Quote-a-palooza

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” —George Washington

“All of us denounce war—all of us consider it man’s greatest stupidity. And yet wars happen and they involve the most passionate lovers of peace because there are still barbarians in the world who set the price for peace at death or enslavement and the price is too high.” —Ronald Reagan

“All evils in our now extensive catalogue flow from a falsified picture of the world which, for our immediate concern, results in an inability to interpret current happenings.” —Richard Weaver

“Conservatives believe that there is evil in this world, that it will intrude into our lives and that we should be ready and willing to fight against it. We also know that evil lurks in every human heart and that we will not always meet the moral standard we claim to believe in. On some points we will fail (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa), on some we shall succeed, and on some we will never be tested. But we will not abandon our belief in that standard, and will resist all attempts to pretend it doesn’t exist. Courage is real and it is good; cowardice is real and it is bad. And that remains true, and I will believe it, even if I prove to be cowardly and not courageous when the time comes.” —Nathanael Blake

“No matter what, the law will teach. It will either teach that marriage exists as a natural institution with public purposes and meanings, centered around bridging the gender divide, and bringing together one man and one woman to share their lives as husband and wife and to become father and mother to their children, or it will teach that marriage is a mere creation of the state, recognizing and condoning the private sexual choices of adults, and intended merely to fulfill adult desires. There is no other option; one or the other will become normative… We can only hope that judges and policy makers will heed… [these] warnings before it is too late.” —Robert George & Ryan Anderson

“I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world.” —Mark Steyn

“Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism—that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not… Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country’s people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses—and that is a good thing. Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone’s pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the ‘Washington solution’ crowd…[I]f conservatives use Federalism as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, instead of treating it as a valued principle, we are doing a disservice to our country—as well as to the cause of conservatism.” —Former Sen. Fred Thompson

“Huge numbers of Americans don’t know jack about their government or politics. According to a Pew Research Center survey released last week, 31 percent of Americans don’t know who the vice president is, fewer than half are aware that Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House, a mere 29 percent can identify ‘Scooter’ Libby as the convicted former chief of staff of the vice president, and only 15 percent can name Harry Reid when asked who is the Senate majority leader. And yet, last week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’ firing of eight U.S. attorneys was ‘politically motivated.’ So, we are supposed to believe that two-thirds of Americans have studied the details of the U.S. attorney firings and come to an informed conclusion that they were politically motivated—even when Senate Democrats agree that there is no actual evidence that Gonzales did anything improper. Are these the same people who couldn’t pick Pelosi out of a lineup? Or the 85 percent who couldn’t name the Senate majority leader? Are we to imagine that the 31 percent of the electorate who still—after seven years of headlines and demonization—can’t identify the vice president of the United States nonetheless have a studied opinion on the firing of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias?” —Jonah Goldberg

Quote-a-palooza

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” —George Washington

“All of us denounce war—all of us consider it man’s greatest stupidity. And yet wars happen and they involve the most passionate lovers of peace because there are still barbarians in the world who set the price for peace at death or enslavement and the price is too high.” —Ronald Reagan

“All evils in our now extensive catalogue flow from a falsified picture of the world which, for our immediate concern, results in an inability to interpret current happenings.” —Richard Weaver

“Conservatives believe that there is evil in this world, that it will intrude into our lives and that we should be ready and willing to fight against it. We also know that evil lurks in every human heart and that we will not always meet the moral standard we claim to believe in. On some points we will fail (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa), on some we shall succeed, and on some we will never be tested. But we will not abandon our belief in that standard, and will resist all attempts to pretend it doesn’t exist. Courage is real and it is good; cowardice is real and it is bad. And that remains true, and I will believe it, even if I prove to be cowardly and not courageous when the time comes.” —Nathanael Blake

“No matter what, the law will teach. It will either teach that marriage exists as a natural institution with public purposes and meanings, centered around bridging the gender divide, and bringing together one man and one woman to share their lives as husband and wife and to become father and mother to their children, or it will teach that marriage is a mere creation of the state, recognizing and condoning the private sexual choices of adults, and intended merely to fulfill adult desires. There is no other option; one or the other will become normative… We can only hope that judges and policy makers will heed… [these] warnings before it is too late.” —Robert George & Ryan Anderson

