When two harsh critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war came back from an eight-day trip to Iraq and printed an op-ed article with the title "A War We Just Might Win" (NYTimes 7/30/07), most Americans cheered, grateful to see some progress, daring to dream that perhaps we could achieve some semblance of peace and cooperation in that worn-torn country.
But while most Americans embraced the good news, the Democrat leadership continued on it’s pessimistic path toward defeat. In fact, they have little choice. Since their head honcho Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, repeatedly, that the war is already lost, he’s backed his Democrats into a corner that isn’t going to be easy to get out of. They’ve invested so much political capital in bringing the troops home regardless of the status of the job they are doing, to back down now would be a tacit admission that President Bush’s surge strategy might just have a chance of working. Since most of the Democrat’s overall political strategy relies on bashing the Republicans no matter what, they’re stuck treading water until there is more bad news in Iraq.
It’s a terrible thing to have to say, but the Democrats have to bank on things getting worse over there. They’ve leveraged their entire political futures on it. Yet in the long run, it could spell disaster for them on many levels. From congressional candidates to presidential hopefuls, Democrats who oppose a strategy that appears to have a chance of winning will only further distance them from the average American, who hates to see troops injured and dying overseas, but hates to lose a fight even more. Even as we embrace the good news and clamor for more, the Dems are forced to continue predicting gloom and doom.
Democrats are once again in danger of shooting themselves in the foot, a habit they seem to have every time they gain any momentum. If things get worse in Iraq (the fuel for the Democrat’s movement), you can count on them making as much hay out of it as possible, and the Bush-bashing becoming even more strident than ever.
On the other hand, if things get better, the Democrats will have to make a choice; to continue on the Reid-Pelosi-Schumer party line in their blind ambition to put a Democrat in the White House, or to try to figure out a way to distance themselves from their party in an effort to reconnect with the overwhelming number of Americans who will jump on the bandwagon of victory the moment it starts to look like it might be moving again.
Inevitably, this will weaken the Democrats, because, as President Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The same is true for our country, and the sooner more people start remembering that it is America at war, and not Republicans or Democrats, the stronger and greater our country will be.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Jihadist Doctors Just the Beginning of Future Terrorism
The recent failed attacks in Great Britain should be a stark realization of just how much patience and sacrifice our self-declared enemies are willing to practice in order to achieve their goal of a Muslim-dominated world, and it’s a lesson we had better take very seriously.
Contrary to the assumption that these perpetrators were medical professionals who were somehow recently converted to the jihadist way of thinking, Westerners must realize that, in fact, these were terrorists who deliberately set out to infiltrate our society by pursuing a vocation that would allow them complete freedom of travel to any nation in the world and an automatic benefit of the doubt by it’s welcoming citizens. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, using one of the oldest tricks in the book.
The events in Britain revealed a chilling new strategy in the Islamist’s war against us, and for them, it’s a win-win scenario. Had the attack succeeded as planned, the jihadists would have celebrated another victory in their violent agenda against the West. Even in the face of operational failure, they still struck a blow to the ingrained trust we all have in the medical profession, succeeding in making us doubt the very caretakers we have been taught to believe in. When we begin to fear our own doctors and hospitals, we are the victims of a most inventive and insidious terrorism. It’s only a matter of time before we discover how many other professions of trust have been likewise infiltrated in order to be used against us.
In the face of such deliberate and visionary planning, what have we done in response? Our leaders have become paralyzed. They are so entrenched in satisfying their own immediate political needs that they are blind to the long-term consequences of their paralysis to the nation. They have failed to strengthen our border security, failed to impose the practical use of profiling for fear of hurting someone’s feelings, failed to keep track of immigrants who overstay their visas, failed to develop a practical strategy for facing this new tactic of terror, and even failed to recognize the potential threats that are seeping slowly but surely into our everyday lives. Even in the face of the numerous foiled terrorist attacks on our shores in recent months, they have done nothing for fear of losing political ground. It’s quite clear they will do nothing until another successful terrorist attack, when doing something will finally be to their personal advantage.
