Ever said "There oughta be a law…."? Here’s your chance…
Um, why?
With this avian flu thing hanging over us, is it really a good idea to intentionally reconstruct a 1918 flu virus that killed 50 million people?
Wingnutty In Indiana
This story concerns a piece of Indiana state legislation. It starts off sounding like a typical wingnutty anti-gay, pro-family kind of thing:
An interim legislative committee is considering a bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.
Which is bad enough, but the details are even worse.
The bill defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.
It then requires "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.
Which means, in part, that infertile married couples cannot even have children through a surrogate (unless the state approves). But it gets even worse.
A doctor cannot begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.
That’s right. Under this proposed legislation, the parents have to be certified by the state. Which means that the parents, even if married, would have to provide certain information to Indiana Council For Prudes (or whatever it will be called):
The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.
I can never understand why so many libertarians, not having a full-fledged party of their own, tend to vote conservative. The social conservative movement, as exemplified by the proposed legislation above, is outright Orwellian. Citizens of Indiana have to get the stamp of state approval before they can receive medical assistance in procreation? Give me a break! Talk about social engineering!!
UPDATE: More on this story here. It looks like "unauthorized reproduction" (getting pregnant through medical assistance while not married) is going to be a Class B misdemeanor. For the parents (presumably both of them), as well as the physician. And yes, the crime is actually called "unauthorized reproduction".
EVEN MORE: Amanda Marcotte says: "Put Down That Turkey Baster And Put Your Hands In The Air So I Can See Your Wedding Ring!!!"
YET ONE MORE TAKE: The proposed law would make the Virgin Mary a criminal.
Stupid Quote Of The Day
Captain’s Quarters on Harriet Miers:
Inasmuch as a nomination to the Supreme Court has no prerequisites other than Presidential approval, she cannot be described as unqualified.
Other than Presidential approval, there are no prerequisites for FEMA director either, but that doesn’t make Bush’s selection qualified for that position.
I’m With The Wingers On This…
It sure looks like the Oklahoma suicide bombing last weekend was a terrorist attack.
Former Fox Journalist: Fox Reporters “Make Things Up”
Former Fox News journalist David Schuster talks about his days at Fox, now that he has just moved to MSNBC:
When asked whether he would have had that opportunity while working at Fox, Shuster laughed, remained silent for a pregnant pause and said, "No. The answer is no."
He went on to recount his six-year tenure at Fox. "At the time I started at Fox, I thought, this is a great news organization to let me be very aggressive with a sitting president of the United States (Bill Clinton)," Shuster said. "I started having issues when others in the organization would take my carefully scripted and nuanced reporting and pull out bits and pieces to support their agenda on their shows.
"With the change of administration in Washington, I wanted to do the same kind of reporting, holding the (Bush) administration accountable, and that was not something that Fox was interested in doing," he said.
"Editorially, I had issues with story selection," Shuster went on. "But the bigger issue was that there wasn’t a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn’t care to take a closer look. I had serious issues with that."
The Bloomington native encountered a markedly different culture when he jumped to NBC/MSNBC in June 2002. "One of the first things that happens is you’re given a 50-page manual of standards and practices … and you immediately sense this is an organization that cares very deeply about journalistic integrity."
But we knew this already…
RELATED: Bill O’Reilly (Fox) is going to whine about blogs in his show tonight. I wonder why.
Down in ‘Bama
Judge Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court judge who defied federal court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Courthouse (so he was removed himself), is now running for Alabama governor.
Garnering less attention in the election to fill his spot in the Alabama Supreme Court. Here’s the Republican candidate:
Tom Parker, Republican candidate for the Supreme Court of Alabama, isn’t shy about touting his conservative credentials. He despises "liberal judges" who are "trying to take God out of public life." He is an "ardent opponent" of gay marriage, and "a national leader in the fight against Political Correctness." He underlines his close ties to Christian Right leaders like Phyllis Schlafly and James Dobson.
Most importantly, of course, Parker is running as the protégé of Roy Moore, the Alabama chief justice ejected from his job after defying a federal court order to remove his two-ton Ten Commandments monument from the Supreme Court rotunda.
But Tom Parker has some other friends, too. It’s just that he doesn’t spend much time bragging publicly about this batch of colleagues and supporters:
Tom Parker (center) poses with Leonard Wilson (left), a board member of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, and Mike Whorton (right), Alabama state leader of the neo-secessionist League of the South.
The Dysons
Geeks are very excited about this lecture — now sold out — in which three members of Freeman Dyson’s family (including Freeman himself) are giving a joint lecture.
I have a special connection to this event — I dated one of Professor Dyson’s daughters many years ago, and met him briefly a few times. I consider myself a reasonably smarty man, but I felt like a gnat in his presence. Professor Dyson teaches at the Princeton’s Institute of Advanced Studies — he was once an assistant to Einstein. You can read his wikipedia entry here, but techno-geeks may know him for the concept he dreamed now known as the "Dyson Sphere" — a man-made planet built around, and fueled by, a star. (In Star Trek: The Next Generation, Scotty from the original series was found still alive, his shuttlecraft having crash-landed on a "Dyson Sphere").
His daughter, Esther Dyson (not the one I dated) is pseudo-famous in the geek world, making her mark as a digitial age philosopher and consultant. Often refered to as "the most powerful woman in the computer industry", she writes a column for the New York Times on digitial technology and its impact on society. Her wikipedia entry is here.
I don’t know the third speaker, Peter Dyson. He is apparently a scientific historian.
Anyway, it is an extemely interesting family, and for anyone who happens to see this lecture, I am envious.
