with the dodgeball, they decided to get up and play, and lo and behold, a new agreement! Moral of the story: I'm pretty sure it was Machiavelli who said, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I know it was James Baker (Bush family friend!) who said that you've got talk to your enemies. They were both right.
As I understand it, the center of the supposedly America-hating world is France. But now it turns out even the French don't hate America as much as liberals do.
Man, you really don't understand it. If France were the "center of the supposedly America-hating world" we'd be loved more than Caesar when he got back from Gaul (modern-day France, coincidentally). Try Iran (you were going on about them before, right?). Or Syria. Or Afghanistan. Or Pakistan. Or-wait for it-Saudi Arabia! Oh, and can you please just shut up about liberals, already? Please. It's getting kind of old.
Au contraire! (We can say that again!) Our Georgie is the most popular American with the French since Jerry Lewis.
I seriously, seriously doubt that.
All over the civilized world, voters are turning terrorist-coddling liberals out of office and voting for politicians friendly toward Bush, the world's sworn enemy of Islamic fascism.
They are? Thus far, you've provided one example, Nicolas Sarkozy. Who, mind you, opposed the invasion of Iraq and is of the same party (the UMP) as the supposedly terrorist-coddling Jacques Chirac.
Those foreign leaders so admired by Democrats for hating George Bush and loving Saddam Hussein are being replaced by rulers who pledge their friendship to the United States.
Still no evidence, Ann. Perhaps it is time for a primer on the nature of logical argument. You make a contention (you're really very good at that). Then you find some evidence, in order to back up your contention. You then summarize how these two things relate to each other, and repeat. You really ought to try it sometime. It's fun.
Retrospectively, B. Hussein Obama's answer about our most important ally being "the European Union" may eventually become true, thanks to Bush's ceaseless ally-making.
I'm not even going to discuss your shameless, partisan, twisting of Senator Obama's name again. However, weren't you just praising Bush for breaking alliances? Now he's making them, and you're happy with that? Which is it, Ann? Pick a side, you flip-flopper.
In Germany, pro-American Angela Merkel crushed the mincing anti-American chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in 2005.
Hey, evidence! Yay! Were you listening to me? You were, weren't you? Though I do feel compelled to mention that Merkel won because Germany's economy has been hobbled by over-regulation, not because the German people suddenly decided to have a George W. Bush love-in. Ditto for Sarkozy, actually. And I don't see Merkel committing German troops to Iraq or anything. Maybe she's a terrorist in disguise?
Last year, conservatives swept Canada, making Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper the prime minister. I haven't loved Canadians this much since the New York Rangers won the Stanley Cup.
The Canadian Liberal Party was in power, alone, for years, and had grown ideologically tired and scandal-ridden. Sound familiar?
Australian Prime Minister John Howard is both the longest-serving Australian prime minister and -- by his own account -- the most conservative. As The New York Times rooted for his defeat in 2004, claiming Australians were furious with him for his support of the Iraq war, he won a historic third term.
You know what's kind of funny? John Howard is actually from the Liberal Party, which is the "conservative" party in Australia. Did you know the word "liberal" has many definitions, and in its original iteration it meant one who favors personal liberty and free markets? Also, Howard is increasingly unpopular and looks headed for defeat in the next election. And while I can't recall the New York Times' take on Howard in '04, I find it difficult to believe that they get that worked up about Australian politics.
Along with Howard, Bush's staunchest ally in the war on terrorism has been Britain's Labor Party leader Tony Blair. He's about to leave office -- only to be replaced by a leader from the even more pro-American Conservative Party.
What? Are you serious? Do you, like, read news from outside America? Tony Blair is going to be replaced by Labour's Gordon Brown, who has a more anti-war reputation. It does appear likely that Brown will fall to the Conservatives in the next election, but that's not due until 2009, so this truly is shamelessly misleading.
American celebrities who threaten to move out of the country every election rather than live under a conservative leader are running out of countries to move to.
Um, maybe. Though I should note here that right-of-center parties in most other Western nations are far less conservative than the Republican Party in the U.S. In Europe, I'd be a conservative.
Only Spain remains a nation of women. As long as Spain exists, it will not outlive the shame of its gutless capitulation to terrorist bombings in 2004. It is worse than Sweden's neutrality toward Hitler.
I don't even know what to say about this. Hitler killed 11 million people, Ann. Think about that.
But France! Until this week, France seemed a less likely place to find someone who supports America than a meeting of Democrats.
