Vox Popoli

Dear Friend of Choice,

Please help to counter the anti-choice activist groups efforts to derail Senator Arlen Specter from becoming Judiciary Committee Chair. Please forward this alert on to friends of yours that want to have federal and Supreme Court Justices that are going to be fair and uphold the current law of the land on a woman’s right to choose!

In other words, Justices in the tradition of Anthony Kennedy, or Sandra Day O’Connor who wrote the majority opinion in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood (1992) where she said that “in order for women to participate equally in today’s society a woman must have the ability to control her own body”… rather than Judges like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is a moderate, pro-choice supporting Republican in line for the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Last week he “bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation,” reports the AP.

Specter helped defeat President Reagan’s nomination of the rabidly anti-choice Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and of the anti-choice Jeff Sessions to a federal judgeship. Specter called both nominees too extreme on civil rights issues. Sessions later became a Republican senator from Alabama and now sits on the Judiciary Committee with Specter.

The anti-choice activist groups are having a cow. The Concerned Women for America sent out an alert, urging people to call and email Republican Senators asking them to prevent Specter from being chair of the Judiciary committee…

Somehow, I don’t think Sen. Specter’s friends are talking about a woman controlling her body by putting marijuana or cocaine into it. It’s interesting to see what he says when he thinks the “anti-choice” people aren’t paying attention, isn’t it?

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s number is 202-224-3344. His email address is: bill_frist@frist.senate.gov.

Nick B considers caveman morality:

Rational ethics can be derived from the basic concept of enlightened self-interest alone, even if you don’t want to believe that…. There are hordes of people outside the Judeo-Xtian Belief System who have come to rational behavior of a sorts.

I absolutely agree that rational ethics CAN be derived from the basic concept of enlightened self-interest. I even agree that many secular individuals subscribe to them and live what I would consider to generally be a blameless life. I am merely explaining why such ethics are so obviously and continually powerless in the face of evil. I don’t think it takes a silver-tongued debater to demonstrate to everyone’s liking that the Holocaust or the Killing Fields were irrational and not in the self-interest, enlightened or otherwise, of the very Germans and Kampucheans who perpetrated the democides.

Murdering a liquor store clerk to cover up a $25 theft is ludicrously irrational. But the “rational secularist” has no answer for this except to stand there, as helpless and open-mouthed as Mike Martz watching Adam Viniateri throw to Troy Brown, lamenting that such things should be. What does a rationally derived system of ethics have to say to those who reject it, for whatever reason? We know what Sharia says. We know what the Bible says. But we neither know or care what Mr. Chomsky or whoever the appropriate secular prophet might be has to say, for is not Mr. Nietszche’s offering equally relevant?

I think this inability to conceptually accept the reality of what is outside its Reason is why the atheist left is usually to be found wringing its hands and standing on the sidelines while the religious right is far more willing – let’s be honest, sometimes too willing – to stand in the gap and actively oppose what even those who truly don’t believe in good and evil will describe as evil.

Jonah Goldberg rips it up:

There’s no time here to dismantle fully the edifice of condescension and ignorance constructed by Maher and Smiley (I put Dowd in a different category). But what offends them so much about religion is that it is a source of authority outside — and prior to — politics. What has offended the Left since Marx, and American liberalism since Dewey, is the notion that moral authority should be derived from anyplace other than the state or “the people” (conveniently defined as citizens who vote liberal). Voting on values not sanctified by secular priests is how they define “ignorance.” This was the real goal of Hillary Clinton’s “politics of meaning” — to replace traditional religion with a secular one that derived its authority not from ancient texts and “superstitions” but from the good intentions of an activist state and its anointed priests. Shortly before the election, Howell Raines fretted that the worst outcome of a Bush victory would be the resurgence of “theologically based cultural norms” — without even acknowledging the fact that “theologically based cultural norms” gave us everything from the printing press and the newspaper to the First Amendment he claims to be such a defender of.

I’m always interested to hear people who believe in nothing trying to explain why someone else SHOULD behave in a certain manner. Tell me again why I shouldn’t blow your head off since there is no God, no good and evil, no right and wrong? Oh, because it would be non-utilitarian if everyone were to behave so, and you’ve constructed a rational structure in your head which, um, doesn’t have anything to do with me? BOOM!

The Original Cyberpunk shares his wisdom with the liberal masses:

SEVEN LESSONS FROM LAST WEEK’S ELECTION

I meant to write a column about hunting, but when I came back from deer camp last night I found my inbox stuffed with anguish-filled wails from longtime liberal friends. In hopes of helping them on their journeys through anger and denial, then, I will defer my intended column and instead write a few carefully chosen and, I hope, healing words that will, God willing, help them to make some sense of the horror of it all.

Lesson 1. Senators don’t win the Presidency. Governors do. You have to go back to John F. Kennedy to find someone who made the leap directly from the Senate to the White House, and even “Doonesbury” now admits that the 1960 election was a squeaker that was stolen on behalf of Kennedy by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s Cook County Democratic machine. If you want to win the Presidency, stop nominating liberal senators, and instead, nominate moderate governors. If you can find any in your party.

