Conservatives Anonymous
Saturday, September 01, 2007
I have toyed with the idea of shutting this down, and I may yet do so. I am deploying to Iraq with the Virginia National Guard and will have neither the ability nor the desire to keep up even my meager posting pace. I will leave this up though, comment if you wish or just peruse past posts and perhaps I will begin this again when I return.
(2) comments
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
We Are All Hokies
One day removed from this tragedy, so much remains unanswered. There are anecdotes suggesting that the shooter was unstable and a loner, but that description fits a substantial portion of undergraduates. Perhaps jilted romance was the motive, but even a crime of passion is unlikely to claim dozens of lives. Some have tried to say that the willful nature of this renders it beneath the term "tragedy." I disagree. Terrorism, which seeks to kill innocents for political purpose, can be described as a crime, as can the infliction of death where greed is motive. This was violence for no apparent motive and with no enumerated goal in mind. I can think of few circumstances for which "tragedy" is a more apt term.
This was indicative of a spiritual sickness, both in the person of the shooter and in similar communities across the country that have born witness to such senseless acts. It was Cho Seung-Hui's tragedy, it was the tragedy of the thirty-two who happened to cross his path yesterday morning and the countless lives personally touched by their loss, so too was it the tragedy of thousands of communities across the country who looked across their campuses, their town squares, their places of business and realized that it could just has easily have been them.
And yet amidst the despair and the senselessness, so too did we bear witness to acts of great heroism. Liviu Librescu sacrificed his life to help several of his students escape and became the first of what will probably be several tales of heroism to emerge. And across the state, on campuses where "Tech Sucks" paraphernalia was on back order prior to April 16th, thousands-strong crowds stood vigil to share their thoughts and prayers with their Hokie brethren. Even as half-wits the world over rushed to pass judgment and levy blame, our political leadership has been thankfully above the fray, acknowledging that grieving comes first and recrimations a distant, distant second.
If something positive is to emerge from this, hopefully it will be the realization that we are all God's children, and that a warped, well-armed nihilist can destroy lives but he cannot destroy the sense of camaraderie and community that trumps silly football rivalries, post-adolescent awkwardness, and the pulls of a material world. In death may Cho find the peace he never found in life, and may those he sought to take with him into the hereafter be welcomed into God's kingdom with open arms. May those left behind find some small solace in knowing that a campus, a state, and a country grieve with them. And may we find the strength to embrace the awkward and the marginalized among us, so that their temporary sense of alienation never grows so strong as to recommend so cruel and heartless a farewell gesture.
(0) comments
One day removed from this tragedy, so much remains unanswered. There are anecdotes suggesting that the shooter was unstable and a loner, but that description fits a substantial portion of undergraduates. Perhaps jilted romance was the motive, but even a crime of passion is unlikely to claim dozens of lives. Some have tried to say that the willful nature of this renders it beneath the term "tragedy." I disagree. Terrorism, which seeks to kill innocents for political purpose, can be described as a crime, as can the infliction of death where greed is motive. This was violence for no apparent motive and with no enumerated goal in mind. I can think of few circumstances for which "tragedy" is a more apt term.
This was indicative of a spiritual sickness, both in the person of the shooter and in similar communities across the country that have born witness to such senseless acts. It was Cho Seung-Hui's tragedy, it was the tragedy of the thirty-two who happened to cross his path yesterday morning and the countless lives personally touched by their loss, so too was it the tragedy of thousands of communities across the country who looked across their campuses, their town squares, their places of business and realized that it could just has easily have been them.
And yet amidst the despair and the senselessness, so too did we bear witness to acts of great heroism. Liviu Librescu sacrificed his life to help several of his students escape and became the first of what will probably be several tales of heroism to emerge. And across the state, on campuses where "Tech Sucks" paraphernalia was on back order prior to April 16th, thousands-strong crowds stood vigil to share their thoughts and prayers with their Hokie brethren. Even as half-wits the world over rushed to pass judgment and levy blame, our political leadership has been thankfully above the fray, acknowledging that grieving comes first and recrimations a distant, distant second.