Because Democrats hate America. That's why they, you know, vote, and serve in our government, and pay taxes, and engage in public debate and run for office. They really, really hate America. You know what we should do? We should make America a one-party state. Like the USSR. Those guys understood democracy.
Apparently, even the French prefer Western civilization to clitorectomy-performing, car-burning savages.
Yes, they do. So do I. So do Democrats. Though I don't recall ever hearing of Jacques Chirac burning a car, and if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Segolene Royal still has a fully functioning clitoris.
The Democratic Party is now officially the only organization on Earth that does not take the threat of Islamic fascism seriously. Between the Democrats and the media, America has gone from its usual position as the world's last hope to radical Islam's last hope.
It is? Is that certified? Has it been notarized? I suppose it has, because you said so. I have an idea. Let's all write Ann Coulter to encourage her to move to France.
P.S. You may also want to read this interview.
Friday, May 11, 2007
More on Giuliani....
And here's why I can't stand the man. Nobody knows more about his tyrannical tendencies than the lowly ferret.....
"Ferrets for Freedom."
"Ferrets for Freedom."
Friday, May 4, 2007
Giuliani on Abortion
I can't pretend to know the man's motivations (world domination certainly among them), and I sure as hell do not trust him. But can we stop saying that Rudy Giuliani "struggles" when asked about abortion? Can we stop calling his position "wobbly"?
Look, I would never vote for Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States. He did some good things as mayor, but at this point his lunacy appears to have taken over and I probably wouldn't support him for dogcatcher. I certainly would not put it past him to equivocate on abortion in a quest for the power he so clearly craves. That said, hasn't it ever occurred to, you know, any pundit, anywhere, that maybe the man simply takes a complicated stance on a complicated issue? Are we so fucking used to polarizing extremism regarding abortion that a public figure openly acknowledging the obvious moral and medical shades of gray inherent in the issue sends our media into a collective blue-screen-of-death mode?
Sadly, yes. Perhaps the most amusing thing about the situation is that at least a plurality of Americans (full disclosure: myself included, more or less) are close to agreeing with Giuliani. Poll after poll reveals most Americans as qualifiedly pro-choice. They support partial-birth bans and some other restrictions, but on the whole, believe abortion is an individual woman's decision. Presumably, many Americans also understand the difference between a court decision (Roe v. Wade) and a fundamental women's right to choose. Both parties, unfortunately, have been hijacked by the extremists on both sides who dominate the abortion debate. In particular, the Democrats have squandered what should be a natural advantage on the issue by kowtowing to left-wing groups (I'm sorry, in this case, that's what they are) that advocate near-unrestricted access. This has been one of the great political follies of the past three decades.
Giuliani, for his part, has blatantly stated that he is pro-choice. He has also stated that personally dislikes abortion and would appoint "strict constructionist" judges whose decisions he would abide by. Contrary to what the pundits would have you believe, there is nothing logically inconsistent or disingenuous (at least on the face of it) about this position. Personally, I'm wary of "strict constructionist" judges and believe the morality of an abortion depends upon the particular scenario, but I recognize that it is perfectly sensible to say the government has no business regulating that which you personally dislike. I dislike adultery, for example, but I would never suggest that the government try to regulate it. Furthermore, I'll advance the following rule: If a behavior has no demonstrable negative impact on society, the government should keep the fuck out. Abortion clearly has no demonstrable negative impact, conversely, its impact may actually be a net positive. Morality alone ought not to be legislated, in any situation, ever.
I will actually do Giuliani one better, though: let's overturn Roe v. Wade. It's bad law, and it's had a horribly corrosive effect on our political culture. This is the short version of a very long argument, but suffice to say: no Roe v. Wade, no conservative movement; no conservative movement, no George W. Bush; no George W. Bush....well, we'd all just be a whole lot better off. I'm not about to go blame all of our problems on Roe v. Wade of course, however, the decision set off a chain of clearly detrimental events. And it didn't even fundamentally settle the abortion question, it just elevated and stratified a debate that would have otherwise occurred at the state level, in the legislative branch, where these matters are supposed to be decided.
Would this have meant that some states decided to ban nearly all abortions? Yes. Do I approve of that? No. But just as I believe the government ought not to legislate morality, I believe the Supreme Court should not do the legislature's job. Congress, and nearly every state, has decided that it is illegal to smoke marijuana. I disagree with this, but I do not believe the Supreme Court should step in, declaring a constitutional right to smoke pot. Few would support such a ridiculous proposition, yet, it is not much of a logical leap from Roe v. Wade. Rather, just as with the drug laws, show me a bill that legalizes abortion, and I will support it (this is why I favor Governor Spitzer's recent attempt to update New York's abortion laws, states should be more proactive in this area). Show me a federal constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, and I'll support that, too. But Roe v. Wade has been a disaster both politically and legally and ought to be put to rest. If Alabama wishes to ban abortions, I may disagree with that, but it is their prerogative to do so.