Some might say this "sky is falling" depiction of the future is an alarmist attitude. It’s easy to point up and say, "See it’s not falling," convinced that if it isn’t happening right now it never will. On the other hand, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Since doing nothing requires no political risk, action or forethought, this current crop of leaders will undoubtedly excel at it. The long-term consequences to our nation, however, are more grave than we can imagine.
Contrary to the assumption that these perpetrators were medical professionals who were somehow recently converted to the jihadist way of thinking, Westerners must realize that, in fact, these were terrorists who deliberately set out to infiltrate our society by pursuing a vocation that would allow them complete freedom of travel to any nation in the world and an automatic benefit of the doubt by it’s welcoming citizens. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, using one of the oldest tricks in the book.
The events in Britain revealed a chilling new strategy in the Islamist’s war against us, and for them, it’s a win-win scenario. Had the attack succeeded as planned, the jihadists would have celebrated another victory in their violent agenda against the West. Even in the face of operational failure, they still struck a blow to the ingrained trust we all have in the medical profession, succeeding in making us doubt the very caretakers we have been taught to believe in. When we begin to fear our own doctors and hospitals, we are the victims of a most inventive and insidious terrorism. It’s only a matter of time before we discover how many other professions of trust have been likewise infiltrated in order to be used against us.
In the face of such deliberate and visionary planning, what have we done in response? Our leaders have become paralyzed. They are so entrenched in satisfying their own immediate political needs that they are blind to the long-term consequences of their paralysis to the nation. They have failed to strengthen our border security, failed to impose the practical use of profiling for fear of hurting someone’s feelings, failed to keep track of immigrants who overstay their visas, failed to develop a practical strategy for facing this new tactic of terror, and even failed to recognize the potential threats that are seeping slowly but surely into our everyday lives. Even in the face of the numerous foiled terrorist attacks on our shores in recent months, they have done nothing for fear of losing political ground. It’s quite clear they will do nothing until another successful terrorist attack, when doing something will finally be to their personal advantage.
Some might say this "sky is falling" depiction of the future is an alarmist attitude. It’s easy to point up and say, "See it’s not falling," convinced that if it isn’t happening right now it never will. On the other hand, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Since doing nothing requires no political risk, action or forethought, this current crop of leaders will undoubtedly excel at it. The long-term consequences to our nation, however, are more grave than we can imagine.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Supreme Court Tolls Death Knell for Affirmative Action
From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial back in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It became the dream of every proud American too, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 soon followed. The nation breathed a collective sigh of relief, trusting that the injustices of the past would soon fade away, and a better, stronger nation would emerge.
Our hopes were dashed when President Lyndon Johnson decided to reinterpret Title VII of that Civil Rights Act. Though it specifically stated that none of its provisions should be interpreted as requiring "preferential treatment" for any individual or group because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (though obliquely did suggest that some form of "affirmative action" should be encouraged), Johnson decided to codify affirmative action remedies by issuing Executive Order #11246, which made it clear that set-asides, quotas and preferential treatment based on race should be used in order to accomplish his vision of "The Great Society."
In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Why it wasn’t patently obvious that Johnson’s order to institutionalize racial preference was just such an injustice, whatever the well-intended reason, is hard to understand. Perhaps it was the guilt many thoughtful Americans felt for those past injustices that made us accept it, believing that at some, undefined point in the future, these measures would no longer be necessary. The problem is, once a group enjoys privileges for any reason, they are not going to willingly give them up.
There are no doubt many who will label these views as racist, and will point out the ongoing racial problems that exist in this country. I submit that the reason there are still racial problems in this country is because we are required by law to practice racial discrimination. The fact is, the last two generations have grown up restrained by institutionalized racism. Those given preferential treatment based on race learned from affirmative action that they are recognized by government as "inferior", incapable of succeeding without the "leg up" the law provided. Those on the other end learned that the law created unfairness, that no matter how hard they tried, someone could pass them merely because of their "preferred" race.
As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion of this landmark case from Seattle and Louisville schools systems this week, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It doesn’t get any plainer than that. We can only hope that this common sense attitude will spread across every walk of life, not just in school systems, and that soon, we will all be able to be "free at last" from the enslaving bonds of affirmative action.