If something positive is to emerge from this, hopefully it will be the realization that we are all God's children, and that a warped, well-armed nihilist can destroy lives but he cannot destroy the sense of camaraderie and community that trumps silly football rivalries, post-adolescent awkwardness, and the pulls of a material world. In death may Cho find the peace he never found in life, and may those he sought to take with him into the hereafter be welcomed into God's kingdom with open arms. May those left behind find some small solace in knowing that a campus, a state, and a country grieve with them. And may we find the strength to embrace the awkward and the marginalized among us, so that their temporary sense of alienation never grows so strong as to recommend so cruel and heartless a farewell gesture.
Friday, April 06, 2007
The Crisis Through Muslim Eyes
It is mildly ironic that the side of the political spectrum so fond of deriding its opponents for cultural insensitivity steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the Muslim world might perceive the events of the last several years through a completely different prism. A punditry that cannot remember back to the winter of '02-'03 cannot fathom how a people with considerably lower literacy rates and education levels than our own can contextualize events over millennia.
To do so would be to acknowledge that at its sixtieth birthday, at roughly the same age as Israel is today, the Crusader Kingdom probably thought itself pretty secure in Jerusalem. It's fall a mere three decades later at the hands of its much more populous neighbors would reinforce the insight that Israel is not a lumbering giant assailing the weak and powerless people that surround it but rather an imperiled state that will face for many decades to come an existential threat that is growing, not diminishing, and it should be permitted to act accordingly.
To do so would be to acknowledge as well that a retreat from Baghdad would be coupled onto a list that stretches probably 550 years of the decadent West retreating in the face of Muslim aggression. It would join Jerusalem circa 1187, Kosovo Polje, Constantinople circa 1453, White Mountain, Kabul circa 1842, Gallipolli, Algieria, Beirut, Mogadishu and Kabul circa 1989. To our eyes such a coherent whole cannot be rationalized with adding in ignominious defeats for Islam, but to an ill-educated populace for whom religious jurists and print media propagandists suffuse such messages with religious themes it makes all the sense in the world. For alongside that narrative can run another about the West's conspiracy against Islam and the victimhood of the Muslim world, running from the Crusades to Andalusia in the fifteenth century to Sevres and the ouster of Mossadeq in 1953.
There is little we as Westerners respect more than human life, particularly our own human life. In an era of biomedical advances and limited warfare, life is enduring and comfortable. The decline or at least marginalization of religion for many has removed the prospect of the hereafter as a palliative for suffering and premature death in this life (though one could argue that the increasing comfort of our lives has helped to render religion unnecessary for many). Contrast that with the Muslim world, particularly the Arab world, where booming populations, poor economic fortunes and internecine strife have limited the provisioning of comfort to the masses. In the hereafter, trained engineers do not drive taxis or face strip-searches at Israeli checkpoints, affronts that are blamed by virtually everyone of religious, social or temporal authority on Israel and/or the West. Islam, both as a faith and as an identity, is triumphant. In short, life is cheap because the distance between the heavenly promise and the worldly present is so great that people are willing to dispense with the latter to achieve the former.
For much of Iran, an educated and relatively comfortable society, this is not the case. Religion is seen as an impediment to the achievement of economic prosperity and temporal pleasure. Ahmadinejad is not speaking to these people, however. He appeals instead to those who sent their children to war with plastic keys around their necks, those frustrated youths who have chosen to blame the West for their limited opportunities rather than their own meager talents or a clerical elite that has alienated itself from the world in service of a narrow and theologically questionable interpretation of Shia Islam. More important than this, he appeals to the Shia and Sunni masses in the Arab world who, while skeptical of Persian ascendance, delight in seeing the all-powerful Britain (in public imagination over the last century an equal or greater menace than the U.S.) brought to heel by a Muslim power.
