I was reading up on the new Supreme Court nominee to try and determine when (not if) Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and came across the following:
One Roberts case receiving particularly close attention involves a 2003 challenge to the federal Endangered Species Act. At issue was whether the act could be invoked to protect a certain species of toad that exists entirely in California and was being threatened by a development project. The appeals court ruled that under Congress’s commerce-clause powers, the Endangered Species Act extends protection to the toad.
Parties in the case asked the full appeals court to reconsider. All but two judges declined to take up the case.
Roberts was one of the two.
In his dissent, he said the full court should agree to hear the case to more faithfully apply two Supreme Court precedents establishing limits on Congress’s commerce-clause powers. He noted that the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals had recently adopted a similar, more restrictive, reading of commerce-clause authority and the Endangered Species Act.
That Roberts, who routinely appears to side with big business (and also appears to reject any restriction on presidential power–gee, hard to see what makes him attractive to Bush) wanted to take on the case isn’t the issue for me.
What bugs me is that if someone wants to build a development on MY home, and I protest that, then it’s tough beans. I lose my home. I’m screwed. But if someone wants to disenfranchise a freakin’ toad, THAT’S where the line is drawn? What the hëll–?!?
That’s it. I’m building a small enclosure in my back yard and getting me some of those toads. Either that or I’m going to lobby for Jews and/or liberals to be considered an endangered species.
PAD
• 
Kick it back to the states where it belongs. It should never have been Federal to begin with.
I knew Dukakis was toast the moment that he gave the bloodless answer about capital punishment if his wife was raped.
Side issue here, but I’ve always thought Dukakis’ response should’ve been something like:
“Of course I’d want to see him dead. I’d want to drag him out of the courtroom and strangle him myself. But our justice system is not about sanctioning personal vengeance — not yours, not mine, not anyone’s.”
I was 18 when Dukakis ran. I walked Ithaca precincts for him. Election night? Not so fun.
TWL
“Of course I’d want to see him dead. I’d want to drag him out of the courtroom and strangle him myself. But our justice system is not about sanctioning personal vengeance — not yours, not mine, not anyone’s.”
Yes, exactly. I likewise thought something along those lines was the right way to go. The problem was that candidates are programmed to get straight for their vetted, talking-points responses. The question posed required SOME sort of emotional, passionate reply, but his talking point response to the death penalty was canned and unemotional. Result: He came across as if he didn’t give a dámņ if his wife was raped.
Journalists and questioners need to come up with more off-the-wall questions so that candidates will actually be required to think on their feet.
Personally, I always liked the capital punishment response on “West Wing,” when Bartlett asked Charlie Young whether–if the killer of Charlie’s cop mother was ever brought to justice–Charlie would want to see him executed. Charlie replied, “No, sir, I would not.” He then paused half a heartbeat and added, “I’d want to do it myself.”
PAD
Things have changed a lot, especially in terms of people’s perceptions of personal rights.
And you’re assume that things have changed for the better?
That perhaps I’m imaginging that 11 states passed laws this past election season banning gay marriage and Congress wants to amend our Constitution to do the same?
Doesn’t sound like the mark of a country willing to continue to expand the personal rights of individuals.
“Doesn’t sound like the mark of a country willing to continue to expand the personal rights of individuals.”
Continue? You mean there was time when rights were expanded? I missed all the events of the 50s, 60s, and mostly missed everything from the 70s (I was more interested in learning how not to drool, to eat with a spoon, and other sundry things babies do). So my whole life, I’ve only ever seen personal liberty/rights constrained by government. Seeing some expansion would be nice.
Bush agrees:
JIM LEHRER: What about your own any of your own? Any of your own? Do you think for instance that you beat Dukakis because of anything having to do with the debates with him?
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Well, I think Dukakis got hurt by an answer he gave in the debate out at UCLA in California when Bernie Shaw asked him some question about if your wife was raped I think was the question… And, Mike Dukakis seemed flustered by it and, instead of saying I’d kill him if I could get my hands on him, there was some kind of politically correct answer. And I think that hurt him. I really think that, you know, I shouldn’t be critical of him, cause I’m sure I make plenty of mistakes. But I think that particular answer stands out as one at least in my memory that might have been a so-called defining moment. I don’t know whether it changed any polling numbers or anything like that.