Our hopes were dashed when President Lyndon Johnson decided to reinterpret Title VII of that Civil Rights Act. Though it specifically stated that none of its provisions should be interpreted as requiring "preferential treatment" for any individual or group because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (though obliquely did suggest that some form of "affirmative action" should be encouraged), Johnson decided to codify affirmative action remedies by issuing Executive Order #11246, which made it clear that set-asides, quotas and preferential treatment based on race should be used in order to accomplish his vision of "The Great Society."
In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Why it wasn’t patently obvious that Johnson’s order to institutionalize racial preference was just such an injustice, whatever the well-intended reason, is hard to understand. Perhaps it was the guilt many thoughtful Americans felt for those past injustices that made us accept it, believing that at some, undefined point in the future, these measures would no longer be necessary. The problem is, once a group enjoys privileges for any reason, they are not going to willingly give them up.
There are no doubt many who will label these views as racist, and will point out the ongoing racial problems that exist in this country. I submit that the reason there are still racial problems in this country is because we are required by law to practice racial discrimination. The fact is, the last two generations have grown up restrained by institutionalized racism. Those given preferential treatment based on race learned from affirmative action that they are recognized by government as "inferior", incapable of succeeding without the "leg up" the law provided. Those on the other end learned that the law created unfairness, that no matter how hard they tried, someone could pass them merely because of their "preferred" race.
As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion of this landmark case from Seattle and Louisville schools systems this week, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It doesn’t get any plainer than that. We can only hope that this common sense attitude will spread across every walk of life, not just in school systems, and that soon, we will all be able to be "free at last" from the enslaving bonds of affirmative action.
Monday, June 11, 2007
"Immigrant Replacement Reform Bill" is the Answer
THE PROBLEM: Immigration Reform. When you listen to members of Congress, you’d think that absolutely nothing about the current immigration system is working and the whole thing needs to be trashed and started over. Yet when you ask any immigrant who came through that system, and you’ll learn just how effective our current laws are.
For example, we already have a "Guest Worker Program." It’s called a Work Visa, and must be applied for and granted before entering the U.S. The immigrant must have a job waiting for him or her and to have an employer as a sponsor, who must certify that there are no qualified Americans that can fill that job. It’s a strategy that has allowed the Immigration service to protect American jobs. For decades, it’s worked just fine. An immigrant can only stay in our country as long as they work for that one employer. They’re not allowed to change jobs, as that negates their Work Visa.
That’s often a high price to pay for some, but most do it gladly, because they know it’s worth it in the long run. After they make all the necessary effort and sacrifice to obtain a Green Card, they are then provided a long and arduous path to citizenship. It’s a difficult but hardly impossible journey through layers of laudably protective bureaucracy, and it’s another part of the immigration system that works just fine.
The problem isn’t the need to reform the immigration system. The system works fine when people use it. The main problem is the need to get more people into the system. So far, all of the approaches offered up by Congress rely on proven lawbreakers (crossing the border illegally is still a crime, no matter how regularly it may be done) being enticed with so many sweets that they’ll be compelled to come join the party (and, not surprisingly, 6 out of 7 will join the Democrat party, which explains a lot about the immigration debate).
SOLUTION: Quite simply, we make one major, temporary reform to the Immigration system, called the "Immigrant Replacement Reform Bill." For a two-year period, we offer amnesty (yes, amnesty) to American employers who have knowingly or unknowingly hired illegals. Each worker must provide immigration documentation, verified through the
Immigration Service, and be issued a new non-duplicatible biometrics identification card. At the same time, we temporarily open the floodgates to those immigrants who are first in line pursuing the system legally, allowing employers to sponsor as many workers as they need to replace those that turn out to be illegal. As soon as one employee is proven to be illegal, they are quickly replaced with one who has gone through the immigration process.
Granted, the process will likely have to be shortened to meet the immediate demand, but that works to our advantage; illegals will be forced to leave because their jobs are disappearing, those jobs can then be filled by either Americans or newly-legalized immigrants who we now have the means to track. Obviously, many of them will be the same people, but at least now we know who they are, which is the entire point of the current immigration reform debate.
At the end of two years, amnesty is lifted, employers will once again be held responsible for hiring illegals (with loss of their business licenses, the way it used to be), illegals will be prosecuted for merely coming over the border (the way it used to be), and a return to sanity, a sense of fairness, and the rule of law will prevail over the land.
