Vox Popoli

From Drudge:

A federal appeals court refused early Wednesday to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, denying the latest emergency request by the severely brain-damaged woman’s parents to keep her alive.

A panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 ruling that the parents “failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims.”

You didn’t really think that President Bush and company were trying to save her, did you? If the president had any intention of doing so, he would have written an Executive Order. The Congressional gambit was simply a means of allowing the politicians to wash their hands of responsibility for her starvation.

Unborn, check.
Disabled, check.
Next up: the elderly.

Nicolas Kristof writes in the New York Times:

The hungry children and the families dying of AIDS here are gut-wrenching, but somehow what I find even more depressing is this: Many, many ordinary black Zimbabweans wish that they could get back the white racist government that oppressed them in the 1970’s.

“If we had the chance to go back to white rule, we’d do it,” said Solomon Dube, a peasant whose child was crying with hunger when I arrived in his village. “Life was easier then, and at least you could get food and a job.” Mr. Dube acknowledged that the white regime of Ian Smith was awful. But now he worries that his 3-year-old son will die of starvation, and he would rather put up with any indignity than witness that.

An elderly peasant in another village, Makupila Muzamba, said that hunger today is worse than ever before in his seven decades or so, and said: “I want the white man’s government to come back. … Even if whites were oppressing us, we could get jobs and things were cheap compared to today.”

His wife, Mugombo Mudenda, remembered that as a younger woman she used to eat meat, drink tea, use sugar and buy soap. But now she cannot even afford corn gruel. “I miss the days of white rule,” she said.

My respect for Kristof continues to grow as he fearlessly pursues the truth. I wonder how long it will take before he is disowned by the liberals he now considers his ideological peers, as he forces himself to confront the reality of facts versus hopelessly rootless theory. I don’t see this as a black versus white thing as do the Zimbabweans, though, I see it as the usual result of socialism practiced by any racial group without a capitalist host on which to leech.

One hopes, anyhow. Since everyone, including me, has been utterly lame about writing book reviews for posting here – I posted some guidelines on what I was looking for about six months ago – Big Chilly has decided to step up to the plate after reading the back of that Kearney SF Romance novel. (Rofants? Science Fuction? Just what shall we call this subgenre?)

Anyhow, he couldn’t resist after reading the back cover text… which is honestly no worse from the text sample he read aloud to me, and he insisted on doing a review in order to prevent anyone else from having to read the atrocity. But who wouldn’t enjoy this:

A hunk named Kahn, who told Secret Service agent Tessa Camen an outlandish story about traveling through time, saving the world, and a Challenge only she can accept. Kahn offers her proof she can’t refute: Tessa has been brought forward through time to save Earth by winning an intergalactic challenge.

Kahn only has a few weeks to train Tessa to use the psi-abilities he insists she has. He is confident in the success of a time-honored method that uses sexual frustration to bring out her powers, but Tessa is dubious. She’s a martial arts expert and can fight her way through anything, but she’s never had much luck with emotions.

Luckily for Earth, Kahn can be very convincing…

I hope you will forgive me if I don’t bother trying to fake any sense of outrage over the Schiavo affair. Although there are those who will attempt to deny the “slippery slope” argument, it is easily demonstrable in both historical and current terms, which is why I have long expected this. The process of legitimizing murder by defining humanity in such a way to exclude the unborn, the disabled, the sick, the elderly and the undesired is a well-known one and since parts of Europe – Holland, particularly – have already moved well along this process, it is no surprise to see the usual suspects following suit in America.

But conservatives bear their own share of blame in this. They can rationalize their support for the death penalty in a wide variety of ways, but the fact remains that a government which possesses the power to kill its citizens has only to redefine its target list in order to provide legal cover for state-sanctioned murder. A state that has the power to kill a criminal necessarily holds the power to kill a non-criminal.

This is why libertarian philosophy is essential for a society dedicated to human freedom in the long run. (And no, I have no plans to respond to that silly query about past libertarian societies; considering that the philosophy dates back to around 1927, one would hardly expect to find one in the 1700s.) Libertarianism seeks to hamstring the government, simply because it is human nature to seek to use government power to further personal, political and ideological goals. Conservatives want the government to be able to kill criminals, liberals want the government to be able to kill the weak and undesired. A government that can do one necessarily has the power to do the other, only by removing that power is it possible to prevent either.

As laudable is their motivation, it is a terrible mistake for conservatives to seek to use the power of the federal government in what is likely to be a futile attempt to stop the state-sanctioned starvation of Mrs. Schiavo. They would do far better to use civil disobedience, as that is less likely to come back to haunt them in the future. But that would require personal sacrifice, instead of the much easier sacrifice of principle, to which, unfortunately, conservatives have become all too accustomed in their enthusiastic embrace of the decidedly anti-conservative Bush administration.

Peter King writes in Monday Morning Quarterback:

There was one thing I’d wanted to ask Dungy since the 20-3 divisional playoff loss at Foxboro in January: How did he feel about the Patriots choosing not to cover the Gillette Stadium turf during a sleety, rainy week leading up to the game? Was that, in his mind, home-field-advantage gone mad? The Patriots are more comfortable with a slow, plodding game. The Colts like the game on the carpet or on a fast surface. By not covering the field during the week and ensuring the game would be played in a bog, New England’s power running game and its suspect secondary would both have an edge over the Colts. And should the league take over field management during playoff weeks to ensure a quality pitch for both teams?