“I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world.” —Mark Steyn

“Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism—that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not… Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country’s people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses—and that is a good thing. Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone’s pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the ‘Washington solution’ crowd…[I]f conservatives use Federalism as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, instead of treating it as a valued principle, we are doing a disservice to our country—as well as to the cause of conservatism.” —Former Sen. Fred Thompson

“Huge numbers of Americans don’t know jack about their government or politics. According to a Pew Research Center survey released last week, 31 percent of Americans don’t know who the vice president is, fewer than half are aware that Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House, a mere 29 percent can identify ‘Scooter’ Libby as the convicted former chief of staff of the vice president, and only 15 percent can name Harry Reid when asked who is the Senate majority leader. And yet, last week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’ firing of eight U.S. attorneys was ‘politically motivated.’ So, we are supposed to believe that two-thirds of Americans have studied the details of the U.S. attorney firings and come to an informed conclusion that they were politically motivated—even when Senate Democrats agree that there is no actual evidence that Gonzales did anything improper. Are these the same people who couldn’t pick Pelosi out of a lineup? Or the 85 percent who couldn’t name the Senate majority leader? Are we to imagine that the 31 percent of the electorate who still—after seven years of headlines and demonization—can’t identify the vice president of the United States nonetheless have a studied opinion on the firing of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias?” —Jonah Goldberg

Quote-a-palooza

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” —George Washington

“All of us denounce war—all of us consider it man’s greatest stupidity. And yet wars happen and they involve the most passionate lovers of peace because there are still barbarians in the world who set the price for peace at death or enslavement and the price is too high.” —Ronald Reagan

“All evils in our now extensive catalogue flow from a falsified picture of the world which, for our immediate concern, results in an inability to interpret current happenings.” —Richard Weaver

“Conservatives believe that there is evil in this world, that it will intrude into our lives and that we should be ready and willing to fight against it. We also know that evil lurks in every human heart and that we will not always meet the moral standard we claim to believe in. On some points we will fail (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa), on some we shall succeed, and on some we will never be tested. But we will not abandon our belief in that standard, and will resist all attempts to pretend it doesn’t exist. Courage is real and it is good; cowardice is real and it is bad. And that remains true, and I will believe it, even if I prove to be cowardly and not courageous when the time comes.” —Nathanael Blake

“No matter what, the law will teach. It will either teach that marriage exists as a natural institution with public purposes and meanings, centered around bridging the gender divide, and bringing together one man and one woman to share their lives as husband and wife and to become father and mother to their children, or it will teach that marriage is a mere creation of the state, recognizing and condoning the private sexual choices of adults, and intended merely to fulfill adult desires. There is no other option; one or the other will become normative… We can only hope that judges and policy makers will heed… [these] warnings before it is too late.” —Robert George & Ryan Anderson

“I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world.” —Mark Steyn

“Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism—that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not… Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country’s people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses—and that is a good thing. Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone’s pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the ‘Washington solution’ crowd…[I]f conservatives use Federalism as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, instead of treating it as a valued principle, we are doing a disservice to our country—as well as to the cause of conservatism.” —Former Sen. Fred Thompson

“Huge numbers of Americans don’t know jack about their government or politics. According to a Pew Research Center survey released last week, 31 percent of Americans don’t know who the vice president is, fewer than half are aware that Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House, a mere 29 percent can identify ‘Scooter’ Libby as the convicted former chief of staff of the vice president, and only 15 percent can name Harry Reid when asked who is the Senate majority leader. And yet, last week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’ firing of eight U.S. attorneys was ‘politically motivated.’ So, we are supposed to believe that two-thirds of Americans have studied the details of the U.S. attorney firings and come to an informed conclusion that they were politically motivated—even when Senate Democrats agree that there is no actual evidence that Gonzales did anything improper. Are these the same people who couldn’t pick Pelosi out of a lineup? Or the 85 percent who couldn’t name the Senate majority leader? Are we to imagine that the 31 percent of the electorate who still—after seven years of headlines and demonization—can’t identify the vice president of the United States nonetheless have a studied opinion on the firing of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias?” —Jonah Goldberg

