Roe v. Wade 40 year on . . .

Roe v. Wade was a terribly reasoned case.  It is the pinnacle of the "Oh, wait, the constitution means just what I want it to!" judicial attitude.  If you look back at Griswold v. Connecticut and its progeny you can see that those who objected to the line of "privacy" reasoning on the grounds that you could shoe horn virtually everything into it were in fact correct.  The Volokh Conspiracy blog had a great blog post on the slippery slope that started with those cases.


With Roe, the Supreme Court prevented a debate that needed to occur and usurped that debate with a judicial fiat.  One could argue (although that "life and liberty" language is a bit of a problem) that abortion is not prohibited by the constitution, but to say there exists a constitutional right to one is, well, ridiculous.  If a state or the federal government wants to allow it (just as we allow  people to drive 75 m.p.h. - allowed but not a constitutional right) then let's have the debate.  The Supreme Court has too often sought to short circuit debate so that they can engage is social engineering.

The other thing about Roe v. Wade is that, regardless of whether it is legal, abortion is a moral abomination and all who participate in it have engaged in a moral abomination.  A lot of things are legal but are moral abominations.  Adultery is apparently now legal with no price to be paid - except for that rare judge now a days who will assess fault in setting support.  But adultery is no longer criminal and it has been a long time since I have seen a case on "alienation of affections".  Treating you parents poorly, deserting your family, are fine from a legal perspective, but are still immoral.

Women need to see that they are being sucked into a moral abyss by those who could really not care less about them.  As to the secondary effects of unilateral (women's choice only) abortion on demand (devaluation of life, marginalization of fathers, reduced population, sex selection, attribute selection) that is also a debate that needs to take place.

You Didn't Build That

In the debate over President Obama's comment about his belief that if you have a small business "you didn't build that, someone else built that," is lost the most important consideration of all.  That is, the "therefore" that follows that logic or that syllogism, if you will.

Since you did not build it, you do not deserve the money that the business generates and the 'people' who did build it (to wit, the government) can take as much of it as they want and through its (the government's) generosity you can keep as much as they (the government) deem appropriate.  What Obama does not understand is the 'government' is not a third party that, through its generosity and largess, built infrastructure for us (the 'others').  The truth is that the small business owners and others who pay taxes (the 49%) built that infrastructure - not the 'government'.

As I said with regard to Elizabeth Warren's statements about the social contract, the government has to steal money for the common good - roads, bridges, national defense, courts - but when the government (that third party, non-people sense of the government) steals money from me to give it to someone they thinks deserves it more, that does not make them (Obama, the 'government') noble, it makes them a thief.  Play with your own money - not mine. 

And, by the way, the economy is inherently built from the top down - which came first Henry Ford or the UAW? . . .

Romney's Taxes

Romney released his tax returns to the IRS.  If the IRS thought his return constituted the commission of a felony they would prosecute him.  Obama's attack are simply designed to communicate that if you run against him you will be slandered.  If the commission of a felony disqualifies you from the presidency, Obama is disqualified as a result of his cocaine use.  He did not divulge his cocaine use to the police and that is a very dishonest thing to do.  One who knowingly violates the law is in no position to say that his opponent violated the law.

2012 Election

Obama is vulnerable in this election on virtually every front, domestic and foreign.

With regard to the domestic economy, the current situation is much too fragile to consider it in a recovery.  In addition, it is an artificial recovery to the extent it is a recovery at all.  Unless we can continue to fund "stimulus" packages year after year and bail out struggling industries time and time again, this economy will ultimately need to have an organic, unassisted recovery.  The auto bailouts totaled $95K per UAW member.  No wonder GM and Chrysler got a bump.  However, the Chevy Volt was just decommissioned and Asian car makers are finally back at full strength. The Obama administration has not created a sustainable economic model.  It has spent federal dollars to both finance specific industries (gosh is the auto industry one of the most highly unionized in the country?) and to promote his reelection (gosh, do you think he will carry Michigan?).  The federal government cannot pick economic winners and losers.  He was delighted to bail out the auto industry because it is a back door, feel good way to achieve central planning in the economy.

With regard to domestic policy, one question.  Is there any aspect of my life that is beyond the reach of the federal government?  Public roads take me to Mass, does that mean that my Church must comply with all federal law (including recognition of same sex marriage - you know it is coming as Obama's, uh, position on same sex marriage evolves)?  Can the sign of the cross be outlawed in public because it is "hate speech"?  (I'm sure there are many who agree with such a restriction.)  Obama does want to transform this nation, I just strongly disagree with what he wants to transform it into.  Obama is clearly leading us to a secular, socialist state. 

With regard to foreign policy, other than standing for the proposition that it is his job to apologize for all actions of the United States, he has no foreign policy other than leading from behind.

Random Thoughts

Just some random thoughts . . .

I work in higher education and read The Chronicle of Higher Education.  It is the most terrifying publication in America.  They report on (and push) an agenda that is so destructive it is amazing.  The deconstruction of gender seems to be their most important mission right now.   This week's edition had an interview with a female elementary school teacher who is now a professor of education who looks like a man and has published a book on how the question, "Are you a woman or a man?" posed by her students serves as a jumping off place for discussions about gender in elementary school.  God help us, seriously, God help us . . .

The deconstruction of parenthood (mother and father) is already well under way . . .

Question everything, especially questioning everything.  The new Americans throw out tradition so easily it's amazing we still distinguish between night and day.  Who says Shakespeare is better than the Brady Bunch . .  .   

Occupy Wallstreet and the AAUP

If you want to know where the professors who teach at our colleges are on the issue read:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/aaup-leaders-voice-support-for-occupy-wall-street-movement/37082

Yeah, higher education is not pushing an ideology, just knowledge . . .

The Social Contract

The whole "social contract" concept that has been pushed by Elizabeth Warren and the NYTimes is very appealing to the liberal left, because with it you can justify anything the government wants to do.  If you want to tax me for roads and schools and military defense that's fine.  If you want to tax me to redistribute my wealth because you thinks it's fair, uh, I got a problem with that.  If you want to tax me to fund abortions, uh, I got a problem with that.  If you want to tax me to push a specific philosophic position (poor people good, rich people bad, people of "color" good, white people bad), uh, I got a problem with that.  Let's get back to roads, schools, and the army if you want to rely on the social contract.