"All Life is Not Equal"

In what can only be described as a jaw dropping, you've got to be b.s.'ing me article, Salon.com published a piece by Mary Elizabeth Williams, a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream" titled "So What If Abortion Ends Life."

In the womb or out, death awaits.

Let's start with Ms Williams' agreement with pro-life advocates that life begins at conception. But don't make the jump from that admission to think she opposes abortion.  No way.  She argues in this deranged article that whether in the womb or out, a baby is not fully a person.  "It seems absurd to suggest that the only thing that makes us fully human is the short ride out of some lady’s vagina," she writes.

The article is  basically a rant about the "wing-nut right" gaining the upper hand in the abortion debate (an assertion that I think most pro-life supporters would find surprising). Williams is willing to concede that life begins at conception but:

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

In so many words, she goes on to acknowledge that, rather than “pro-choice,” “pro-death” is indeed the appropriate moniker for her movement.

Her point is that a human baby - not one in the womb but outside it - is not really human. And if the mother doesn't want the bother of raising the baby - healthy or not - because she has other priorities in her life, then it is perfectly fine to, well, kill the little thing off.  Williams writes:

I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

Not only does her article strike me as cruel as well as stupid, it also opens an even deeper concern.  Namely, that slowly, ever so slowly, society will come to accept this distorted view.  First, excuses will be made: "the baby had serious handicaps; better it should die" which will slowly migrate "well, she had too many children to support already; better it should die" then on to "she really wanted a boy; better that the girl die."

Don't think that's possible? It's being done now in Europe and China.

A Partial Defense of Lance Armstrong

I am a cyclist - a "roadie" in cycling terms. I began to ride a bike in 2001 shortly after 9-11 as I neared my sixtieth birthday. It was hard at first and still is. As Greg Lemond, the first American to win the Tour de France, is reported to have said: "it never got any easier, I just went faster."

In 2004, I went off to France to ride my bike and watch several stages of the Tour, including the finale in Paris where I took the photo of the victorious USPS Cycling Team to the right. Prior to getting on the plane for France, I put on a yellow Livestrong wristband which has been on my wrist ever since. Lance Armstrong won his sixth Tour that year then went on to win a seventh in 2005.

For a long time, I have been a supported and defender of Lance Armstrong. In the "spin" classes I teach, I would quote him and urge the class to push themselves as hard as he would push himself. I recall numerous conversations over Armstrong's alleged doping, including one with a taxi driver in France who insisted he was a doper. In my terrible French I arrogantly countered that there was no proof and, besides, he and his countrymen were just jealous that no French rider had won the Tour in years.

Armstrong lied. He was a cheat, a bully and worse. I have met some people who know him well; while they have lots to say about Armstrong, some of it quite funny, they would go silent when the subject of doping came up. They didn't want risk becoming the target of this cheat and bully.

I've watched the two part interview of Armstrong with Oprah Winfrey. His comments for the most part struck me as sincere, especially when he described his conversation about his doping with his son, Luke. He may be hiding or shading some parts of the truth but my gut tells me that there's not much more; that the truth and the humiliation he feels are complete.

But I am surprised by many of the critics who expected more from him - to see him, what, cry, grovel, sob? They describe him in the interviews as cold, distant, arrogant, manipulative and cunning. What these critics don't get is this man - regardless of his doping and lying and bullying - is one strong, self-contained individual. He is in control of himself. He accepts his fate and apologized several times for what he did and the pain he caused to others. But he is not a man to grovel or breakdown.

Whatever his sins - and they are many - Lance Armstrong remained in control in his defeat. We should despise him for the harm he has done to his fans, supporters, family and the sport of cycling. But I also see a man with some qualities to admire, however grudgingly: reserve, strength and composure as his world and life collapse around him. No wailing. No sobbing. A straight back and face turned directly into the storm.

Obama & King Louis XIV: Separated at Birth?

President Obama's press conference Monday was an Imperial Presidency writ large. Apart from the issue of gun control about which I posted yesterday, two subjects dominated: the debt ceiling and spending.

"I won re-election. I have a mandate. Get over it."

Obama's chutzpah on these matters boggles the mind (pass the duct tape, please!). He is adamant that he will not negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling - that is, tying any curbs on spending to a rise in the ceiling. In fact, he would prefer not to have Congress involved with having to approve an increase in America's debt at, ceding to him the unilateral right to rise it whenever and however much he wants.