I seem to recall another question, one wasked of Bush…Bernie asked something to the effect of “If you died in office could your vice president be trusted to take over?” It was obviously a careful way of saying “QUAYLE??? What the hëll were you thinking???” but what was cool was that when Shaw asked it Bush gave a little mock hurt expression and said “Bernie…” like he was upset that Shaw would bring up such a sad prospect…it was cute.
I really think that, you know, I shouldn’t be critical of him, cause I’m sure I make plenty of mistakes.
Wow. Now, if only his son wasn’t suffering from the delusion of being infallible.
Ah, but see, I agree with you that a Constitutional amendment about marriage is silly and not the appropriate jurisdiction. However, I also feel it is likely never to pass, because, let’s look at it here, if ONLY 11 states have anti-gay marriage statutes in place, that’s not nearly enough to get a constitutional amendment passed, right? Do you really think at least 25% of the states couldn’t be mustered to stop such an amendment? Me personally, I’d like to throw the whole concept on its ear, as I explained it on a thread a while ago, about separating FOR EVERYONE, straight or gay or purple or whatever, the civil aspects of marriage from the religious aspects, so anyone could get a civil union to cover the legal partnership and then choose whether they needed something else from a religious authority or whatever.
However, I do feel it’s an appropriate state issue, because most marriage law is written at the state level already, isn’t it? And I know, I know, that doesn’t protect the minority very well when you vote for things like this. Pessimistically thinking, though, typically it takes the implementation of a bad law to make people see the need for a good law. I’m not justifying this as a means to an end at all, but maybe offering as consolation the thought that if a law or set of laws overtime becomes bad, it will be changed. Maybe think in terms of creative destructionism? You don’t know how far you can go until you have nothing left to lose?
Ok, I’ve dug this bloody big hole around myself here and no one’s reaching to take the shovel out of my hands…
Crap, got so caught up I forgot to address Craig’s main point about personal freedoms.
Um, I guess what I was meaning was that people are much more aware of their personal rights, and whether they exercise it or not, that does include voting the way they want to. I think you can argue that the state of debate in this country is appallingly bad (as evidenced by my often clumsy attempts at it), but the basic personal rights protected by the Constitution are intact. Some states are pretty backwards, I can’t argue otherwise, except to point out that no one is forcing anyone to live in a particular state. And I think we do a much better job of rooting out violations of our rights. I think people see things as worse than “the good old days” partially because we’re only now finding out how sneaky certain individuals were back then. Sort of a “well, if Hoover got away with that kind of stuff back then, then they MUST be doing even worse now.” kind of mentality. Call me an optimist, but I think we’re too far along as a society to revert to some kind of serfdom-level of rights. Will there be stumbles back? Sure, but I think those stumbles are what alert us to our problems and force us to address them.
As a card carryin’ lefty (and Pennsylvania state house candidate in 2004) I think Robert’s nomination is great. Bush sowed the seeds of his own destruction — by putting Roe V. Wade at risk.
Do you guys have any idea how many Republican women will flee the party if Roe v. Wade gets overturned? We seriously might not see another Republican White House for a generation. Between the war, Plame, the economy disaster (that’s the storm we face in a couple of years folks) — Roe v. Wade would be the cherry on top.
Let’s face it, the Democrats have become to weak-willed to oppose the GOP, so the best plan is to let them self-destruct. As I’ve advocated previously, every liberal pol in the country should head for Cancun, and tell the people of the U.S. “you elected these clowns, now live with the consequences. When you get sick of it, call us and we’ll come back and fix things. In the meantime, I’m headed to Senor Frogs.”
“As I’ve advocated previously, every liberal pol in the country should head for Cancun, and tell the people of the U.S. “you elected these clowns, now live with the consequences. When you get sick of it, call us and we’ll come back and fix things. In the meantime, I’m headed to Senor Frogs.””
I think the last party to try that was the Whigs. As of today, nobody ever called.
You can’t convince people to trust you with their security if, when something as minor as few elections that fail to go your way happens, you pack up your marbles and leave. If all the liberal pols skip town (and I’m sure there are many who will be willing to help them pack) some other group, made, perhaps, of sterner stuff, will take their place and try to earn a chance at leadership.
Actually, come to think of it, your scenario is pretty much the ending of ATLAS SHRUGGED, isn’t it? Just with liberals instead of capitalists. Just get yourself a hidden valley in Colorado and wait for the phone call from America…yep, any day now…(Ring) “HELLO? Hello? …..no, thank you, we really don’t want to change our long distance carrier…” Yep. Any day now.
