Toyah

Matt asked some good questions about the history of abortion in America, much of which is a confusing jumble in the aftermath Roe v. Wade. The problem is that, because of Roe, the two sides in the battle are “abortion on demand for whatever reason” and “abortion never” without there being much middle ground. If Roe had never been, however, the present laws would probably show a patchwork of state laws and regulations, each somewhat different in their degrees of liberality, though most at least allowing abortion when the life of the mother is at stake. I don’t know the exact history of abortion in America, but Justice Blackmun took the time in Roe to write a brief history of abortion. (See History in part VI of Roe v. Wade) I am told, however, that Justice Blackmun mistreats much of abortion’s history, something that I cannot verify, though the Review will be publishing an article tackling this in this spring’s issue of TROLP, so I may have an update later.

By most accounts, Roe itself is simply a "raw exercise of judicial power," and a poorly reasoned one at that. The Roe Court explains that the right of a woman to abort a child emanates from the Constitution’s “penumbra” of provisions guaranteeing individual liberty; complete poppycock, which if taken to logical conclusion, means nothing except that the Supreme Court, not the text of the U.S. Constitution, determines what is a fundamental constitutional right and what is not. This is a problem because the Supreme Court, like most tyrants, is inclined to fits of irrationality and unpredictability. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee and supporter of abortion, has argued that Roe is a poor example of legal reasoning. (Ginsburg prefers upholding abortion on grounds of equality rather than liberty. See here.)

As you may have heard, Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. “Jane Roe”, is trying to have Roe overturned by asking the court to reopen her case in light of 30 years of experience and scientific development. Specifically, she wants the court to consider evidence on the sentience of the fetus and on the psychological risks to women who have had abortions and to find that these are sufficient justification--“a compelling state interest”--for allowing states to prohibit abortion. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling that McCorvey’s effort is precluded by the mootness doctrine, which means that because Texas law no longer outlaws abortion, a decision in her favor would have no practical effect and cannot be considered; i.e., in the years since Roe, all anti-abortion laws have been repealed, including the one McCorvey sought to have overturned in 1973. Of course, this is a catch 22 because the abortion laws were repealed because of Roe. (For more on McCorvey’s case, see here).

Sounds stupid? Well, Judge Edith Jones, author of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, thought so too and chose to write a concurrence to her own opinion in which she railed against Roe and the odd procedural rules that allow the Court to avoid reopening Roe even if the facts have changed enough that Roe might not come out as it did if reheard today. (You can read the 5th Circuit’s decision, followed by Judge Jones’ concurrence, here [.pdf]. A media report on the decision and concurrence is here.) That said, unless the Supreme Court chooses to make an exception to the mootness doctrine, which it could, then McCorvey’s case will fail. Presently she is waiting on a ruling on her cert petition filed with the Supreme Court. It is highly doubtful that the court will even take the case, though one can never predict when it comes to tyrants.

Phil gave me a copy of Washington’s Crossing, by David Hackett Fischer, for my birthday. As Fischer is one of my favorite historians, and the early American republic is my historical specialty, it was an apt choice. I finished the book a month or so ago, but haven’t gotten around to posting a review of it yet.

Like all Fischer’s works, it’s not just a good piece of history, it’s a great read too. As I read, I discovered that---somewhat to my surprise---my knowledge of the Revolution is quite limited. Most of what I do know comes by way of random late-night chats with Sir Jim. And Washington’s Crossing is a good place to begin.

Fischer starts by summarizing the history of the famous painting, and the historical beating it’s taken at the hands of sniffy historians. I think he would agree with Dr. Willson of Hillsdale College that sometimes myth is truer than fact. He doesn’t dwell on the painting long enough to bore us, however, and moves on to discuss the political situation in America in the months preceding Lexington, Concord, and the siege of Boston. Contrary to my understanding, the early part of the war went rather well for the Americans.