On the second subject, spending, the President was petulant; he has no intention to cut spending whatsoever. Or, let me restate that: he won't cut a dime of spending without Republican agreement to raising taxes first - and then only maybe. (In his Orwellian-speak, Pres Obama refers to taxes as "investment" - a laughable and patently false cover for more spending.)  As The Wall Street Journal points out in an editorial today:

The big fiscal news here is that Mr. Obama and the Democrats are all but conceding that the recent tax hike is little more than a token reduction in the deficit. The tax hike, while the biggest in 20 years, will raise only $620 billion at most over 10 years, and probably less. Yet Mr. Obama conceded in passing Monday that the debt ceiling will have to rise by something like $1.25 trillion to accommodate this year's deficit alone.

If you happen notice that your take-home pay was a bit less in your first 2013 paycheck, get ready for more. Tax and spend Democrats are lining up to grab more of your wallet:

Irrepressible Nancy Pelosi declared on January 6 on CBS's "Face the Nation" that the fiscal-cliff deal was "not enough." While declaring herself "fairly agnostic" on where the money will come from, she suggested closing tax loopholes and raising $38 billion by ending "special subsidies for big oil" that are merely the same as all manufacturing companies receive.

Michigan's Sandy Levin, the ranking House Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, recently reassured his liberal colleagues that "additional revenues" are sure to come in future budget deals and that "this [tax hike] sets that important precedent."

Richard Durbin of Illinois, the number two Senate Democrat, was asked on January 6 on CNN whether there should be more taxes on the wealthy; he responded: "Absolutely." He explained that tax loopholes should be closed because "We forgo about $1.2 trillion a year in the tax code, money that otherwise would go to the government," as if it all belongs to Uncle Sam in the first place.

Now remember, even if Obama taxed 100% of every dollar earned by every American who earned more than $500,000 in 2010, the feds would take in $1.29 trillion - not much more than the 2012 deficit. You've got to go where the money is, and that is the middle class. (Of course, we're talking about income and capital gains taxes; layer on increased taxes from Obamacare and other direct and indirect taxes and we're talking about a major fleecing of Americans.)

In the President's mind l'etat, cest moi! This was the motto attributed to King Louis XIV who established an  absolute monarchy in France.

Could Obama Side-Step the 2nd Amendment & Still Limit Guns?

The task force on gun violence headed by Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to release its recommendations to President Obama and the public this week. My gut tells me that whatever the findings and proposals come forward, the President may well do something completely unexpected and, so far as I can tell, Constitutional to achieve his progressive goal of  limiting gun ownership. 

So, I am going out on a limb to make a prediction how that goal might be reached. First however, some context.

Missteps by Gun Rights Advocates

The National Rifle Association and other gun groups have been awkward in their defense of the Second Amendment. The shouting matches with Piers Morgan on CNN and the clumsy press conference by the NRA Chairman, Wayne LaPierre, have made many gun supporters cringe. Clearly, the country was traumatized by Sandy Hook (not to mention Aurora, Colorado, and similar recent tragedies). And, the country - including many gun owners - feel that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals (which they won;'t be) and the unstable (which they won't be). Constitutional rights become, to many Americans, abstractions when faced with the images twenty dead children. Put another way, sentimentality trumps reason.

Gun advocates have also bungled their case by focusing on gun deaths rather than making clear what a ban on the ownership of guns will to to the overall crime rate. With the all but total bans on guns (including pistols), the UK and Australia have seen violent crime - including rape, burglary and non-gun homicides soar. (It is also revealing that in the last six months, President Obama's hometown of Chicago had 292 murders versus 221 killed in Iraq. Chicago, of course, has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.)

Political Constraints on Obama

The reality confronting President Obama, Vice President Biden and the anti-gun forces is that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to any restrictions on the rights of private, non-law enforcement citizens to own pistols. Since the Sandy Hook shootings, gun sales, applications for concealed carry permits and membership in the National Rifle Association have all sky rocketed. Congressional Democrats - as well as the President - are aware of these facts - and that these numbers translate into votes, especially in states with significant rural populations.



In other words, Democrats cannot risk appearing to be heavy handed in opposing what their constituents see as their Constitutional right to own guns. And the administration is also aware that the US Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and more recently in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 a citizen's right to possess firearms. Obama may feel that with those rulings, legislative restrictions might not survive a Court challenge (though it is likely that such a challenge would take years (McDonald took two years to make it to the Supreme Court, Heller, five).

My Prediction

Instead of confronting the Second Amendment, President Obama will seek to levy Federal taxes on firearms and ammunition. The taxes will be steep and punitive, thereby raising the cost of gun ownership for all current and future gun owners. While there may be other parts to an Obama gun policy, including mandatory background checks (which are already in place), and a restriction on magazine capacities, increased taxation fits the character of this President and side steps the Constitutional issues. The more powerful the firearm, the higher the tax rate is likely to be.