Dammit Bill, stop getting so dámņ literary. Makes my beer-sodden head get all woogy.
First, I am of no relation to Supreme Court nominee Roberts. That said; I am totally with (meaning aligned, viewpoint-wise) the guy who penned the thing that started this… the guy whose last name happens to be my first.
Protecting the environment is a great thing, but bashing Bush for (indirectly) doing so through Roberts is even greater genius. Supreme Court nominee Roberts, Bush and big business are so right for each other that it makes me sick. Isn’t this too obvious? Shouldn’t they be stopped? Grrrr!!
Big business does not deserve the breaks given by the conservative right wing, but neither do we (the people) deserve the returned tax money that Bush bankrupted our nation with by handing it out as if our government couldn’t use it wisely, which apparently the couldn’t.
Watch the Daily Show tonight; you’ll see that Jews and/or liberals are indeed alive and well. Kudos!
DR
PAD said:
” we see a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman’s right to choose? “
I’m a little slow on the uptake…right to choose what?
Whether or not to kill their fetus.
Thank God that the Court has had the guts to overturn past rulings. I’d hate to be living in a country that still allowed slavery. Of course I hate that my country allows women to murder innocent life.
What really scares me a lot isnt that Roberts may become a Supreme Court judge. The one that wakes me up at night is thinking that with Renhquist and Ruth Ginsberg both possibly Dieing on the bench of health problems Bush may get the chance to put 3 judges there.
If that happens I really want democrats to make it look hard to get roberts on then use political bank to slam dunk 2 people that represent American interests. Heck I wouldnt even complain about Bolton being our UN rep if Deomocrats got to pick 2 seats on the court.
After re-reading the RvW opinion yesterday, and thinking more about what folks here have said about the GOP not wanting to lose that fight as a political platform goal, I think they’re on to something. The RvW opinion pretty clearly lays out the line where states may start to regulate abortion, and clearly sets out a limit. It takes the court a long time to get to that deliniation, but once it does, it’s very clear: No regulation prior to the end of the first trimester, some regulation short of an absolute ban after that, with the closer to term you get, the more regulation allowed. But the court strongly suggests that all abortions other than those required for the preservation of the life and health of the mother can be regulated, including prohibited, after the start of the second trimester.
This was back in the early 1970s’. We’ve had nearly 30 years pass since then, and states have not passed laws that can stand up to this clear test. And since there have undoubtedly been Republican controlled state governments in that time, it seems to me that the only logical explanations for this total lack of laws compliant with the SCT ruling regulating what the GOP rather vocally uses as a stumping point are 1) total incompetence on behalf of GOP lawmakers (which, while I often disagree with their views, I don’t think they are morons, so this can’t be the case, or 2) they quite willfully avoid passing such laws, because doing so lessons the impact of their rhetoric.
“We need to stop murdering babies” comes across much better than “we need to stop killing babies before they reach the second trimester, and thus are protected by laws we’ve already passed…” If the main concern of the GOP really was protecting unborn potential humans, they’d be taking every legal step the can in order to protect them. Instead, I see the political coin they can garner from using “pro-life” as a rallying cry taking precedence over actually protecting anyone.
In the end, who’s worse? Those that say they abhor the practice, but don’t feel that they have the right/authority to impose that belief on others, or those that abhor the practice, declare they have the right and the authority to prevent it to a large degree, and then fail to take those actions they can that would prevent it?
Bobb,
You should review the Casey ruling, it puts much more clearer standards on how states can regulate abortion after the 1st trimester.
Either on this thread or another one, does anyone remember who said something along the lines of “Abortion should be legal, safe, and very rare.”? I’m thinking it was a Supreme Court Justice, but I’m not for certain.
Bobb, that’s the decision moving forward, but since you reread it yesterday, what about the legal underpinnings the justices used to get there? I’ve heard different opinions about the strength of the legal rationales involved; I’d be interested to know your opinion.
Jason,
I don’t know who first came up with the “safe, legal, and rare” line but both Bill and Hillary Clinton have used it often.