For example, we already have a "Guest Worker Program." It’s called a Work Visa, and must be applied for and granted before entering the U.S. The immigrant must have a job waiting for him or her and to have an employer as a sponsor, who must certify that there are no qualified Americans that can fill that job. It’s a strategy that has allowed the Immigration service to protect American jobs. For decades, it’s worked just fine. An immigrant can only stay in our country as long as they work for that one employer. They’re not allowed to change jobs, as that negates their Work Visa.
That’s often a high price to pay for some, but most do it gladly, because they know it’s worth it in the long run. After they make all the necessary effort and sacrifice to obtain a Green Card, they are then provided a long and arduous path to citizenship. It’s a difficult but hardly impossible journey through layers of laudably protective bureaucracy, and it’s another part of the immigration system that works just fine.
The problem isn’t the need to reform the immigration system. The system works fine when people use it. The main problem is the need to get more people into the system. So far, all of the approaches offered up by Congress rely on proven lawbreakers (crossing the border illegally is still a crime, no matter how regularly it may be done) being enticed with so many sweets that they’ll be compelled to come join the party (and, not surprisingly, 6 out of 7 will join the Democrat party, which explains a lot about the immigration debate).
SOLUTION: Quite simply, we make one major, temporary reform to the Immigration system, called the "Immigrant Replacement Reform Bill." For a two-year period, we offer amnesty (yes, amnesty) to American employers who have knowingly or unknowingly hired illegals. Each worker must provide immigration documentation, verified through the
Immigration Service, and be issued a new non-duplicatible biometrics identification card. At the same time, we temporarily open the floodgates to those immigrants who are first in line pursuing the system legally, allowing employers to sponsor as many workers as they need to replace those that turn out to be illegal. As soon as one employee is proven to be illegal, they are quickly replaced with one who has gone through the immigration process.
Granted, the process will likely have to be shortened to meet the immediate demand, but that works to our advantage; illegals will be forced to leave because their jobs are disappearing, those jobs can then be filled by either Americans or newly-legalized immigrants who we now have the means to track. Obviously, many of them will be the same people, but at least now we know who they are, which is the entire point of the current immigration reform debate.
At the end of two years, amnesty is lifted, employers will once again be held responsible for hiring illegals (with loss of their business licenses, the way it used to be), illegals will be prosecuted for merely coming over the border (the way it used to be), and a return to sanity, a sense of fairness, and the rule of law will prevail over the land.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Affirmative Action is Government-Sponsored Racism
Every American will wholeheartedly agree that one of our most basic and noblest beliefs is that all people are created equal, and should be allowed the benefit of beginning their pursuit of happiness on a playing field that is equal and level to every other American. In fact, that’s what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was all about, insuring that everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion or country of origin had equal opportunity to succeed (or fail) under the law. Yes, it would take time for some people to get used to the idea and change their biased ways (our history of inequality is long and shameful), but for the first time in our history, they would clearly be on the wrong side of the law.
Unfortunately, a level field wasn’t enough for some people. Under President Johnson’s Great Society ideals, the government became obliged to make up for "past injustices," thus the creation of Affirmative Action, a sweeping initiative that, with the stroke of a pen, declared everyone who was not of European Caucasian descent socially, morally and/or intellectually inferior, incapable of achieving wealth, health and happiness without the benevolent interference of our know-it-all government. Why would any group of people willingly admit to that?
Quite simply, it was because they astutely recognized how many special privileges such a demeaning label would reap them in the long run. For the price of being labeled inferior, they no longer had to begin at the starting gate, like every other young person in the country, they could start a hundred yards into the race, legally, sanctioned, even encouraged by the law. And the bar wasn’t just set with the legislation in 1968. As recently as 1989 new laws were added to insure that those wanting to secure government contracts had special advantages. The wording of the 8a designation, which grants greater consideration for such contracts, is "Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged."