The hostage crisis highlighted to the Western public but also to the Muslim world the value that we place on the lives of our citizens, indeed our soldiers, and the sacrifices we are willing to make to preserve them. The groveling and contrition of the captives, while perhaps understandable in context, will be broadcast and rebroadcast throughout the Muslim world as a reminder that we are not invincible and that we will retreat before we accept casualties. Those who aim with seriousness to "out-breed" their opponents and to convey to their children the glories of martyrdom will not easily disavow these notions, no matter how many American bullets fell pajama-clad warriors.
Until we learn to view ourselves through the eyes of our enemies, we will continue to abide by the paradigm of domestic political considerations rather than that of the Arab street, which respects force and the willingness to use it, eschews the appearance of weakness in all its manifestations. Nancy Pelosi's diplomatic missteps, the image of smiling, waving, apologetic British sailors...these are very serious setbacks for our progress in the region. If multiculturalism can bestow upon us any tangible benefit, it ought to be the ability, at minimum the willingness, to understand how we are perceived by our enemies. Perchance...
(1) comments
It is mildly ironic that the side of the political spectrum so fond of deriding its opponents for cultural insensitivity steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that the Muslim world might perceive the events of the last several years through a completely different prism. A punditry that cannot remember back to the winter of '02-'03 cannot fathom how a people with considerably lower literacy rates and education levels than our own can contextualize events over millennia.
To do so would be to acknowledge that at its sixtieth birthday, at roughly the same age as Israel is today, the Crusader Kingdom probably thought itself pretty secure in Jerusalem. It's fall a mere three decades later at the hands of its much more populous neighbors would reinforce the insight that Israel is not a lumbering giant assailing the weak and powerless people that surround it but rather an imperiled state that will face for many decades to come an existential threat that is growing, not diminishing, and it should be permitted to act accordingly.
To do so would be to acknowledge as well that a retreat from Baghdad would be coupled onto a list that stretches probably 550 years of the decadent West retreating in the face of Muslim aggression. It would join Jerusalem circa 1187, Kosovo Polje, Constantinople circa 1453, White Mountain, Kabul circa 1842, Gallipolli, Algieria, Beirut, Mogadishu and Kabul circa 1989. To our eyes such a coherent whole cannot be rationalized with adding in ignominious defeats for Islam, but to an ill-educated populace for whom religious jurists and print media propagandists suffuse such messages with religious themes it makes all the sense in the world. For alongside that narrative can run another about the West's conspiracy against Islam and the victimhood of the Muslim world, running from the Crusades to Andalusia in the fifteenth century to Sevres and the ouster of Mossadeq in 1953.
There is little we as Westerners respect more than human life, particularly our own human life. In an era of biomedical advances and limited warfare, life is enduring and comfortable. The decline or at least marginalization of religion for many has removed the prospect of the hereafter as a palliative for suffering and premature death in this life (though one could argue that the increasing comfort of our lives has helped to render religion unnecessary for many). Contrast that with the Muslim world, particularly the Arab world, where booming populations, poor economic fortunes and internecine strife have limited the provisioning of comfort to the masses. In the hereafter, trained engineers do not drive taxis or face strip-searches at Israeli checkpoints, affronts that are blamed by virtually everyone of religious, social or temporal authority on Israel and/or the West. Islam, both as a faith and as an identity, is triumphant. In short, life is cheap because the distance between the heavenly promise and the worldly present is so great that people are willing to dispense with the latter to achieve the former.
For much of Iran, an educated and relatively comfortable society, this is not the case. Religion is seen as an impediment to the achievement of economic prosperity and temporal pleasure. Ahmadinejad is not speaking to these people, however. He appeals instead to those who sent their children to war with plastic keys around their necks, those frustrated youths who have chosen to blame the West for their limited opportunities rather than their own meager talents or a clerical elite that has alienated itself from the world in service of a narrow and theologically questionable interpretation of Shia Islam. More important than this, he appeals to the Shia and Sunni masses in the Arab world who, while skeptical of Persian ascendance, delight in seeing the all-powerful Britain (in public imagination over the last century an equal or greater menace than the U.S.) brought to heel by a Muslim power.