TV Sports Can Be A Real Turnoff

Norman Chad – TV Sports Can Be A Real Turnoff – washingtonpost.com

1. Here’s my problem with Ultimate Fighting — if nobody dies, how ultimate is it?

2. Can you imagine the sound effects Fox Sports would’ve used if it covered Apollo 11’s mission to the moon in 1969?

3. I think Gary Bettman made a bold move taking the NHL off of national TV.

4. You’ve got to hand it to the NFL Network — even in the offseason, it’s live every day reporting nothing.

7. I programmed my TiVo to record all poker shows and my TiVo hired a workplace attorney.

11. Tim McCarver and Boomer Esiason each have a weekly TV talk show. This is what gaming theorists would call a “statistical improbability.”

13. I’ll take Vin Scully and an Orange Crush every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

18. I’m not above watching a “Walker, Texas Ranger” rerun on Hallmark.

19. As it turns out, George Washington might’ve cut down that cherry tree because it was blocking the signal from his DirecTV receiver and he desperately wanted MLB’s Extra Innings package so he could watch as many Red Sox games as possible.

23. I get paid to watch television every week. I wish someone would pay me more not to watch it.

Q. Since NFL teams are always drafting for their biggest needs, why didn’t the Bengals select a criminal law attorney? (Jim and Connor Harmann; Hartland, Wis.)

Democrats for Life of America

Democrats for Life of America has released what it calls its 95-10 Initiative, which promotes policies they claim will reduce the number of abortions in America by 95% in ten years. I would dispute their assessment of the program’s efficacy, but they are, in general, a good program.

1) Federal Funding for Pregnancy Counseling and Daycare on University Campuses
2) Provide Accurate Information to Patients Receiving a Positive Result from an Alpha-Fetoprotein Test tests
3) Make Adoption Tax Credits Permanent
4) Ban Insurance Industry Discrimination Against Pregnant Women
5) Require Adoption Referral Information
6) Women’s Right to Know
7) Provide Ultrasound Equipment
8) Increase Funding for Domestic Violence Programs
9) Parental Notification
10) Call for Congress to Fully Fund Federal WIC Program
11) Provide Grants to States to Promote and Implement Safe Haven Laws
12) Require Counseling in Maternity Group Homes
13) Require SCHIP to cover pregnant women and their unborn children
14) Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/ National Public Awareness Program
15) Conduct a National Study & Update Abortion Data
16) Federal Funding for Pregnancy Prevention Education

There’s a brochure available which provides some details behind these proposals. Many of these are common sense and should be passed: informing pregnant women who’ve received a positive result on a test for genetic defects that those can often return false positives; making the adoption tax credits permanent will encourage people to adopt children whose lives have been spared; requiring pregnancy centers to provide information about the option of adoption to pregnant women; using ultrasound equipment to allow women to see their unborn child before making the final decision to abort; requiring teenage girls who need a parental permission to take an aspirin to inform their parents before having an abortion; promoting the freedom for women to hand over their children, no questions asked; having maternity homes provide women information on adoption; and increasing awareness of options for pregnant women.

Checking the list of sponsors and supporters I don’t see either of our Delaware Democrats co-sponsoring this, even our “personally opposed, but…” Senator Joseph Biden. Notice that this bill in no way infringes a woman’s ability to choose, just gives her al the resources she needs to make a true choice. There’s only a few sponsors on it right now so let’s see if the “safe, legal and rare” pro-choicers mean it, or if nothing more than political hot air.

Florida House Approves Abortion-Ultrasound and Waiting Period Proposal

Florida House Approves Abortion-Ultrasound and Waiting Period Proposal

Under a bill the Florida state House approved on Friday morning, anyone wanting an abortion would be required to have an ultrasound and given an option of seeing it beforehand. Pro-life lawmakers hope the requirement will further reduce the number of abortions in the state.