"Presumed to be" is pretty powerful stuff. The daughters of Senator Barack Obama and his wife (both graduates of Ivy League Universities) are hardly "socially and economically disadvantaged," but the simple fact that they are three-quarters black means they automatically go to the front of the line in the pursuit of their education and vocation, according to the law. Is it any wonder that ordinary Americans feel put upon, fueling any dormant prejudices that may remain from the past, or worse, rekindling another generation of racists who inevitably recognize the unfairness of the deal their fathers and grandfathers made?
When will we realize that preference for one group inherently means repression of another?
Every loyal American would vehemently disagree that anyone should receive special privileges because of their race, yet we’ve been brainwashed to think that it’s okay to have a Black Caucus in Congress, but a White one would be racist. We’ve been trained to believe that a Black Miss America Pageant where no whites need apply is fine, but a White Miss America Pageant with the same restrictions against blacks would be outrageous. We insist that mortgage lending be equal under the law, but force people to indicate their race on their applications in order to make sure the lender is lending "equally." If the lenders don’t, they’re subject to sanctions, yet if they do "meet the numbers," we hypocritically say there’s no quota being forced.
The biggest problem with Affirmative Action is that it fails to provide a measure for when those original "injustices" are sufficiently remedied. How do we know when we’ve achieved equal opportunity for all? When we have Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans in Congress? Been there, done that. How about in the Cabinet? Been there, done that. Must we have one of each minority become President before we finally decide we’ve outgrown Affirmative Action?
The whole Affirmative Action movement is one big fat hoodwink, and it needs to be changed before we raise another generation of citizens who learn that some Americans are given preferential treatment by the government (again) because of their gender, race, and creed. As long as Affirmative Action is on the books, as long as certain groups are given a hundred-yard advantage, individual achievements will never earn the respect they deserve, because there will always be doubt whether that success was the result of unfair play. For generations, the defining cry "Only in America!" could be proclaimed by anyone who achieved success from humble beginnings, despite whatever obstacles of life were put in their way. Somehow, it doesn’t ring quite so true when the government, by law, removes some of those obstacles based on racist reasoning, further perpetuating our long shameful history of inequality.
Unfortunately, a level field wasn’t enough for some people. Under President Johnson’s Great Society ideals, the government became obliged to make up for "past injustices," thus the creation of Affirmative Action, a sweeping initiative that, with the stroke of a pen, declared everyone who was not of European Caucasian descent socially, morally and/or intellectually inferior, incapable of achieving wealth, health and happiness without the benevolent interference of our know-it-all government. Why would any group of people willingly admit to that?
Quite simply, it was because they astutely recognized how many special privileges such a demeaning label would reap them in the long run. For the price of being labeled inferior, they no longer had to begin at the starting gate, like every other young person in the country, they could start a hundred yards into the race, legally, sanctioned, even encouraged by the law. And the bar wasn’t just set with the legislation in 1968. As recently as 1989 new laws were added to insure that those wanting to secure government contracts had special advantages. The wording of the 8a designation, which grants greater consideration for such contracts, is "Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged."
"Presumed to be" is pretty powerful stuff. The daughters of Senator Barack Obama and his wife (both graduates of Ivy League Universities) are hardly "socially and economically disadvantaged," but the simple fact that they are three-quarters black means they automatically go to the front of the line in the pursuit of their education and vocation, according to the law. Is it any wonder that ordinary Americans feel put upon, fueling any dormant prejudices that may remain from the past, or worse, rekindling another generation of racists who inevitably recognize the unfairness of the deal their fathers and grandfathers made?
When will we realize that preference for one group inherently means repression of another?
Every loyal American would vehemently disagree that anyone should receive special privileges because of their race, yet we’ve been brainwashed to think that it’s okay to have a Black Caucus in Congress, but a White one would be racist. We’ve been trained to believe that a Black Miss America Pageant where no whites need apply is fine, but a White Miss America Pageant with the same restrictions against blacks would be outrageous. We insist that mortgage lending be equal under the law, but force people to indicate their race on their applications in order to make sure the lender is lending "equally." If the lenders don’t, they’re subject to sanctions, yet if they do "meet the numbers," we hypocritically say there’s no quota being forced.