Den, do you mean the 2004 Judge Casey ruling that declared the most recent attempt to ban PBA procedures? My quick google search only turned up that discussion. I couldn’t get the .pdf file to load with the actual opinion, but the discussion I saw about that case seems that Judge Casey limited his decision to the fact that the PBA ban had no allowance for consideration of the health of the mother. He expanded on the SCT ruling, in that he stated that there needed to be a medical consensus, or some similar language, that the procedure would never be required for the protection of the mother, and that since there was credible medical opinion that such a procedure could be called for in certain circumstances, a medical allowance needed to be included in any regulation of the procedure.
Jason, I set out re-reading the opinion yesterday because I was going to make the somewhat popular statement that it was the “right result, wrong reasoning.” I don’t know that I’d use those words, but I do think that if the issue could be examined anew by an impartial court today, the opinion could be much better written.
As for the strength of the rationale, I think it’s only as strong as your belief that the Constitution has “penumbras” of rights that can be inferred from such things as the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The opinion rests strongly on this interpretation. It provides a decent (and I’m assuming accurate) historical presentation of various societies’ views on abortion throughout history, which is good to note that this isn’t a new issue that we’re dealing with, and that it pretty much has always been highly controversial. Some of the big weaknesses I think the opinion contains is the allusion that a woman’s health can include things like the quality of life she has, which implies that “burdening” a woman with an unwanted child might infringe on her chosen quality of life. One big statement the court makes is that the Constitution does not apply to unborn humans. They do allow that as a fetus approaches viability, that distinction begins to blur, but prior to technologically achievable viability, the express provisions of the Constitution may not apply. Despite that, the court goes on to find that the State has a vested interest in protecting the potentiality of human life…again, the farther away from viability, the less the State’s interest. And it’s the competition between the State’s interest in potential life and the woman’s right of privacy, not so much to do as she will, but be free from State intervention, that lies at the heart of the RvW decision.
But when it comes down to it, the first trimester line seems to be arbitrarily drawn. There’s historical precedent as to when the fetus “quickens,” but we know today that the growing fetus gains independant brain function long before the end of the first trimester. But, in RvW, first-trimester abortion must be unregulated, potentially meaning the state can’t even pass licensing requirements over the procedure.
The strongest part of the opinion is the maintenance of a health exception for any regulations. This seems to be clearly supportive of the idea that, at every level, the woman retains some right over her body, and the State cannot proscribe a practice that may be required to preserve her health/life. Although, as I mentioned before, the Court leaves open the door that things like mental health, or personal well being, could be considered when it comes to determining whether a procedure is required to preserve the health of the woman.
Overall, I wish it were better, but it seems to be a really good compromise. It all but hands those wanting to limit the practice a road map of how they can do so. And it does set some very clear limits to that kind of regulation. The first trimester boundary is very weak, and I see the reasoning behind it pushing that boundary to earlier and earlier moments in the pregnancy, to where we’ll eventually be able to justify some form of regulation to the point of first conception, and even earlier.
No, actually I was referring the Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The SC used this case to establish what limits a state can put on abortion that do not impose and “undo burden” on her rights.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/306/
As far as I know, no one has ever tried to take Roe the extreme of banning even licensing in order to perform the procedure. In fact, I’ve seen numerous articles about the shortage of doctors willing to perform abortions, so my guess is that most states require a licensed physician to perform one. I know that’s the rule in Pennsylvania.
Not knowing anything about prenatal care and stages of the fetus in terms of viability, is it possible that the first trimester boundary represented the border for fetus viability when the decision was written 30+ years ago? Because if the decision focused on viability of the fetus as a baby as some kind of standard, then could the inception of brain activity versus the point where a fetus is viable outside the womb be two different things?
My wife’s 27 weeks pregnant, so I know a lot more than I ever thought I would about fetal development. Viability is the term used when the fetus can survive, albeit with assistance, outside the mother’s body. It’s hard to determine from the court’s opinion, but they seem to be going with the traditional “quickening” rationale, which usually occurs around the transition between the first and second trimesters, which is when the mother can first feel the fetus moving.
My wife tells me that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, or as late as 26 weeks. Survival rates vary, but I think around 25 weeks there’s an 50-80% chance that baby will survive. Even as early as 22 weeks, there’s a very small chance (0-10%) that the fetus will survive. Although many such preemies do have some complications to deal with.