By the winter of 1776, however, things were going less well, after the disaster(s) around New York. The Howe brothers (that would be General William and Admiral Richard) had plans to occupy the strategic parts of New York and New Jersey, particularly where the Navy could support the Army, and made many amphibious landings, mostly unopposed. Sometimes Washington knew where they were coming and was simply out-generaled, but just as often his soldiers proved unreliable. In short, by winter the British were in firm control of New York and New Jersey, and there seemed no reason to think that anything should change by springtime.

Washington’s army was shrinking daily, down to only a few thousand men. If he could not win a victory soon, the American cause would simply shrivel away: the Howes wouldn’t even need to conquer the rest of the colonies. On the other hand, if he attempted an attack and lost again, as he had in New York, the army might be totally destroyed. Failure was simply not an option, but it did seem likely.

I shouldn’t give the story away. The next part is easily the best part of the book: an almost minute-by-minute account of the crossing of the not-quite-frozen Delaware, the march through the slushy snow, the battle---and the battle that followed the first battle---and then the victorious retreat back across the still-not-frozen Delaware. I finished Washington’s Crossing late in December, when the temperatures in Michigan were in the single-digits or less, and I thought about those soldiers, the ones who marched in ragged shoes or barefoot, waded through almost-frozen water, hauling the cannons along with them (imagine bare hands and very cold iron). I really can’t imagine how they did it. Dedicated, they were.

Just about everyone has seen the picture of Washington’s Crossing, but how many actually know the story of it? Now, thanks again to David Hackett Fischer, it’s not a secret. Go buy the book!

First the new... at least this was new to me. Whenever I get into an abortion debate, my adversary always brings up the "health of the mother" issue. For the first time the other night I learned that exceptions have always been made in this case. I also learned, today while talking to a fellow grad who happens to have a law degree and significant legal experience, that abortion was already legal in some states before the decision. Roe v. Wade just made it mandatory that abortions of convenience be legalized in all states. Also stated by my friend was that it is regarded, among those in the law biz, as one of the worst reasoned opinions of all time (from a constitutional standpoint). I have to take his word for it (I'd also like to hear Phil's word). 'Tis truly a tragedy for America and humanity that such a decision was ever made.

And for my next trick, an article that will come as news to absolutely nobody.

I agree with most commentators; that was quite a speech the President delivered yesterday. Lots has been said in praise of the President's speech by folks more knowledgeable than I, but I tend to agree with Peggy Noonan and Peter Robinson: the speech may have been too much. Inspiring rhetoric has its place at such an occasion, but the White House may be dangerously close to losing its footing in the clouds of the ideal. There’s folly and foolhardiness on the one side, and daring and calculation on the other.

i was very happy this past weekend to see some hillsdale people. i went up to ypsilanti saturday and spent the day with sir james. i wore my lovely ohio state buckeyes hat to the mall in ann arbor. the after hours shop in the mall thwarted our attempts to be fitted for tuxes for anthony's wedding. we ate dinner at a german pub in downtown ann arbor with multiple hillsdale peoples as well as jim's friends jason and jill. i only really knew scott hill, brandon thornton, and erin mahan...but it was good times never the less. i was also able to spend a fair amount of time with miss carrie olson. sunday i watched, miserably, as the colts got waxed. my mood was brightened by my glorious victory in the new version of risk that metzger brought, and the tasty dinner that jill made (preparing special versions for me to remove onions and peppers)

I promised a little more about my Rose Bowl trip, so here it is. We drove up a couple of days early and got to visit Tombstone on the way to Las Vegas. Tombstone is definitely a tourist trap, but it is still rough and isolated, and one wonders why the Earp or Clanton boys would have wanted to go there at all. We stopped there for a bite at the Longhorn Saloon.