The biggest problem with Affirmative Action is that it fails to provide a measure for when those original "injustices" are sufficiently remedied. How do we know when we’ve achieved equal opportunity for all? When we have Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans in Congress? Been there, done that. How about in the Cabinet? Been there, done that. Must we have one of each minority become President before we finally decide we’ve outgrown Affirmative Action?
The whole Affirmative Action movement is one big fat hoodwink, and it needs to be changed before we raise another generation of citizens who learn that some Americans are given preferential treatment by the government (again) because of their gender, race, and creed. As long as Affirmative Action is on the books, as long as certain groups are given a hundred-yard advantage, individual achievements will never earn the respect they deserve, because there will always be doubt whether that success was the result of unfair play. For generations, the defining cry "Only in America!" could be proclaimed by anyone who achieved success from humble beginnings, despite whatever obstacles of life were put in their way. Somehow, it doesn’t ring quite so true when the government, by law, removes some of those obstacles based on racist reasoning, further perpetuating our long shameful history of inequality.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Abortion Shouldn’t be a Presidential Issue
For decades now, pro-life and pro-choice forces have been trying to make abortion a key issue in Presidential elections. To date, there is no evidence that their posturing and vehemence has made any difference at all, either to the outcome of the election or the furthering of the issue. By wasting all their time, money and energy pinning all their hopes on a candidate that has little or no control over the debate (other than to appoint justices that never seem to vote the way they want anyway), both sides have missed many opportunities to progress this heated dialogue toward a practical and amenable solution.
The obvious yet unseen truth is that both the pro-life people and the pro-choice people want the same thing: for every pregnancy to be a planned and wanted one. But their horns have become so locked in anger, so inflamed at the insensitivity of the other side, that they are unable to step back and look at the big picture, and the many, many things they have in common, including the clear-cut steps necessary to achieve their mutual goal.
It is their stubbornness to see the other’s point of view that precludes them from coming together with solutions that would benefit everyone in a satisfactory way. By distracting themselves with the hunt for the perfect Presidential candidate to support their side, they have alleviated themselves from having to tackle the tough issues on the ground, where it counts. In the 1960’s vernacular, both sides have "copped out."
Yes, the arguments for pro-choice and pro-life are wide and deep. Yes, there are strong feelings on both sides. But the fact is, better solutions could be found, if only the leadership of the groups that hold this issue most dear would come together, rather than put all their eggs in an inconsequential presidential basket.
The fact is, abortion has been legal in this country for over thirty years now, and few people would want to give up a right they have had for more than a generation, any more than they would want to return to the days of Prohibition. For those of us who remember the reality of the pre-Roe v. Wade days, when abortion was as illegal as ultra-conservatives would like to make it again, women still had abortions, just as people still drank during Prohibition despite its illegality. The difference is that when you try to legislate behavior, rather than educate responsibility and accountability for that behavior, everyone, and our society as a whole, loses. We lose freedom, we lose rationality, we lose common sense.
Just as making alcohol illegal forced the making of moonshine and bathtub gin in unsanitary conditions the norm, thus posing a greater health risk to those who ingested it, women will once again be forced to give up the current safe and sanitary conditions with skilled medical personnel, and return to the days of sneaking into run-down flophouses, with abortions being performed by anyone with a coat-hanger and a modicum of greed, inviting infection and botched procedures that cost not just the lives of the embryo, but the lives of thousands of women as well. The Prohibition of abortion has never been successful, just as the Prohibition of alcohol, too, was a spectacular failure.
There is no question that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would force a return to that kind of butchery, because women in certain unfortunate circumstances have for millennia been making that choice, albeit a choice of last resort, and always will. These are lessons we Americans have already learned. Why must we have to learn them over and over again?
By the same token, the preservation of life is also an extremely important matter for all of us. Naturally we’d like every pregnancy to end in a healthy birth, every child born to grow up in a happy and well-balanced family, either natural or adopted, and to live up to his or her full potential as a benevolent human being. The problem is, reality gets in the way. Life has never been that easy, even under the best of circumstances, and never will be. Human nature, even with the best of intentions, won’t allow it.