So, I doubt the Court used viability to determine the first trimester line, but rather the historical quickening. The reason why I see that line getting pushed back is because the reason why quickening is used, according to some sources I’ve read, is that it was the first uncotrovertible evidence that the woman was carrying a successful fetus. And once you get past the first trimester, the chances of miscarraige drop significantly.
But as our technological prowess increases, we learn more. Viability if pushed back every year, and we know more and more about fetal development. For instance, because my wife and I were getting medical assistance to concieve, we received an ultrasound within 6 weeks of conception (most couples won’t get an ultrasound until week 20). At this point, the heart had just started beating. It acually alarmed us, because the rate was a little slow, but our tech told us that was probably because it had literally just started beating within the past 24 hours or so.
As our medical technology increases, the point of viability is going to be pushed back farther and farther. And under RvW, that’s going to push back the time when the state can regulate abortion farther and farther.
Thanks, Den.
Here’s the quote from the Abstract from the Casey opinion.
Undue burden =
“substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
Which is a very specific expansion/refinement of the RvW ruling. The Court upheld most of the state regulation in that case, except for a husband notification requirement. It upheld the requirement for parental notification for minors (which also provided a judicial end-around for that requirement).
Fetal viability is an interesting question. In 1973, it was a lot easier to picture it in terms of three trimesters, but increases in medical technology are making that point moot. What will happen when the day comes that technology can support an embryo from the moment of fertilization until birth? When artificial wombs support our preborn? Would abortion even be an issue anymore?
I’ll go one step beyond that: what happens when cloning success rates increase, and we don’t even need traditional biological reproduction anymore? This is the biggest problem I have with the “life begins at conception” train of thought, because, with enough advancements in cloning, you don’t even need fertilization anymore. At that point, nearly every living cell has the potential to become a new human, albeit a clone of an already existing human.
But, stepping back from the extreme for the moment, yes, I think the logical place RvW takes you, based on viability, is the eventual abolition of abortion, except in cases of protectiong the mother.
Huh… So, in light of technological advances, the irony may be that if the parties keep the debate going long enough as a battleground issue, the decision itself might become something that perhaps neither party wants, or more ironically, the parties might flip-flop and the pro-choice side fights to overturn RvW while the pro-life side fights to keep it.
Yes, Jason, my rambling line of thought pretty much came to that exact conclusion: If you take RvW’s reasoning out far enough, you actually see it bringing an end to so called “pro-choice,” because as developing potential humans become more and more viable through technology, the State’s interest expands to protect them. Which would result in a flip of the political ideologies on the opinion.
“PAD said:
” we see a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman’s right to choose? “
I’m a little slow on the uptake…right to choose what?
Posted by Ken at July 27, 2005 12:38 AM
Whether or not to kill their fetus.”
Oh! Well…when you put it like that, no wonder they never finish their sentences!
However, I also feel it is likely never to pass, because, let’s look at it here, if ONLY 11 states have anti-gay marriage statutes in place, that’s not nearly enough to get a constitutional amendment passed, right?
But it’s not just 11 states – it’s 11 states in one year that passed such laws. There are others that have such laws already, and other states that will, particularly if, like last year, can get Republicans to vote (and thus get them to vote for Republican candidates for office).
Oh! Well…when you put it like that, no wonder they never finish their sentences!
And anti-choice people (because I do not deign to call them pro-life) love to throw such phrases out there, because it makes them feel better about the situation.
I mean, ‘pro-life’ is quite the oxymoron when many of these same people don’t mind executions by the state and carpet bombing of foreign nations.
Yet they won’t admit what they are: anti-choice.
Hmm… reminds me of Esquire’s interview with Dan Rather about what he’s learned (and for those of you who know me, I can’t believe I’m quoting Dan Rather either). He mentioned that 100 years ago, the president could take several days, perhaps even weeks, to consider courses of action about a topic. By JFK, he only had a week or so to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, the president gets a phone call at 2:30 a.m. and he’s gotta decide before 7 a.m. what’s going to be said in the press conference. As reproductive technology advances, and the fetus becomes viable earlier and earlier, it’s going to definitely cut down on the time a woman has to consider her options. Seems like such decisions shouldn’t be rushed to me, but then again, who has time for anything anymore, huh?