From Tombstone we continued on to Las Vegas where we stayed at a decent off-strip hotel, known as Sam’s Town (“Where the locals play!”). Since it was the holiday season, hotel prices were very high--none of the "oh you can stay and eat in Vegas for real cheap" type of stuff—so a hotel on the Strip was out of the question. Spent all day New Years Eve on the Strip going from hotel to hotel, and only stopped occasionally to play a slot machine or two. (Matt, I tried to call you from the Paris Hotel, but only got your roommate.) Didn't bother with any table games because they were all pretty expensive: Minimum $10 bets early in the day, and by that evening you were lucky to find a table with a minimum bet below $25. Did go to a buffet, but they had jacked the price up $15 from the regular, so it didn't taste as good as it would have otherwise. Still, the hotels and casinos are very impressive, and I decided that if I ever go back to spend any real time, I will either stay at the Bellagio or Luxor. Maybe we can plan a Highlands reunion in Vegas one of these days.

New Years Eve ended with an incredible fireworks show out on the Strip. Fireworks were shot off from the tops of at least six hotels all down the strip, and the show lasted a good 15 or 20 minutes. It was pretty sweet seeing fireworks go off behind the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower, and a pyramid all from the same location.

Drove to Barstow, CA, after the fireworks (Barstow did not make a good impression), and got up the next morning to drive the hour or so into Pasadena. The Pasadena area is gorgeous, and the Rose Bowl itself could not be in a nicer location; surrounded by two golf courses and large, beautiful homes, all backed up with attractive green hills.

We arrived a couple hours early and got to enjoy the pre-game atmosphere. We saw the teams arrive and spent some time chanting with our fellow Orangebloods.

The pregame was nice enough, but the game itself was out of this world.
It was frustrating seeing the typical Texas powerhouses stuffed on every play (C. Bensen, D. Johnson), but Vince Young did more than enough to make us cheer, and our seats just behind the band in a mostly student section were great. I don't think there are any bad seats in the house, but ours were nice.



After the game, the team and all of the coaches came to our section to celebrate and sing "The Eyes of Texas.” You know, in the three years I’ve been at UT, I have never been to a game where Texas has lost. (I’ve had tickets but did not go to the last two Texas-Oklahoma games, and the 2003 Arkansas game, all of which Texas lost; all my fault). I can’t get student tickets next year, but I am hoping to try and make a few games, including the Oklahoma game. Also, Texas plays at Ohio State Sept. 10, and I am contemplating a trip. Ohio State will play in Austin in 2006, and that game might be more feasible.

That evening, I split from the rest of my group—who were going skiing in Flagstaff—and rented a car to drive home. (Stopped in Arizona to see the “Thing”—if you’ve ever driven from Tucson to Las Cruces on IH-10, you know what I’m talking about. What is the Thing? It is bizarre, but that is all I can tell you. To know more, you’ll have to make the trip yourself.) Arrived in Austin 5 am Monday morning. I think I cut a 24 hour trip down to about 18 or 19 hours, though I need to check my stats again. Next time I’ll fly.

That was the trip. I got to watch Texas Football history, and enjoyed a taste of Vegas. Certainly wouldn’t mind making a return trip to Pasadena to watch the Horns play in the Rose Bowl again next year, this time for the Big One.

There's a big flap, at least in the news, in Britain right now because last week Prince Henry went to a party in a Nazi Afrika Korps uniform, complete with swastika. Britons aren't too happy with Henry: Britons blast Harry for Nazi gaffe- The Times of India.

I guess I don't really get it. I understand that the Nazis were very bad. I've been to Dachau and everything about the Nazis is horrible. And the Brits and Europeans in general are understandably more sensitive to things to do with the Nazis than Americans are.

But the Nazis have not existed for sixty years. Isn't it time to move on? It was rather tasteless for Prince Henry, yes, but c'mon, is it really that big of a deal anymore?

the licensing process for life insurance producers involves a 24 hr
course (which i did a while back) and a test (which i took today)
now i just need to send the certificates in to get the license.
my boss told me his score as my "goal" for the test, and i beat it
by 1%. i find that very amusing. anyone need an annuity?