Lesson 2. If your candidate is a lifelong wuss, don’t bother trying to pump him up with injected machismo and outdoorsy photo ops. It didn’t work for Carter, it didn’t work for Dukakis, and it still doesn’t work now. You’re not fooling anyone by putting your candidate in a Carhart’s jacket, so stop trying.

Lesson 3….

Good night, good luck, win awards. Whatever. Do what you do. Do it well.

The Greatest Show on Turf looked rather underwhelming yesterday. My favorite thing about what is sure to be TMQ’s Sweet Play of the Week tomorrow was that the supposed trick play guru of the NFL was all but depantsed by the fake FG that put the game away for New England.

The Patriots get stuff on a third-and-goal run and WR Troy Brown – who did a very nice job playing defensive back, by the way – looks as if he’s walking off the field with the rest of the offense as the kicking team comes on. But as he stops by the sideline, the Rams take no note and line up to make a completely desultory effort at blocking the field goal attempt. Except there isn’t one, as Viniateri takes the snap from center and throws an easy little pass to Brown while the Rams stand there, jaws gaping, and the game is essentially over.

And yes, I enjoyed the lingering camera shot of Mike Martz staring blankly at the field before getting all hot and bothered at the referees, his defense, at everyone but himself. Legal play, Coach Martz, legal play….

Mark Steyn hits the mark:

However superior the EU is to the US, it will only last as long as Mr Reade’s generation: the design flaw of the radical secular welfare state is that it depends on a traditionally religious society birthrate to sustain it. True, you can’t be a redneck in Spain or Italy: when the birthrates are 1.1 and 1.2 children per couple, there are no sisters to shag.

In the same way that socialism is parasitically dependent upon capitalism, the radical secularists are parasites that depend on a traditional religious society to survive. If the United Socialist States of Canada were to secede and leave Jesustan behind – a division I wholeheartedly support, by the way – we Jesustani would reclaim whatever USSC lands we wanted after three generations of unfettered abortion, low birth rates and sexually transmitted diseases dramatically reduced the population ala dying Western Europe.

Bob Herbert tries, unsuccessfully, to avoid demonstrating his own ignorance in the New York Times:

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election’s outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush’s supporters believe the U.S. has come up with “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president’s supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion. This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won….

You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?

And speaking of ignorance, Mr. Herbert, do you believe that spending more government money will help the poor, despite four decades of evidence to the contrary? Do you believe that “shall make no law” means to pass a law or not to pass a law? If shells filled with sarin are not weapons of mass destruction, what are they? And do you believe every poll and study you read?

Remember, you’re on the side that can’t figure out how Bush won because they don’t know anyone who voted for him. The side that can’t figure out that 0-11 on “gay marriage” does not indicate mass public approval. This would seem to indicate that if there is cluelessness floating about, it just might be on the side of the zeros. Speaking of cluelessness, by the way, was Dukakis really so spectacularly successful that you just couldn’t resist nominating another archliberal Massachusetts politician?

I wonder specifically which values championed by conservatives are the ones that you find repellent? The concept that homosexuality is sin? The concept that marriage is between a woman and a man? The concept that killing unborn children is evil? The concept that not having sex is the best way to avoid contracting a sexually-transmitted disease? The concept that there is a God? The concept that such things as good and evil exist at all?

I’m just curious. Oh, and one last question, if Democrats are so smart and informed, why is it that so many of them can’t figure out how to make any money?

Under $15,000: 36% BUSH 63% KERRY

Over $200,000: 63% BUSH 35% KERRY 1% NADER

Paul Jacob writes of term limits:

While the power of incumbency is so great that voters have little leverage to hold congressmen to pledges on term limits, it is worth noting that those who have kept their word on term limits have gone on to become governors and senators, while not a single pledge-breaker has won higher office.

This demonstrates how important a role process has to play in limiting the power of goverment. The libertarian philosophy is not an optimistic one, but a profoundly pessimistic one based on the weakness and corruptible nature of the average individual. The success of term limits demonstrates the importance of codifying libertarian concept into the law wherever possible.

Not that politicians, bureaucrats and government agents won’t disobey the law at every opportunity. But we can at least make it difficult for them to wreak their poisoned will upon us.

Bob Novak writes:

The Republican base would have been even more infuriated to read the full press conference transcript confirming Specter’s litmus test: “I have said that bluntly during the course of the campaign and before. When the [Philadelphia] Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my statement that Roe v. Wade was inviolate.” He suggested that “nobody can be confirmed” who does not accept abortion rights. Thus, Specter’s and John Kerry’s positions are indistinguishable….

That puts Frist, who has been criticized for his management of the judicial confirmation debacle, on the spot. He is considering asking the full Republican Conference to waive term limits for Hatch. The majority leader also may let Hatch keep his chairmanship temporarily to handle any immediate Supreme Court vacancy. Frist could mobilize a majority of the Judiciary committee’s expected 11 Republicans in the new Congress to breach seniority and bump Specter.

Any so-called Republican who believes Roe v. Wade is inviolate deserves to be violated. Repeatedly. With a large, splintering Louisville Slugger lubricated with pine tar. Even back when I was a Young Republican, I vastly preferred and harbored more respect for honest Democrats than the despicable and lamentably unendangered RINO.

It’s time to say sayonara to both seniority and Specter. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s number is 202-224-3344. His email address is: bill_frist@frist.senate.gov.