The hostage crisis highlighted to the Western public but also to the Muslim world the value that we place on the lives of our citizens, indeed our soldiers, and the sacrifices we are willing to make to preserve them. The groveling and contrition of the captives, while perhaps understandable in context, will be broadcast and rebroadcast throughout the Muslim world as a reminder that we are not invincible and that we will retreat before we accept casualties. Those who aim with seriousness to "out-breed" their opponents and to convey to their children the glories of martyrdom will not easily disavow these notions, no matter how many American bullets fell pajama-clad warriors.
Until we learn to view ourselves through the eyes of our enemies, we will continue to abide by the paradigm of domestic political considerations rather than that of the Arab street, which respects force and the willingness to use it, eschews the appearance of weakness in all its manifestations. Nancy Pelosi's diplomatic missteps, the image of smiling, waving, apologetic British sailors...these are very serious setbacks for our progress in the region. If multiculturalism can bestow upon us any tangible benefit, it ought to be the ability, at minimum the willingness, to understand how we are perceived by our enemies. Perchance...
Sunday, April 01, 2007
The Iranian Hostage Crisis, Part II
I sincerely doubt that my meager contributions will add materially to what has been said elsewhere, but I've been away for two weeks and I haven't read what others had to say on the subject so it's new to me. For intellectual and personal reasons a good bit of my youthful bellicosity has eroded, and I have little desire to see a full-scale war against the Islamic Republic. That said, a "diplomatic solution" to this that involves anything more involved that an Iranian capitulation will be a disaster. Even a half-hearted apology, much less any substantive step such as a hostage release or a delay or withdrawal of pending sanctions, will be a major domestic and international coup for the Iranians.
Let's get something straight from the beginning. Even if one accepts Tehran's rather dubious claim that they were in Iranian waters (the Shatt-al-Arab has long been disputed) and ignores the improbability that this was something more sinister than an accident (these men and women hardly seem candidates for a clandestine mission), Iran is flaunting the Geneva Convention by parading them on television and coercing confessions out of them. Their conduct is reprehensible and its reward by a verbal apology or substantive conduct to that end would undermine three years of efforts aimed at their isolation.
During the 1980's, the Reagan Administration was willing to exchange arms for Western hostages seized in Beirut. This did not effect a thaw in relations between Tehran and Washington; rather it inspired the Iranians to encourage their Lebanese proxies to seize more hostages. By rewarding Iranian misbehavior London will reinforce the presumption (an accurate one at that) in Tehran and the capitols of other rogue states that when given a choice between appeasement and retaliation the West will opt for the former in all but the most egregious instances.
The optimal outcome to this would be an Entebbe-style rescue that sees the SAS and their American counterparts rescue the hostages and deal a harsh rebuke to Tehran. In the wake of Entebbe and Desert One, however, (thanks Jimmy!) the Iranians are probably keeping the hostages well-hidden and separated, so even if such an action were possible the potential for disaster is high. Still, the stakes in this are simply too high for Britain to cave in.
(0) comments
I sincerely doubt that my meager contributions will add materially to what has been said elsewhere, but I've been away for two weeks and I haven't read what others had to say on the subject so it's new to me. For intellectual and personal reasons a good bit of my youthful bellicosity has eroded, and I have little desire to see a full-scale war against the Islamic Republic. That said, a "diplomatic solution" to this that involves anything more involved that an Iranian capitulation will be a disaster. Even a half-hearted apology, much less any substantive step such as a hostage release or a delay or withdrawal of pending sanctions, will be a major domestic and international coup for the Iranians.