There are two approaches the Obama administration could take to raise taxes: Congressional action or, quite possibly, an Executive order. While tax legislation has a slightly better chance of making it through Congress than sweeping restrictions, my bet is not only will President Obama levy taxes, he will do so by issuing an Executive Order under the pretense of helping the Executive Branch carry out its Constitutional duties of ensuring the "general welfare " This action in itself may provoke Congressional (and certainly) citizen reaction. Nevertheless, President Obama hasn't been shy about metaphorically saying "go ahead, sue me" on a variety of issues.

Lost from view, no doubt, will be the unintended consequence of black markets developing for both guns and the ammo for them. We'll see what happens as the week progresses.

"And all the children are above average"

The title is drawn from Garrison Keillor's closing line of his Lake Woebegon monologue on his radio shoe, A Prairie Home Companion. It is apt. . .

A day or two ago, I wrote about Theodore Dalrymple, a physician and prolific author. In that blog, I mentioned three books that I intended to read, one of which was Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality. Indeed, I started my Dalrymple reading with that book which I am now about one-third through.

As if on cue, I then found an article in the UK's Daily Mail reporting on research conducted in the USA (I find it surprising how often the UK press will publish articles on stories largely ignored by the mainstream media here).  The Daily Mail article is entitled How college students think they are more special than EVER: Study reveals rocketing sense of entitlement on U.S. campuses. It encompasses a survey conducted by Jean Twenge, a survey which has been asking US college students to rate themselves since 1996.

And what did Twenge find?  In a word, narcissism. US students are more full of themselves than any time in history. They feel that they are entitled to both opportunity and riches, despite having accomplished absolutely nothing.

Dalrymple would agree, albeit from an English perspective. Sentimentality and a politically correct notion not to criticize anyone - least of all a child - for failing to live up to expectations or meet the grade at school has created a nation of whining, sniveling "I deserve it" monsters.

You can read the Daily Mail article here. Then tell you kid, "no hugs until you get your homework done - and I will check it first for correctness." They don't deserve anything yet except love and discipline. They rest, they earn.

Oh, us mean-spirited Conservatives. . .

As insensitive as we Conservatives are reported to be, can anything be more mean-spirited than a Liberal talking to a crowd of Liberals?

Such was the case of Karen Lewis speaking to the Illinois Labor History Society’s “Salute to Labor’s Historic Heroes from the History Makers of Today” (a mouthful by itself).  In her monologue, which you can watch below, she said to laughter and applause:

Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them. Please understand that. However, we are in a moment where the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of the robber baron ages. The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill. They were. They were just – off with their heads. They were seriously talking about that.

She went on to add that she didn't think that we were yet "at that point."  Dang!  Does that mean that we are approaching that point?  She went on to say:

Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them.

Huh? Legislate away their riches? Money? Property? As though the government should do just that in order to achieve some vague notion of "fairness" or "equality."

But of course none of this was regarded as "mean-spirited" by the mainstream media. Liberals don't regard attacks on wealthy or Conservatives as ever being mean-spirited.  They think we deserve it.

Government as a Salmon Trap

Living here in the great Pacific Northwest (aka the PNW), salmon is part of our daily vocabulary. Usually the word arises as in "I'll have the King Salmon, please."  However, we PNWers have a more complex relationship with salmon ranging from the fishing rights of Native Americans to the destruction of damns along the Columbia and other rivers.

Little by little, the traps ensnare and trap salmon - and us.

What the salmon think about all this - from being served with rice pilaf to the aesthetics of fish ladders - is not known (though I have a hunch that the ladders trump the pans). I also suspect that they harbor no longings for the "salmon traps" of yore.  These were net traps which, like funnels, move the fish deeper through a series of one-way catchments. Of course, the salmon have no idea of what's going on - other than there seems to be a lot more friends in less and less space.  But, hey, water is water and swimming doesn't take much thought.

The folks over at The Independent Institute see the real meaning of these things and, in a recent article suggested that the salmon trap is a fitting analogy for the slow encroachment of government on freedom and liberty. From the article:

Like the narrowing opening through which the salmon enter the “hearts” of the traps, the ways out of people’s helplessness and dependence on the state are narrow and hard to locate. Moreover, going out as they came in flies in the face of their natural proclivity to live at others’ expense and care. As the salmon’s “mind” tells him not to turn back, so the human mind, especially when it has been bewitched by government propaganda and statist ideology, tells people not to turn back. Having lost the capacity for assuming individual responsibility, people are fearful of taking on such responsibility as their forebears did routinely. [Emphasis added]

 This is very apt. It is why Conservatives (and Libertarians, for that matter) become so alarmed at policies which extend entitlements, so-called government "protections," and a self-perpetuating bureaucracy at the incremental cost of individual choice and responsibility.  Like the salmon, we become entrapped by the State and are afraid to go back - to assume responsibility again.  Unless we find our courage again, we will, like the salmon, end up served with rice pilaf.