Craig: How many states have gay marriage laws? Apparently there’s nothing prohibiting states from enacting some kind of anti-gay marriage law, right? So if we’re in danger of a constitutional amendment, wouldn’t that imply that at leat 75% of the states have or are in the process of proposing, such laws? Even if half, 25 of the 50, states have such laws, that’s still 13 short of what’s needed to pass a constitutional amendment. We need, what, only 13 states to say “no, we don’t need the federal government to tell us how to handle our marriage laws” to stop such an amendment? There’s lots of reasons to argue against such an amendment that don’t even involve religion or personal beliefs. It’s a states-rights issue, it’s a separation of church and state issue, etc. This kind of stuff won’t play on the news, but with certain state governments I bet you’d get farther than you think.
sigh… you know you need to get back to work when you say there are reasons not involving religion, like, you know, church and state… Better people than me can come up with other reasons, but I do think the states-rights angle is an important one.
This is the biggest problem I have with the “life begins at conception” train of thought, because, with enough advancements in cloning, you don’t even need fertilization anymore. At that point, nearly every living cell has the potential to become a new human, albeit a clone of an already existing human.
I’ve gotten into pointless discussions about this before (and obviously learned nothing from the experience) but the real problem with the “life begins at _______” idea is that life does not begin at any point–it is a continuation. Two living cells merge to become one living cell, which divides to become many living cells. There was no beginning in this process, except that of the very first living organism, ancestor to us all.
None of which has any pertinence to the abortion question.
I mean, ‘pro-life’ is quite the oxymoron when many of these same people don’t mind executions by the state and carpet bombing of foreign nations.
Yeah, and some of the “pro-choice” folks IO have known are also the ones most likely to want to limit your ability to read Playboy magazine. But again, such hypocrisies do not have much relevance to the issue at hand.
Craig J. Ries-
No disrespect, but your rant against my post was misplaced. My only concern was in trying to figure out why a guy who’s a writer (Peter David) doesn’t finish his sentences (“…woman’s right to choose. period.)
It’s an odd choice he (and many others) makes when they don’t finish sentences.
Well…not all sentences- just certain sentences. Strikes me as kinda wimpy and evasive is all…
Choose what? Good God if he means the time it takes my girlfriend to pick what movie we’re gonna see, I say abolish that particular “right to choose” immediately and with extrene prejudice! It’s a freakin’ nightmare! Who’s with me on that one, fellas?!?!?!?
Ok, this is admittedly a low blow, but I’m sorta biased at the moment…
Would you say Bush was trying to be an “old school” president the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when he pretty much sat on his ášš while terrorists were flying around in hijacked American jetliners?
And I say I’m biased at the moment because I’m reading a book called The New Pearl Harbor, which examines whether the current administration had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. As far as conspiracy theories go, they have a lot of ammunition to feed on. I don’t know that I buy it, but there either was something fishy going on, or a whole bunch of people screwed up that morning.
I was just making a point about the time available these days to make decisions and how it seems to be diminishing, regardless of the topic. I don’t believe I espoused any particular judgement on what various people had done or do with that time.
As for my thoughts on 9/11, I don’t think that’s going to contribute to the conversation at hand.
Bobb,
Haven’t read it, but it’s not like it’s anything we had a lot of experience with. Hindsight can be a cruel bias.
And, please: Pro-Life refers to innocent babies, not to those who are granted the right of choice and choose murder (not a reference to mothers who kill their unborn, but to people who kill others with pre-meditated intent). I’m not even for the death penalty, and I can see the difference.
No one likes war, either, but NOT fighting a war when your enemy does is called unconditional surrender. Fighting half-heartedly is called conditional, very-slow, surrender.
We’ve been watching M*A*S*H on DVD and while it’s funny as all get out, peace under occupation isn’t peace.
James Tichy:Thank God that the Court has had the guts to overturn past rulings. I’d hate to be living in a country that still allowed slavery. Of course I hate that my country allows women to murder innocent life.
Um, the Court didn’t overturn slavery. The XIII Amendment did that. Hopefully you’re being facetious on that issue.