Let's get something straight from the beginning. Even if one accepts Tehran's rather dubious claim that they were in Iranian waters (the Shatt-al-Arab has long been disputed) and ignores the improbability that this was something more sinister than an accident (these men and women hardly seem candidates for a clandestine mission), Iran is flaunting the Geneva Convention by parading them on television and coercing confessions out of them. Their conduct is reprehensible and its reward by a verbal apology or substantive conduct to that end would undermine three years of efforts aimed at their isolation.
During the 1980's, the Reagan Administration was willing to exchange arms for Western hostages seized in Beirut. This did not effect a thaw in relations between Tehran and Washington; rather it inspired the Iranians to encourage their Lebanese proxies to seize more hostages. By rewarding Iranian misbehavior London will reinforce the presumption (an accurate one at that) in Tehran and the capitols of other rogue states that when given a choice between appeasement and retaliation the West will opt for the former in all but the most egregious instances.
The optimal outcome to this would be an Entebbe-style rescue that sees the SAS and their American counterparts rescue the hostages and deal a harsh rebuke to Tehran. In the wake of Entebbe and Desert One, however, (thanks Jimmy!) the Iranians are probably keeping the hostages well-hidden and separated, so even if such an action were possible the potential for disaster is high. Still, the stakes in this are simply too high for Britain to cave in.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
The Demise of the UVM College Republicans
What began five years ago as a tiny cabal and ultimately mushroomed into a successful, hundred-strong organization met its ignominious end last Tuesday in the hallowed halls of the UVM Student Government Association, when the SGA opted to derecognize the UVM CRs for failure to repay an eighteen month old debt. The charge was legitimate; the club borrowed heavily to finance the visit of Newt Gingrich in Fall 2005 and had been unable to make any substantial headway in repaying the $7000 debt. Still, the SGA has a long history of rescuing troubled student organizations, including a bailout of the Cynic, the school's disaster of a student newspaper, and the International Socialist Organization, who managed to get an SGA van impounded at Fort Benning. Their failure to act in this case, coupled with their zeal in delivering the final nail in the coffin, suggests that antipathy to the Republicans' cause was a motivating factor. Still, the blame lies with myopic students who ran up a tab that they had no foreseeable means of paying down.
It is a sad end for an organization that was a labor of love for a number of students, one that provided a valuable service to the UVM community by attracting notable speakers at a time when the likes of Howard Zinn and Ward Churchill were the most accomplished that the school could muster. To its members and to the wider student body the organization introduced basic tenets of conservative thought, a viewpoint long lacking in and out of the classroom. It fostered intellectual development, provided support, and connected present students to alumni in various walks of life. Those who dedicated themselves to making as successful and enduring as it was deserve credit for doing so, and those who squandered the gift of a populous and accomplished organization deserve approbation. Also deserving of jeers are the petty minions of the SGA who seized an opportunity to squash the only serious challenge to ideological orthodoxy.
(0) comments
What began five years ago as a tiny cabal and ultimately mushroomed into a successful, hundred-strong organization met its ignominious end last Tuesday in the hallowed halls of the UVM Student Government Association, when the SGA opted to derecognize the UVM CRs for failure to repay an eighteen month old debt. The charge was legitimate; the club borrowed heavily to finance the visit of Newt Gingrich in Fall 2005 and had been unable to make any substantial headway in repaying the $7000 debt. Still, the SGA has a long history of rescuing troubled student organizations, including a bailout of the Cynic, the school's disaster of a student newspaper, and the International Socialist Organization, who managed to get an SGA van impounded at Fort Benning. Their failure to act in this case, coupled with their zeal in delivering the final nail in the coffin, suggests that antipathy to the Republicans' cause was a motivating factor. Still, the blame lies with myopic students who ran up a tab that they had no foreseeable means of paying down.