If, like me, you don't actually have the time or the mental stamina to read through the entire Thornburgh/Boccardi Report (that would be the panel appointed to look into the fiasco over the fake memos that CBS "exposed" on 60 Minutes), The American Thinker has a good summary and review of what it says and what conclusions it draws. It's not good for CBS.

i spend quite a bit of my free time at my church. i like to sit at the piano and play, or mess with new designs on the computer program that runs our video display. tonight i was preparing an introduction article for our upcoming newsletter and a man walked in asking for money. i hate feeling taken, but i would hate it even more if this were a legitimate need and i turned him away from our CHURCH. he said he needed the money to put gas in his car, so i followed him to the station and paid for some gas. this way at least i know he actually got that for which he came to the church to ask. i really hated the way that i felt (searching for the con, very suspicious) but i couldn't help it. i helped him. i just hope he actually needed it.

It took Wally-World a while to get my pictures back to me, and I only had a disposable camera, but here they are. Memories to last a lifetime! I'm on my way out of town, but I intend to say more about my trip later.

Hook 'Em!

Horns Win!

Apparently Oliver Stone blames the fundamentalist South ("raging fundamentalism" is how he put it) for the bombing of his film Alexander. It's made only $34 million (after costing $150 million). He said, ""From day one, audiences didn't show up. They didn't even read the reviews in the South because the media was using the words 'Alex the gay.' As a result, you can bet that they thought, 'We're not going to see a film about a military leader that has got something wrong with him.'" (from CBC Arts News)

Let's see. A Google search reveals:

A New York Post article titled "Alex the Gay," talking about how outraged the Greeks were over the movie.

A couple of mentions about how shocked Americans were by an "Alex the gay" movie. (I remember them just being bored)

Several more complaints by Stone about the "Alex the gay" label, but nobody else seems to actually be calling it "Alex the gay".

An article discussing the controversy that ensued because Stone portrayed Alexander as bisexual (including the prediction that, "It may well also become a crutch used to explain any failure by the film to perform up to box office expectations.")

And that's all I found in the first four pages of Google results. The reviews I read were skeptical of Alexander's homosexuality (or even bi-sexuality), but were pretty unanimous that Alexander was just a bad movie in toto. It's possible that my memory is bad, though, so let's check.

The New York Times (that bastion of Southern Baptists, you know) said, "Puerile writing, confused plotting and shockingly off-note performances make Oliver Stone's epic film a disappointment."

The Kalamazoo Gazette (another Deep South paper): "It's a perplexing muddle: Every moment of spectacular battlefield action is offset by unintentionally hilarious scenes from Alexander's private life."

The San Antonia Express-News (finally, a paper from the South...sort of): "Stone appears to be assembling this ... jigsaw puzzle on the fly. There are more bottom-out scenes than high points. He drags it out for almost three backside-numbing hours."

Slant Magazine: "This half-cocked creation is ostensibly about the Macedonian king but doubles as an allegory for both George W. Bush’s political career and Stone’s own struggle with history."

Philadelphia Weekly: "Alexander is Oliver's most stupidly awesome (and awesomely stupid) movie since The Doors."

And on, and on, and on... (from Elites TV)

Sorry Oliver, I don't see any evidence that the "fundamentalist South" was any harder on the movie than, well, the whole rest of the country. It's just a cheap shot by a man who can't accept that he produced a great big Failure. Does he expect that every movie he makes should be a hit, just because he makes it? Why does he think people will buy his excuse?

This from a friend who works for Senator John Cornyn on the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is on the confirmation of White House Counsel and former Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Alberto Gonzales, as U.S. Attorney General:

For nearly three years, the Bush Administration has been harshly criticized by various media and legal elites for its interpretation of the Geneva Convention and its legal conclusion that al Qaeda fighters are not POWs and thus not entitled to the privileges afforded to POWs by that convention – despite overwhelming legal evidence and international scholarly support favoring the Bush interpretation.