So the only time I actually like Rudy Giuliani, mayor-cum-wannabe-dictator, President of 9/11, is when he discusses abortion. Get him to talk about homeland security, or Iraq, or civil rights, and my face will grow paralyzed with fear. There are a million very good reasons not to vote for Rudy Giuliani. On abortion, however, he makes good sense.
Look, I would never vote for Rudy Giuliani for President of the United States. He did some good things as mayor, but at this point his lunacy appears to have taken over and I probably wouldn't support him for dogcatcher. I certainly would not put it past him to equivocate on abortion in a quest for the power he so clearly craves. That said, hasn't it ever occurred to, you know, any pundit, anywhere, that maybe the man simply takes a complicated stance on a complicated issue? Are we so fucking used to polarizing extremism regarding abortion that a public figure openly acknowledging the obvious moral and medical shades of gray inherent in the issue sends our media into a collective blue-screen-of-death mode?
Sadly, yes. Perhaps the most amusing thing about the situation is that at least a plurality of Americans (full disclosure: myself included, more or less) are close to agreeing with Giuliani. Poll after poll reveals most Americans as qualifiedly pro-choice. They support partial-birth bans and some other restrictions, but on the whole, believe abortion is an individual woman's decision. Presumably, many Americans also understand the difference between a court decision (Roe v. Wade) and a fundamental women's right to choose. Both parties, unfortunately, have been hijacked by the extremists on both sides who dominate the abortion debate. In particular, the Democrats have squandered what should be a natural advantage on the issue by kowtowing to left-wing groups (I'm sorry, in this case, that's what they are) that advocate near-unrestricted access. This has been one of the great political follies of the past three decades.
Giuliani, for his part, has blatantly stated that he is pro-choice. He has also stated that personally dislikes abortion and would appoint "strict constructionist" judges whose decisions he would abide by. Contrary to what the pundits would have you believe, there is nothing logically inconsistent or disingenuous (at least on the face of it) about this position. Personally, I'm wary of "strict constructionist" judges and believe the morality of an abortion depends upon the particular scenario, but I recognize that it is perfectly sensible to say the government has no business regulating that which you personally dislike. I dislike adultery, for example, but I would never suggest that the government try to regulate it. Furthermore, I'll advance the following rule: If a behavior has no demonstrable negative impact on society, the government should keep the fuck out. Abortion clearly has no demonstrable negative impact, conversely, its impact may actually be a net positive. Morality alone ought not to be legislated, in any situation, ever.
I will actually do Giuliani one better, though: let's overturn Roe v. Wade. It's bad law, and it's had a horribly corrosive effect on our political culture. This is the short version of a very long argument, but suffice to say: no Roe v. Wade, no conservative movement; no conservative movement, no George W. Bush; no George W. Bush....well, we'd all just be a whole lot better off. I'm not about to go blame all of our problems on Roe v. Wade of course, however, the decision set off a chain of clearly detrimental events. And it didn't even fundamentally settle the abortion question, it just elevated and stratified a debate that would have otherwise occurred at the state level, in the legislative branch, where these matters are supposed to be decided.
Would this have meant that some states decided to ban nearly all abortions? Yes. Do I approve of that? No. But just as I believe the government ought not to legislate morality, I believe the Supreme Court should not do the legislature's job. Congress, and nearly every state, has decided that it is illegal to smoke marijuana. I disagree with this, but I do not believe the Supreme Court should step in, declaring a constitutional right to smoke pot. Few would support such a ridiculous proposition, yet, it is not much of a logical leap from Roe v. Wade. Rather, just as with the drug laws, show me a bill that legalizes abortion, and I will support it (this is why I favor Governor Spitzer's recent attempt to update New York's abortion laws, states should be more proactive in this area). Show me a federal constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, and I'll support that, too. But Roe v. Wade has been a disaster both politically and legally and ought to be put to rest. If Alabama wishes to ban abortions, I may disagree with that, but it is their prerogative to do so.
So the only time I actually like Rudy Giuliani, mayor-cum-wannabe-dictator, President of 9/11, is when he discusses abortion. Get him to talk about homeland security, or Iraq, or civil rights, and my face will grow paralyzed with fear. There are a million very good reasons not to vote for Rudy Giuliani. On abortion, however, he makes good sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