It is a sad end for an organization that was a labor of love for a number of students, one that provided a valuable service to the UVM community by attracting notable speakers at a time when the likes of Howard Zinn and Ward Churchill were the most accomplished that the school could muster. To its members and to the wider student body the organization introduced basic tenets of conservative thought, a viewpoint long lacking in and out of the classroom. It fostered intellectual development, provided support, and connected present students to alumni in various walks of life. Those who dedicated themselves to making as successful and enduring as it was deserve credit for doing so, and those who squandered the gift of a populous and accomplished organization deserve approbation. Also deserving of jeers are the petty minions of the SGA who seized an opportunity to squash the only serious challenge to ideological orthodoxy.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Abortion in the Modern Era
To preface this, I saw the movie Amazing Grace this weekend and was struck by some of the similarities between the two conflicts. I am not suggesting that the ragtag bunch of pro-lifers, ranging from fanatical to lukewarm in sympathy, constitute a new batch of John Browns and Harriet Beecher Stowes; I am neither that presumptuous nor that wedded to the illustrative analogy. Still, I thought it worth sounding out.
The monkey wrench in this analogy is the notion that slavery was morally and economically anachronistic in the 1800's while so-called reproductive freedoms are thought to be progressive, economically, politically and even in some corners morally. This is where I seek to be contrarian. There is nothing progressive about abortion. It has existed in various forms for thousands upon thousands of years. Histories of the classical era suggest that abortion and even infanticide (exposure) were not uncommon in Greek or Roman civilization. Though the procedure often has or had an accompanying stigma, tacit acceptance existed across political, geographic and religious divides. The only thing novel about the contemporary practice is that it possesses legal sanction.
The first half of the nineteenth century saw the ebbing of ethical justifications for slavery. The existence in the midst of white society of educated, eloquent free blacks and former slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Olaudah Equiano helped to dispel ideas about inferiority that had helped slave societies reconcile their notions about liberty with the servitude of individuals. In many ways, these individuals were inconvenient truths. Abolitionist sentiment was fueled in part by the ebbing of economic justifications for slavery in the North; while the cotton gin made slavery somewhat more profitable in the South the mercantile and small-scale farming economy of the North had little use for individuals with little incentive to work who had to be fed, clothed and housed.
I posit that the same arguments can now be made against abortion. The ethical doublespeak that must take place to justify abortion founders as science perfects imaging techniques that dispel the "clump of cells" notion about developing fetuses, as we understand better how unique and miraculous even the youngest lives are, and most importantly as the date of viability is pushed ever backward. The odds of survival that once applied to a twenty-five week old can now be said to apply to a twenty week old.
Economic arguments are similarly wanting. The proliferation of day-care agencies to accommodate working women and even women in college, the availability of WIC to provide free and nutritious food to pregnant women, and the abundance of willing and eager homes waiting to adopt healthy babiesall suggest that it has never before been easier to carry babies to term. Even the stigma that used to attach itself to illegitimacy has been diluted in most of the communities where abortion is most prevalent.
As a final point, I would suggest that never before has pregnancy been so easy to prevent. There are literally countless contraceptive options, many of which are available at deep discounts or free of charge from school or community programs. Even dispensing with that old chestnut abstinence, there are few excuses save lapses in judgment and in memory for becoming pregnant. Thus abortion can be seen not as a necessary evil but rather for what it really is, a choice, a luxury even, to which the alternatives both before and after conception are myriad.
I still have some strong reservations about the issue. I cannot in good conscience ask, much less demand, that someone who did not consent to sex in the first place carry her baby to term. Nor can I ask that a mother bring to term a baby whose birth is likely to kill mother and/or child. But few on either side of the debate claim that these cases constitute the rule rather than simply the exceptions to it.
The day will probably never come when abortion is thought of with the same universal contempt that characterizes our present approach to slavery. But with these points in mind perhaps the fence-sitters and the lukewarm among us can begin to see that abortion is not progress, it is not the wave of the future. Rather it is an anachronistic edifice for which the ethical and empirical foundations are being eroded each and every day. Perhaps it is escapist or even morally cowardly to merely hope that a favorable Supreme Court decision and the march of aforementioned scientific, economic and ethical progress will help it to die a slow death. I don't doubt that a handful of fire-eaters and sociological naifs will step forward to defend it, but hopefully the expiation of this great travesty will not be as gut-wrenching and divisive as its predecessor.