CJR: And anti-choice people (because I do not deign to call them pro-life) love to throw such phrases out there, because it makes them feel better about the situation. I mean, ‘pro-life’ is quite the oxymoron when many of these same people don’t mind executions by the state and carpet bombing of foreign nations. Yet they won’t admit what they are: anti-choice
Since we’re apparently now claiming the right to rename well-established movements, I hereby deign to rechristen the faction in favor of abortion rights (which, incidentally, includes me up to a point) “anti-life.” The anti-life people tend to overlook the fact that fetal development is a continuum– that the 8 month old fetus that virtually nobody will endorse aborting is the same entity that it was 6 months earlier, and that the definition of one period of time as an appropriate time for abortion is largely an exercise in line-drawing. Hopefully the line is drawn on some principled ground– I’m not sure viability is a convincing one, but at least it’s a starting point for the discussion– but it’s not inherently irrational or despotic for the “anti-choice” people to object to the arbitrariness of the exercise. It is absurd to pretend that the anti-abortion faction is somehow motivated by animosity toward women, rather than an often-principled stand in support of things that they truly and sincerely believe to be helpless human beings. Underestimating the integrity of your opponents is a devastatingly stupid error, one that the Democrats tend to make with regard to red-state conservatives, and one that will continue costing the Democrats elections unless and until the Democratic national party starts confronting social conservatives on their own terms.
In addition to renaming the abortion-rights people “anti-life,” I also deign to rename all activists “monomaniacs.” I feel quite happy about expressing myself in this way, because I’ve found that almost all activists are insane, even activists whose causes I ultimately support.
And I support the death penalty, neoconservative foreign policy, and legalized abortion, so at least I’m consistently anti-life.
Jason, sorry, I meant that as a rhetorical question, not one aimed at you.
Robbnn, I’ve barely begun the book, so I’m sure I haven’t even gotten to the really good/crazy stuff. But the book claims there were established protocals in place for dealing with hijacked planes, and it suggests that, had those procedures been followed, there’s a good chance that the first, if not the second, WTC planes would have been intercepted. At the very least, the plane that struck the Pentagon should have been intercepted. I can’t imagine that an order to not respond as protocal demands could go uncovered, but the fact that highly trained professionals failed to do the job they train for in three consequtive escalating events suggests an incompetence that we don’t like to associate with our country.
The protocol for dealing with hijacked planes at the time was to string the kidnappers along until either all the hostages are released, or a SWAT team can safely access the plane. The protocols never envisioned a fully-laden plane being used as a massive kamikaze – to the best of my knowledge, the only people who had ever planned for that were the designers of nuclear power plants, and they were often ridiculed by other safety experts for planning for such a bizarre contingency.
Don’t look so silly now, do they?
In other news today, the Bush administration officially retired the phrase “Global War Against Terrorism.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26strategy.html?ex=1123214400&en=44a1e10bf887024d&ei=5070
I’m just going to lie here in the fetal position until 2008.
Even if half, 25 of the 50, states have such laws, that’s still 13 short of what’s needed to pass a constitutional amendment.
Half right now already have legislative statues stating as much, according to Wikipedia. Seventeen have constitutional amendments.
I’d say the fact that 11 alone passed such amendments this past election indicates that we’re heading in the wrong direction, and that such a federal constitutional amendment is very likely, should it get to the states.
Meanwhile, progressive countries (ie, ‘evil’ to some) such as Canada and Spain are allowing gays to marry. Nor has civilization collapsed in Belgium or the Netherlands.
Jonathon, that doesn’t match what is in the book. I’ve not checked the sources they site, so I can’t vouch for it’s accuracy. Your account sounds as though it’s either the official statement made about the events, or your opinion based on your observations.
According to the book, the protocal in place was something like this: When a jetliner stops responding to traffic control, and then deviates from it’s pre-filed, FAA approved course, traffic control is to immediately assume a hijacking situation has occurred. FAA procedure, according to the book, is to then notify NORAD that a hijacking has occurred, and NORAD (I may have the wrong military contact, but it’s basically the Air Force), according to protocals in place on 9/11, is to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked aircraft. According to people interviewed for the book, the alert fighters can be airborn and at cruising altitude in 2.5 minutes.
The book also looks at the timeline for the 3 WTC attacks and the attack on the Pentagon. If the book’s accounts of the protocals in place at the time are accurate, there should have been fighters in the air and on an intercept course to the first aircraft at least 10 minutes before the first impact, and given the locations of bases with ready aircraft, and their speed, should have had more than 5 minutes to intercept, attempt to deter, and destroy the jetliner before impact.
So, yes, if all that is true, they look far worse than silly. They look like morons, totally incompetent, and inept. And while I know there are people like that around, it’s hard to imagine that a whole bunch of them were working at different stations all across the government that morning.