“No, I don’t see anything wrong with what they did,” he said. “To me, that’s what home-field advantage is all about. There aren’t any rules on the books about field management before a playoff game, so that’s part of the mystique of winning home-field in the playoffs. We’re not going to sit here and make excuses about the condition of the field.”

Noble. But if I were the Colts, I’d be putting forth a bylaw this week asking for the league to oversee field preparation for all playoff games.

Come on, Peter! I’m with Dungy on this one. Home field advantage is supposed to mean something, after all, and if the Patriots feel it’s in their interest to play in a swamp, then that’s their right. Unless the field is actually rendered unplayable, the league should leave well enough alone.

If you want to make sure that the field is to your liking, then maybe you should work to win home field advantage.

Based on his reasoning here, any guess as to which faction of the bicephalous ruling party Mr. King supports?

Sisu blogs on Terri Schiavo:

The intolerable-life argument has support from many doctors and bioethicists. They claim that a person can be “socially dead” even when their brains can engage in some functions. By “socially dead” they mean that the patient is no longer a person in some sense. At this point their argument gets a bit fuzzy because they must somehow define what is a “person” and a “non-person.” That is no easy matter.

If the new bioethic standard for an intolerable life is “socially dead”, then we’re soon going to see mass emigration on the part of engineers and programmers that will rival the Irish fleeing the potato famines. Not that scintillating conversationalists who habitually frequent cocktail parties will ever notice….

A number of you have asked me why I haven’t commented on the Schiavo case. There’s a few reasons, the primary one is that I don’t find it either surprising or very interesting. What else would you expect once the usual drums began booming and it became obvious that the step from abortion to euthanasia was in the cards? Second, I view this as a lose-lose situation. Increasing central government power in order to save “just one life” strikes me as the usual liberal-socialist tactic and doing the wrong thing for the right thing usually doesn’t turn out very well. If it is determined that the ultimate power over life and death rests with the federal government, well, that just doesn’t sound very positive at all.

In the end, I suppose I see this sort of thing as a tar baby trap for conservatives.

BR demands repentance:

You should read the prophecies of God regarding America. He already said He is going to save us from the worldwide temptation in the Book of Revelation. He said a lot of other wonderful things, too, like He is destroying our enemies and getting rid of the corruption. He also said He is going to expose those who unjustly attack President Bush, so you better be careful what you say about the President and start praying for our country instead. Also, don’t forget – Jesus will be back in about 50 years or so. Europe has a different destiny from us, too, don’t forget. Just read Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39.

I should say this takes Three Monkeyism to impressive new heights.

I received a science fiction novel in the post yesterday – presumably due to my time on the Nebula Jury – and on the back the plot was described thusly, in yellow capital letters, no less:

SHE WAS SHOT PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT, AND SHE WOKE UP NAKED, IN THE ARMS OF A HUNK…

Note that this is a book published by the very same company for which the hosts of Electrolite are editors. That being said, I must acknowledge that the fact that the author’s name is Susan doesn’t necessarily indicate it was actually written by a woman.

An old-timer’s spin:

Your 38 yr. scenario doesn’t bother me; I’m 62, now, and I still, smoke drink, gamble, go to topless bars and carry a handgun. I really don’t expect to live to be 100. Maybe we can rent one of those small planes to fly over GW’s ranch, trailing a banner that says,”ARTICLE IV, SECT. 4″, U.S.CONSTITUTION. That way GW can say to his old, terrorist-looking pal, Vicente, “Gee, podner, I’d like to help you’all, but that pesky old Constitution of mine says “Government must defend us against invasion”.

I will be very disappointed though, that I never got the chance to take target practice at these illegals crossing the border, down here, in San Diego. Or, watching the Liberal pols and media wring their hands as we arrest all of the illegals in midnite sweeps, larvae and all. But, I’ll probably never be able to legitimately dunk a basketball, either.

We can only hope that more of the Illegal women coming over look like Salma Hayek….

The best bit is that last “probably”. Hope does spring eternal….

Armstrong Williams catches out the Post:

Exhibit A: The Washington Post recently printed a false story about me: In its Sunday Style section, the Post claimed that I was ridiculed at the Gridiron Club dinner, an annual dinner/roast where a wild pack of journalists gulp drinks and skewer their colleagues.

The Post claimed I was the target of some roasting, to the tune of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “Sweet Home Alabama.” The song has this chorus: ‘Sweet Home Alabama, where the skies are so blue / Sweet Home Alabama, Lord I’m coming home to you.’ The Post reported that as part of a skit, performers at the Gridiron club changed the lyrics into:

“Armstrong’s propaganda It sounds so true He’ll tout our agenda When the check goes through”

Funny stuff. Just one thing: the event never took place. The Gridiron had planned to do the skit, but ended up dropping it from the program. This is where things get real interesting. The Post not only reports that the skit took place, but that it was a rousing success: “It was really pretty darned funny, we are told. . . .”

Really? Told by whom? Certainly not by anyone actually in attendance at the event. All of which begs the question, did the Post reporter who concocted the story even attend the event, or did he just use an outdated program to cobble the story together? And where do you get the gall to create a reaction that never happened? I can understand putting a story outline together in advance of an event so as to better enable you to meet tight deadlines. But how do you create an audience reaction? How do you simply make up part of the news you’re supposed to be objectively recording?

But, but, if it’s in the newspaper, it must be true! Remember, these are the same people who very publicly worry about accuracy and bias in the blogosphere. If I were a large black woman, this is the point at which I would say: Mmm-hmmmm….