Yet, at today’s confirmation hearing for Judge Alberto Gonzales, both of the two legal experts called by Senator Leahy to testify against Judge Gonzales conceded that al Qaeda fighters are indeed not POWs. Due to the extensive questioning of Judge Gonzales, the two legal experts did not begin their testimony until very late in the afternoon.

Following that testimony, Senator Cornyn asked the two professors: if someone is determined to be an al Qaeda fighter, “would they be entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention?”

Dean Harold Koh gave a somewhat wordy response that eventually concluded with this clear, unequivocal statement: “they are not POWs.” Following Dean Koh’s response, Dean John Hutson said: “I take the same view.”

To be sure, Deans Koh and Hutson vociferously disagree with other aspects of the Administration’s war on terrorism policies and legal positions. But this concession – by Senator Leahy’s two legal experts no less – that Geneva POW privileges and protections DO NOT APPLY to al Qaeda fighters constitutes a remarkable and important concession. Unfortunately, this concession could be missed by the general public, however, due to the lateness in the day of the questioning by Senator Cornyn.

Judge Gonzales is considered an important apointment because he is viewed as a likely pick for the Supreme Court, though probably not a replacement for Justice Rehnquist.

NY Times and CNN report on today's hearing; Yahoo! News reports on Sen. Specter's ascent to the Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Now that the election of 2004 is ancient history, my tendency has been to push the war in Iraq to the background and focus on other things, like school and judicial appointments. After all, I defended the war while advocating Bush's reelection, and that task accomplished (yes, I am taking credit for the GW win), why think about something as unpleasant as the war in Iraq, especially with daily media reports detailing what a failure it is and how many troops are being lost?

Well, Power Line has pointed out a very good speech by one Melanie Phillips titled "The Reporting of Iraq and Israel: An Abuse of Media Power." The link is at Power Line, who helps us out by including a synopsis and highlights. Ms. Phillips, speaking in Britain and of the British media, explains how the media, which is happy to report the death of a few without reporting any successes, necessarily aides and encourages these frequent deadly attacks by giving the terrorists exactly what they want: negative press for Bush and Blair and the concurrent popular pressure to withdraw. Her observations of the UK press are equally valid in the USA. Ms. Phillips asks, is this an omen of things to come? The speech concludes thusly:

There can be little doubt that al Qaeda, such a shrewd judge of western decadence and the differences in moral fibre between the countries of the west, will have noted the fact that in Britain, the worse the terrorist outrage that is committed, the more the public will turn on Tony Blair. Every single defeatist, distorted or dishonest article about Iraq, Israel and the war on terror makes another barbaric atrocity more likely.

It is this weakness and moral confusion that comprise the great goal of terrorist strategy; it is this that has characterised the west’s response to Islamic terror for many decades; it is this that has brought us to where we are today. In the war that has been declared upon the free world, the western media’s abuse of power is perhaps the most lethal weapon of all.

I've been noticing, lately, a tendency in myself to give up on arguing a point after awhile. I wonder if this is a good thing or a bad thing?

For example, I've been a member at the Chamber of Secrets (www.cosforums.com) for over two years. It's primarily a Harry Potter forum, but also has a sub-forum for real-world political discussion. I used to be very active there, especially during the run-up to Gulf War II. I argued with just about everyone (which pretty much was everyone, because most of the other posters were left-leaning, for some reason) over whether it was a good idea or a bad idea. But during the last election, even into November, I didn't do much debating: mostly only became involved for moderating reasons.

I have a good friend who is somewhere on the libertarian end of the spectrum: we used to go round and round about the meaning of the Constitution. But I rarely take the time to argue points with him anymore, though I still disagree on many issues.

I hold strong religious beliefs, yet I am always reluctant to get into religious debates with people and always try to avoid them when I see them coming.

On the one hand, I think much of this disinclination to argue is because I've done it so often before: much effort and sometimes emotion is expended, but the return on investment is very low (when was the last time you were converted while debating?). So part of the reason I don't debate so much anymore is because I don't want to waste my time doing something which isn't likely to accomplish anything.