The ultrasound requirement would not apply to women who are victims of sexual abuse because Republican Rep. Denise Grimsley added an exception to the bill to exempt them.

Backers of the ultrasound provision and waiting period say it would help women make better decisions than having an abortion. They also said it wouldn’t be unconstitutional by infringing on so-called abortion rights.

”If you read this bill, it doesn’t do anything to take away a woman’s right to choose,” Rep. Kevin Ambler said. “What it does is put a thoughtful, deliberative process in place.”

As I mentioned the other day, pro-choicers frequently say they’d like to make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Well, here’s another chance for them to do so, and without impacting a woman’s “rights.” In fact, this even enhances a woman’s ability to make a choice since it’s helping her get all the information about the choice she’s about to make. She’ll be given the option to see the child she’s about to abort, but still be allowed to make up her own mind. What could be more pro-choice than that?

So naturally, those who propound “choice” oppose this bill.

Wendy Grassi, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Southwest & Central Florida said she opposed the ultrasounds requirement and said the legislature shouldn’t tell abortion practitioners what to do.

Once again, we see “choice” is just a smokescreen for no restrictions on abortion.

Dinesh D’Souza: Speaking as a Former Fetus…

Townhall.com::Speaking as a Former Fetus…::By Dinesh D’Souza

Speaking as a former fetus, I welcome the Supreme Court’s decision permitting regulation of partial birth abortion.

D’Souza goes on to compare the current debate over abortion to the Lincoln-Douglas debates over slavery in the US Senate campaign of 1858. He compares the “pro-choice” position on abortion to Douglas’ “pro-choice” position on slavery:

Douglas, the Democrat, took the pro-choice position. He said that each state should decide for itself whether or not it wanted slavery. Douglas denied that he was pro-slavery. In fact, at one time he professed to be “personally opposed” to it. At the same time, Douglas was reluctant to impose his moral views on the new territories. Douglas affirmed the right of each state to choose. He invoked the great principle of freedom of choice.

“I’m not pro-abortion. I’m personally opposed, but I’m reluctant to impose my personal position on others.” Sound like anyone we know?

Lincoln, the Republican, disagreed. Lincoln argued that choice cannot be exercised without reference to the content of the choice. How can it make sense to permit a person to choose to enslave another human being? How can self-determination be invoked to deny others self-determination? How can choice be used to negate choice? At its deepest level, Lincoln is saying that the legitimacy of freedom as a political principle is itself dependent on a doctrine of natural rights that arises out of a specific understanding of human nature and human dignity.

The argument between Douglas and Lincoln is very similar in content, and very nearly in form, to the argument between the pro-choice and the pro-life movements. Pro-choice advocates don’t like to be considered pro-abortion. Many of them say they are “personally opposed.” One question to put to them is, “Why are you personally opposed?” The only reason for one to be personally opposed to abortion is that one is deeply convinced that the fetus is more than a mere collection of cells, that it is a developing human being.

If abortion is something you personally oppose, why do you oppose it? There’s really no reason to oppose it other than your belief that the abortion is killing a living human person. And if you believe that, how can you believe that it’s possibly a valid choice? You’re either lying about being opposed to it, or selling your conscience for political gain.

Finally, Dinesh turns his sights on the hard-liners in the pro-life movement:

In my view the pro-life movement at this point should focus on seeking to reduce the number of abortions. At times this will require political and legal fights, at times it will require education and the establishment of alternatives to abortion, such as adoption centers. Unfortunately such measures are sometimes opposed by so-called hardliners in the pro-life movement. These hardliners are fools. They want to outlaw all abortions, and so they refuse to settle for stopping some abortions, with the consequence that they end up preventing no abortions. These folks should learn some lessons from Abraham Lincoln.

He’s exactly right. Rome wasn’t built in a day. A quixotic focus on saving all unborn lives will cause us to fail to save some lives that could be savable now. In World War II, we defeated Japan by taking small island after small island. An assault on mainland Japan early in the war would have been a bloodbath and a failure without having taken the islands that allowed to have supply lines for our troops. We’re in a similar situation today: we’ve taken our first island, but there are many more to go. We’re not in any position to attack the mainland.