Most importantly, it must be realized that the settlement of the pro-life v. pro-choice issue won’t come with either the repeal or the salvation of Roe v. Wade. Even were the decision to be overturned, the debate would continue. Solutions can only come when the two sides seek out and find their common ground, and settle it peacefully, and the sooner they stop wasting time and get on with it, the better. Unfortunately, that won’t happen as long as the issue erroneously remains a contentious presidential one to be fought over again and again every four years.
The obvious yet unseen truth is that both the pro-life people and the pro-choice people want the same thing: for every pregnancy to be a planned and wanted one. But their horns have become so locked in anger, so inflamed at the insensitivity of the other side, that they are unable to step back and look at the big picture, and the many, many things they have in common, including the clear-cut steps necessary to achieve their mutual goal.
It is their stubbornness to see the other’s point of view that precludes them from coming together with solutions that would benefit everyone in a satisfactory way. By distracting themselves with the hunt for the perfect Presidential candidate to support their side, they have alleviated themselves from having to tackle the tough issues on the ground, where it counts. In the 1960’s vernacular, both sides have "copped out."
Yes, the arguments for pro-choice and pro-life are wide and deep. Yes, there are strong feelings on both sides. But the fact is, better solutions could be found, if only the leadership of the groups that hold this issue most dear would come together, rather than put all their eggs in an inconsequential presidential basket.
The fact is, abortion has been legal in this country for over thirty years now, and few people would want to give up a right they have had for more than a generation, any more than they would want to return to the days of Prohibition. For those of us who remember the reality of the pre-Roe v. Wade days, when abortion was as illegal as ultra-conservatives would like to make it again, women still had abortions, just as people still drank during Prohibition despite its illegality. The difference is that when you try to legislate behavior, rather than educate responsibility and accountability for that behavior, everyone, and our society as a whole, loses. We lose freedom, we lose rationality, we lose common sense.
Just as making alcohol illegal forced the making of moonshine and bathtub gin in unsanitary conditions the norm, thus posing a greater health risk to those who ingested it, women will once again be forced to give up the current safe and sanitary conditions with skilled medical personnel, and return to the days of sneaking into run-down flophouses, with abortions being performed by anyone with a coat-hanger and a modicum of greed, inviting infection and botched procedures that cost not just the lives of the embryo, but the lives of thousands of women as well. The Prohibition of abortion has never been successful, just as the Prohibition of alcohol, too, was a spectacular failure.
There is no question that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would force a return to that kind of butchery, because women in certain unfortunate circumstances have for millennia been making that choice, albeit a choice of last resort, and always will. These are lessons we Americans have already learned. Why must we have to learn them over and over again?
By the same token, the preservation of life is also an extremely important matter for all of us. Naturally we’d like every pregnancy to end in a healthy birth, every child born to grow up in a happy and well-balanced family, either natural or adopted, and to live up to his or her full potential as a benevolent human being. The problem is, reality gets in the way. Life has never been that easy, even under the best of circumstances, and never will be. Human nature, even with the best of intentions, won’t allow it.
Most importantly, it must be realized that the settlement of the pro-life v. pro-choice issue won’t come with either the repeal or the salvation of Roe v. Wade. Even were the decision to be overturned, the debate would continue. Solutions can only come when the two sides seek out and find their common ground, and settle it peacefully, and the sooner they stop wasting time and get on with it, the better. Unfortunately, that won’t happen as long as the issue erroneously remains a contentious presidential one to be fought over again and again every four years.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Pelosi’s Vigilante Diplomacy Should be Prosecuted
There is a myriad of long-standing laws on the books prohibiting American citizens and unauthorized officials from negotiating public agreements with other nations outside normal diplomatic channels. It is absolutely clear that House leader Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to Syria violates those laws. She should therefore be prosecuted to their fullest extent, along with everyone else in her entourage.
Vigilante behavior, no matter how noble it’s goals may be perceived by some, is still rightly abhorred in this country. Reminiscent of discredited frontier justice in the old West and rampant lynch mobs in the Deep South, it is just as disgusting now as it ever was, and even more dangerous when it is carried out by highly placed officials who think themselves above the very laws they create yet expect the rest of us to abide.