But I wonder if that is the right attitude to take? Certainly, debating often ends in a draw, but if I don't engage someone who is making points I think are wrong, doesn't that mean I'm leaving the field of ideas open? Do I have a duty, of a sort, to argue my case, for the good of myself and the other guy (presumably, even if we don't convince each other, we learn our own cases better). More to the point, what about the people who are listening in? If I give up on an issue, concluding that the other side just won't listen, am I doing a disservice to those who haven't made up their minds yet? If I give up, don't those undecideds hear only one side of the issue?

These are somewhat rhetorical questions: if I don't defend the Bush Administration, the Iraq "adventure," or Christianity, someone else will. I'm not seriously worried that they will stand or fall based on what I say or don't say. But I wonder, is it a cop-out when I tell myself it's pointless, that the other side won't listen? Or is it just intellectual laziness?

So today I attended the 11:30AM Mass at St. John's Student Parish here in East Lansing. It was my second Mass at this location, and I was reminded why I chose not to frequent this church.

To put it as clearly as possible, the service resembled a retreat more than a Mass. Here are some of the differences, listed as pros and cons...

Pro: Packed house and maximum participation: I'll have to admit that many of the people were vividly participating in the songs and the atmosphere was very friendly. After the opening song and prayer, the priest had people raise their hands to signify that there was space to sit in their pew. Then a whole slew of people sat down. The church was smaller than most, so perhaps that gave the impression of more people. It was good to see so many people pumped up about their faith.

Con: Resembled IV: To me, going to weekly Mass is more personal than it is communal in the sense that what I get from Mass does not strongly depend on aid from other members of the congregation. I value the personal time reflecting and listening to scripture and the homily more than the warm fuzzy feelings I get knowing there are others there enjoying the same things. People were chatting loudly before Mass (the place sounded like my high school cafeteria) and everyone applauded afterwards (I suppose it was to acknowledge the work of the choir). I'm of the belief that the choir is there to aid in worship, not to perform. Give the glory to God. In general, I am not against this atmosphere and if it's something that aids certain poeple's relationship with Christ then that's great! It's just not my bag, baby!

Pro: Hot Girls Distributing Communion: No wonder the place is packed! Not much more I can say about this except a few Hail Mary's for pennance.

Con: Progressive Elements Injected: One of my pet peeves at Mass is when a parish has taken measures to remove all of the "Him, He, and His" and other pronouns, when referencing God, in order to be gender neutral. What about calling God "The Father", "Lord", or even "God" for that matter? It's ridiculous to remove some of the male forms and not all of them. In fact, it's ridiculous to remove any of them. I find it strange that a Catholic church would do this since the Church venerates Mary as the Mother of Jesus so strongly. If Mary is the mother and is that important, that seems to imply that God is, in fact, the Father of Jesus. What burned me the most was this woman in front of me who replaced the male pronouns in the Creed with female ones! Amazing.

Pro: Celebrity Attendance: Jennifer Granholm was at the Mass (she was late!). I'm not sure if she's a regular there, but she definitely seems to be Catholic (I glanced in her direction a couple of times and she knew the Mass pretty well). Part of me wanted to ask her about her pro-abortion policies, but I decided I didn't need to make a scene.

Con: No Kneelers: This, along with many other things, worked against the sense of reverence that I normally feel when I go to Mass. In believing that a church is a house of God, I don't feel very appropriate with all of the lax behavior and deviations from tradition. Spending part of Mass on your knees at least reminds us that we are not mighty beings, but sinners who need the grace of God if there is to be any hope for us. I guess it just felt too informal.

Well there's a short discourse from a Catholic who forgot his church's late Mass was at 11AM and not 11:30AM. One thing I've learned over the past six or seven years is that Christians have many different styles of worship, both on the personal and communal level. What really matters is our shared belief that Jesus was indeed Lord and that He died so that we may live. Now if we could only get the "follow his example" part down we'd be all set!