(4) comments
To preface this, I saw the movie Amazing Grace this weekend and was struck by some of the similarities between the two conflicts. I am not suggesting that the ragtag bunch of pro-lifers, ranging from fanatical to lukewarm in sympathy, constitute a new batch of John Browns and Harriet Beecher Stowes; I am neither that presumptuous nor that wedded to the illustrative analogy. Still, I thought it worth sounding out.
The monkey wrench in this analogy is the notion that slavery was morally and economically anachronistic in the 1800's while so-called reproductive freedoms are thought to be progressive, economically, politically and even in some corners morally. This is where I seek to be contrarian. There is nothing progressive about abortion. It has existed in various forms for thousands upon thousands of years. Histories of the classical era suggest that abortion and even infanticide (exposure) were not uncommon in Greek or Roman civilization. Though the procedure often has or had an accompanying stigma, tacit acceptance existed across political, geographic and religious divides. The only thing novel about the contemporary practice is that it possesses legal sanction.
The first half of the nineteenth century saw the ebbing of ethical justifications for slavery. The existence in the midst of white society of educated, eloquent free blacks and former slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Olaudah Equiano helped to dispel ideas about inferiority that had helped slave societies reconcile their notions about liberty with the servitude of individuals. In many ways, these individuals were inconvenient truths. Abolitionist sentiment was fueled in part by the ebbing of economic justifications for slavery in the North; while the cotton gin made slavery somewhat more profitable in the South the mercantile and small-scale farming economy of the North had little use for individuals with little incentive to work who had to be fed, clothed and housed.
I posit that the same arguments can now be made against abortion. The ethical doublespeak that must take place to justify abortion founders as science perfects imaging techniques that dispel the "clump of cells" notion about developing fetuses, as we understand better how unique and miraculous even the youngest lives are, and most importantly as the date of viability is pushed ever backward. The odds of survival that once applied to a twenty-five week old can now be said to apply to a twenty week old.
Economic arguments are similarly wanting. The proliferation of day-care agencies to accommodate working women and even women in college, the availability of WIC to provide free and nutritious food to pregnant women, and the abundance of willing and eager homes waiting to adopt healthy babiesall suggest that it has never before been easier to carry babies to term. Even the stigma that used to attach itself to illegitimacy has been diluted in most of the communities where abortion is most prevalent.
As a final point, I would suggest that never before has pregnancy been so easy to prevent. There are literally countless contraceptive options, many of which are available at deep discounts or free of charge from school or community programs. Even dispensing with that old chestnut abstinence, there are few excuses save lapses in judgment and in memory for becoming pregnant. Thus abortion can be seen not as a necessary evil but rather for what it really is, a choice, a luxury even, to which the alternatives both before and after conception are myriad.
I still have some strong reservations about the issue. I cannot in good conscience ask, much less demand, that someone who did not consent to sex in the first place carry her baby to term. Nor can I ask that a mother bring to term a baby whose birth is likely to kill mother and/or child. But few on either side of the debate claim that these cases constitute the rule rather than simply the exceptions to it.
The day will probably never come when abortion is thought of with the same universal contempt that characterizes our present approach to slavery. But with these points in mind perhaps the fence-sitters and the lukewarm among us can begin to see that abortion is not progress, it is not the wave of the future. Rather it is an anachronistic edifice for which the ethical and empirical foundations are being eroded each and every day. Perhaps it is escapist or even morally cowardly to merely hope that a favorable Supreme Court decision and the march of aforementioned scientific, economic and ethical progress will help it to die a slow death. I don't doubt that a handful of fire-eaters and sociological naifs will step forward to defend it, but hopefully the expiation of this great travesty will not be as gut-wrenching and divisive as its predecessor.