The late president Lyndon Johnson once wrote, "I am a free man, an American, a United States Senator, and a Democrat, in that order," wise words too many politicos have forgotten. Fortunately, most of our citizenry still believes that’s the way things should be. We are still capable of lifting the fog of party affiliation and thinking like Americans, making it much easier for us to answer these next questions:
Is it right for any public official to flaunt America’s laws simply because they hold an elected office? Is it right for anyone to place themselves above the clear path of diplomacy our country has established and falsely take up the mantle of a completely different path without sanction by those whose responsibility it is? As Americans, a nation that depends on the adherence to laws, the answer can only be a resounding "No," which means that the Justice Department should immediately begin proceedings against those who recently traveled to the Mideast, as visibly and succinctly as possible. Failure to make an example of this outrage will only result in more criminal behavior, and even more dangerous disregard for the law by our officials.
Unfortunately, few people in Washington these days would embrace the sensible words of President Johnson and put their party affiliation on the back burner. Instead, we have a Democrat party that will likely reward their House Leader for her vigilante diplomacy, and a Justice Department too skittish to do the right thing for fear of creating further political strife for their Republican (rather than American) bosses. A public prosecution would no doubt simply provide more fodder for the already overworked Democrat strategy for Bush-bashing.
But once again, the Democrats have run the risk of overplaying their hand. It is clear to even the most detached observer that the Democrat’s entire agenda is simply to continue to undermine anything and everything the administration does. As long as they kept their vituperous rhetoric within our shores, it could be excused, even tolerated because of our faith in the First Amendment.
But now that the incessant Bush-bashing has traveled overseas in a quasi-official status by fellow Americans, the line has been crossed, and Pelosi and her "bi-partisan" cohorts must be punished, not because of their party affiliation, but because they are citizens who broke the laws of our nation. If we fail to prosecute them simply because of their official positions or political affiliations, it will truly be a clear sign that vigilantism has regained it’s former ill-gotten legitimacy, and our more civilized America has completely, and sadly, lost its way.
Vigilante behavior, no matter how noble it’s goals may be perceived by some, is still rightly abhorred in this country. Reminiscent of discredited frontier justice in the old West and rampant lynch mobs in the Deep South, it is just as disgusting now as it ever was, and even more dangerous when it is carried out by highly placed officials who think themselves above the very laws they create yet expect the rest of us to abide.
The late president Lyndon Johnson once wrote, "I am a free man, an American, a United States Senator, and a Democrat, in that order," wise words too many politicos have forgotten. Fortunately, most of our citizenry still believes that’s the way things should be. We are still capable of lifting the fog of party affiliation and thinking like Americans, making it much easier for us to answer these next questions:
Is it right for any public official to flaunt America’s laws simply because they hold an elected office? Is it right for anyone to place themselves above the clear path of diplomacy our country has established and falsely take up the mantle of a completely different path without sanction by those whose responsibility it is? As Americans, a nation that depends on the adherence to laws, the answer can only be a resounding "No," which means that the Justice Department should immediately begin proceedings against those who recently traveled to the Mideast, as visibly and succinctly as possible. Failure to make an example of this outrage will only result in more criminal behavior, and even more dangerous disregard for the law by our officials.
Unfortunately, few people in Washington these days would embrace the sensible words of President Johnson and put their party affiliation on the back burner. Instead, we have a Democrat party that will likely reward their House Leader for her vigilante diplomacy, and a Justice Department too skittish to do the right thing for fear of creating further political strife for their Republican (rather than American) bosses. A public prosecution would no doubt simply provide more fodder for the already overworked Democrat strategy for Bush-bashing.
But once again, the Democrats have run the risk of overplaying their hand. It is clear to even the most detached observer that the Democrat’s entire agenda is simply to continue to undermine anything and everything the administration does. As long as they kept their vituperous rhetoric within our shores, it could be excused, even tolerated because of our faith in the First Amendment.
But now that the incessant Bush-bashing has traveled overseas in a quasi-official status by fellow Americans, the line has been crossed, and Pelosi and her "bi-partisan" cohorts must be punished, not because of their party affiliation, but because they are citizens who broke the laws of our nation. If we fail to prosecute them simply because of their official positions or political affiliations, it will truly be a clear sign that vigilantism has regained it’s former ill-gotten legitimacy, and our more civilized America has completely, and sadly, lost its way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