Recommended reading:
- Disturbing The Universe by Freeman Dyson
- Imagined Worlds by Freeman Dyson
- Release 2.1 by Esther Dyson
- Esther Dyson: Internet Visionary by Leslie Morales
More Pop Quiz
"[T]he argument that the [Bush] administration making is, this was a good decision because the president made it and the president makes good decisions. And that might be enough for a monarchy, but it’s plainly not a persuasive argument in a democratic system."
(1) Was the pundit who said this: (a) conservative or (b) liberal?
(2) Was he referring to (a) Bush’s selection to invade Iraq or (b) Bush’s recent Supreme Court nomination?
(3) Whoever said it, and whatever it was about, isn’t it true?!?
As My Mother Says….
"Oh, that man!"*
"I’ve known her long enough to know she’s not going to change,…"
Wait. I thought 9/11 changed everything.
….that 20 years from now she will be the same person with the same judicial philosophy she has today," Bush said.
Call me crazy, but I don’t hold much stock in one’s judicial philosophy unless one is an actual, you know, judge. It’s like all those morons who have never coached a football team in their life thinking theyre qualified to actually be one.
"She’ll have more experience. She’ll have been a judge, but nevertheless the philosophy won’t change, and that’s important to me."
Because in Bush’s view, experience should not cause a person to grow and change. Which, in Bush’s case, might actually be true.
Dismissing Democratic charges of cronyism, Bush said: "I picked the best person I could find. People know we’re close."
Block that non-sequitor! Does he not understand that the second fact is entirely unrelated to the first? That’s like saying "My doctor is the best doctor in the world. He golfs on Thursdays."
And does anybody think Miers is the "best person [Bush] could find"? Yeah, maybe in a White House hide-and-seek game, but . . . come on!
* To my recollection, my mother never uttered that phrase. But I can hear her saying it nevertheless.
Okay. Now What?
We on the left have had fun the past couple of days watching the rightosphere tar-and-feather Bush over his Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Myers. But ultimately, we have to decide: Do we support her, or do we reject her (knowing that a rejection might mean we get a non-stealth candidate who is qualified, but clearly in the Scalia mold)?
Many on the left are in a wait-and-see mode. They want to hear her at the confirmation hearings. And while I reserve the right to change my mind, I don’t think the hearings will yield much fruit (the absence of fruit, however, may itself become a deciding factor for many).
As for me, I endorse the views of law professor Geoffrey Stone. You should read the whole thing, but here’s the key graf:
Let me be clear. I have no knowledge about Ms. Miers’s views about the United States Constitution. I assume she’s conservative, but perhaps not. That’s not the point. The point, rather, is that she appears to be unqualified for the position. There is nothing in her record that distinguishes her from tens of thousands of other lawyers in the United States, most of whom are undoubtedly fine lawyers, but few of whom have the background, experience, or intellectual depth to serve successfully on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides the most fundamental questions of freedom of speech, equality, separation of powers, federalism, religious liberty, and privacy. The goal is not just to vote, but to bring a high level of wisdom, experience, principle, and intellect to the process of judging. It is no place for rank amateurs, especially rank amateurs with no record of relevant achievement.
I would rather have a qualified possible conservative in the John Roberts mold, than an amateur who-knows-what-roll-of-the-dice.
Jonah Goldberg on Harriet Miers
This is what Jonah Goldberg at the Corner is saying:
Dobson was on Fox last night defending Miers on the grounds she’s an evangelical Christian. It seems entirely possible and plausible to me that Bush had this as much in his mind as her inner-circle status.
Well, I don’t know how true this is. She’s religious, but evangelical? But fine. I’ll go with the premise.
Evangelical Justices can be trusted to vote the right way because they are, well, evangelicals — or at least that seems to be the desired subtext.
Query "the right way". Don’t we want justices who will vote according to their interpretation of the Constitution — even if we disagree about how exactly the Constitution should be interpreted?
Is Jonah saying that evangelical justices are more likely to follow the Constitution than non-evangelicals? Or is he saying (as I suspect) that evangelicals will follow something other than the Constitution, i.e., the Gospels?
And if it is the latter, isn’t that the very definition of judicial activism?
I don’t have a problem with much of this logic in the abstract. Certainly, an evangelical Christian has as much right to a seat on the Court as anybody else.
Ummmm, yes. But we’re not talking about who has a "right" to be on the Court. The issue who is BEST for the Court?.
Still, I will agree that his last statement is true. But THIS is also true: "Certainly, a NASCAR fan has as much right to a seat on the Court as anybody else."
And, contrary to those who despise "polarization," I think polarization is a two way street. Democrats are just plain stupid when they decide to portray evangelicals as some sort of semi-demonic group to get worked-up over. If nominating an evangelical pushes Democratic buttons, shame on the Democrats for having their buttons pushable on such a thing.
Right. And now you know why. You want a justice who will vote based on her religious bent — a judicial activist.
No, my only real objection is that she doesn’t seem to be overwhelmingly qualified for the job. Surely, there are more qualified evangelical judicial conservatives out there, including female ones.
I’m sure there are more qualified NASCAR-fan justices out there, even conservatives, even conservative women. But being a NASCAR fan — or an evangelical — should be irrelevant to anyone interested in the appointment of judges who will follow the law (man’s law, not the Gospels).
Other Shoe Drops (More To Follow)
A separate grand jury has indicted DeLay. The charge? Money laundering:
Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through a political action committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington.
DeLay’s earlier indictment charged that conspirators carried out a fund-raising scheme by having the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee send corporate money to the Republican National Committee. The RNC then sent back a like amount — $190,000 — to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.
Tom, don’t let the prison door hit your ass on the way in.