With regards to 9/11, I remember something about the hijackers falsely communicating with various airports about malfunctions and needing to return to their departure airport. If this is true, and I honestly don’t know, could that explain the lag time as the towers altered their flight plans and thought they were dealing with an emergency landing situation as opposed to a hijacking?
Craig: As for gay marriage, I’ll give you Canada, though it’s not exactly going over smooth up there, from my understanding. However, while it’s always nifty to bring up all these enlightened European countries, people often fail to note that Spain’s about, what, half the size of Texas, and Belgium and the Netherlands are way smaller than that. It’s always easy to come to a conclusion when you’re dealing with a much smaller and more homogenous (but not totally, I know) population. I’d be curious if anyone knows how many countries besides us have laws against gay marriage, or at least haven’t explicitly allowed it? I still say it’s a state’s rights issue and the smart way to defeat a constitutional amendment is on those or similar grounds, as trying to argue it on the personal politics will put the VAST majority in a position to run rough shod over a small minority. I think if you want widespread acceptance, you’ve got to start on a small scale, like your Belgium or Netherlands example, here in one or two states and show that allowing gay marriage (civil unions at first, if you’re smart) will not end AMERICAN civilization as we know it. I’m usually not one to underestimate our citizenry, but I don’t think they will take the time nor care to learn about the bouyant success of gay rights in a country few could probably point out on a map and is most well-known here mainly for waffles…
Jason, I’d have to check the official report, but my memory is that the controllers fairly early on heard over the chatter “we have some planes”…although that may have been the aircraft that went down in PA.
However, the highjackers were trained enough to pilot the aircraft, but not to communicate with the tower appropriately. With even the first aircraft, there were enough deviations from standard protocal that there should have been an automatic reaction to interpret the situation as a highjacking. As I said, it’s possible that a single even could have been accepted as controller error/slow response to an unusual situation. But controllers are highly trained professional, and they deal with unusual things all the time, and pretty much all according to procedure. I’ve spent some time observing the cab at O’Hare airport, watching the different stations. These people know what they are doing, and know that quick reactions are needed. The idea that the traffic control system failed so completely, by itself, should have been enough to warrant a deeper investigation. We never got that.
While the point of the book may be to ask questions about the official account of those events, I think the bigger point is to question why there wasn’t a bigger effort to open the investigation about it. For instance, in each of the rubble piles for WTC 1,2, and 7, there were what the book refers to as molten hot spots, basically molten piles of steel. Given the fuel available for each fire, the temperatures of the fires would not have been sufficient to melt steel. Yet no investigation into what actually DID melt the steel was made. And the scrap recovered was shipped overseas for recycyling, so there’s no evidence left to examine. Which leave the door wide open for every crackpot and their brother to say “the buildings were taken down by explosive demolition, not by the collision and fire.” And with not a shred of evidence left over, there’s no way to discredit that. It’s no wonder it looks like the government was trying to hide something…why get rid of the evidence so fast, if there was nothing to hide?
As I said, there’s nothing here that proves anything. But it sure smells funny.
“For instance, in each of the rubble piles for WTC 1,2, and 7, there were what the book refers to as molten hot spots, basically molten piles of steel. Given the fuel available for each fire, the temperatures of the fires would not have been sufficient to melt steel. Yet no investigation into what actually DID melt the steel was made.”
I’ve read that as well but I’m dubious. It’s a bit difficult to say exactly HOW hot a situation like this will get given that a situation like this hasn’t happened before or since. (One of the things the conspiracy people keep asking is “Why has there never been a skyscraper that collapsed like the Twin Towers did?” I dunno…exactly how many skyscrapers have actually collapsed? I mean, what are we supposed to compare this to?)
As for the molten steel story, I’ve read some hearsay evidence of same but that’s not worth much…furthermore, even if true, I don’t know exactly if one can truly say WHAT will happen given the unique circumstances involved. Normally, fire doesn’t occur underground but there were supposed to be fires still going on underground for weeks…I mean, wood burns at a certain temperature but if you blow on it, it gets hotter…
Problem is, if you ever go on any of the 9/11 “truth” sites and express the slightest doubt you will immediately get labeled as a CIA disinformation stooge. These are some seriously dogmatic folks. Reading the 9/11 conspiracy buffs stuff is an awful lot like reading creationist publications…and probably about as enlightening.