I took a little while off, in part because I wasn't getting a ton of feedback and consequently thought it unworth the effort. Turns out I had several comments, I just didn't know I had to moderate them. Granted, most of them were ads for male enhancement pills, but feedback is feedback.
(0) comments
Friday, September 15, 2006
Two Thoughts
First, those trying to simplify the President's case for clarifying the Geneva Conventions into merely right or wrong are missing a great deal of nuance. If roughing people up prevents a mushroom cloud from wafting over a major US city, its tough to argue against it. At the same time, there is a prestige issue highlighted so well by Colin Powell. Unless we fight a conventional war against a state actor this is unlikely to boomerang on our troops; see how much success you have asking Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker what the insurgents do to Americans they capture. Nor is this likely to doom us in an Arab world that already believes us guilty of everything this measure permits and most of what it outlaws. But to the rest of the world, it is a frontal assault on international law and multilateralism. No matter how useless a conservative might deem these two concepts, paeans to them are precursors to any serious attempt at attracting military and diplomatic allies. Absent a reasonable belief that a pending large-scale attack can be prevented through aggressive interrogation techniques (and if that belief exists I should hope most interrogators would do what was necessary and take the consequences) the benefits of this measure would seem to be dwarfed by its costs. The only good that seems to be arising from this is the appearance of Congressional independence that might help GOP candidates avoid being tarred by association with an unpopular president.
Second, how stupid, how peurile, how infantile must one be to demonstrate against someone who calls you intolerant by displaying violence and intolerance? This latest row, not unlike the cartoon controversy of the past year, evidences the pathetic, infantile, abjectly stupid political culture that dominates most of the Muslim world at present. That secular and religious leadership can quite literally call out a mob to demonstrate over something a fraction as offensive as the rhetoric that eminates from mosques during Friday prayers speaks to the colossal nature of our challenge. Until we can convince a region of sheep that they cannot evidence intolerance and respond to someone who labels it as such by emphatically restating it in violent form, democracy is a pipe dream. How can you say Pope Benedict was wrong to say what he did when literally millions of people take to the streets to act out the very point they allege he made?
(0) comments
First, those trying to simplify the President's case for clarifying the Geneva Conventions into merely right or wrong are missing a great deal of nuance. If roughing people up prevents a mushroom cloud from wafting over a major US city, its tough to argue against it. At the same time, there is a prestige issue highlighted so well by Colin Powell. Unless we fight a conventional war against a state actor this is unlikely to boomerang on our troops; see how much success you have asking Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker what the insurgents do to Americans they capture. Nor is this likely to doom us in an Arab world that already believes us guilty of everything this measure permits and most of what it outlaws. But to the rest of the world, it is a frontal assault on international law and multilateralism. No matter how useless a conservative might deem these two concepts, paeans to them are precursors to any serious attempt at attracting military and diplomatic allies. Absent a reasonable belief that a pending large-scale attack can be prevented through aggressive interrogation techniques (and if that belief exists I should hope most interrogators would do what was necessary and take the consequences) the benefits of this measure would seem to be dwarfed by its costs. The only good that seems to be arising from this is the appearance of Congressional independence that might help GOP candidates avoid being tarred by association with an unpopular president.
Second, how stupid, how peurile, how infantile must one be to demonstrate against someone who calls you intolerant by displaying violence and intolerance? This latest row, not unlike the cartoon controversy of the past year, evidences the pathetic, infantile, abjectly stupid political culture that dominates most of the Muslim world at present. That secular and religious leadership can quite literally call out a mob to demonstrate over something a fraction as offensive as the rhetoric that eminates from mosques during Friday prayers speaks to the colossal nature of our challenge. Until we can convince a region of sheep that they cannot evidence intolerance and respond to someone who labels it as such by emphatically restating it in violent form, democracy is a pipe dream. How can you say Pope Benedict was wrong to say what he did when literally millions of people take to the streets to act out the very point they allege he made?
|
| |||
| There are currently sites in this ring. | |||
