Loose Canon Archive: May 2005

Oui!

May 31, 2005 | 4:30 p.m.

Is it time to start loving the French? The French voted

non

on the European Union's constitution, dealing a blow to elitist internationalism. Writing on the eve of the French vote, columnist George Will

described the European Union

as having "a flag no one salutes and an anthem no one knows," seeking "ratification of a constitution few have read."

Will continued:

"Surely only its authors have read its turgid earnestness without laughing, which is one reason why the European project is foundering. Today in France, and Wednesday in the Netherlands, Europe's elites -- political, commercial and media -- may learn the limits of their ability to impose their political fetishes on restive and rarely consulted publics."

Well, we now know what the French think. The EU plan has gotten as far as it has because it has until now been decided by internationalist elites who don't mind (Will's words) the "leeching away" each nation's sovereignty. The constitution sounds ludicrous:

"The proposed constitution has 448 articles -- 441 more than the U.S. Constitution. It is a jumble of pieties, giving canonical status to sentiments such as 'the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen' should be protected. It establishes, among many other rights, a right to 'social and housing assistance' sufficient for a 'decent existence.' Presumably, supranational courts and bureaucracies will define and enforce those rights, as well as the right of children to 'express their views fully.' And it stipulates that 'preventive action should be taken' to protect the environment.

"The constitution says member states can 'exercise their competence' only where the European Union does not exercise its. But the constitution gives E.U. institutions jurisdiction over foreign affairs, defense, immigration, trade, energy, agriculture, fishing and much more."

While protecting such important aspects of civilization as the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, the constitution's authors adamantly refused to acknowledge Europe's Christian roots. As columnist

William Murchison writes

:

"The Constitution's defeat this week doesn't translate as victory for a God annoyed at being snubbed -- not when fears for the future of the welfare state mingled at the polls with deep distrust of Chirac. But what a chance now for some rethinking! About what? About the connection between God and freedom -- a connection that appears presently to escape most Europeans."

Bill Kristol is good

on the establishment

that produced the document:

"It's hard for Americans to appreciate just how out-of-touch the establishment (and it really is a single establishment) of Paris, Berlin, the Hague, and Brussels is. Its arrogance almost beyond belief. Former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the father of the 448-article constitution, early on in the campaign dismissed complaints about the document's opacity by assuring his countrymen, 'The text is easily read and quite well phrased, which I can say all the more easily since I wrote it myself.'"

The Church of the Absurd

May 31, 2005 | 4:30 p.m.

A

good summary

of a recent decision by the Anglican Church:

"The senior bishops of the Church of England, led by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, have said that clergy can 'marry' their boyfriends - and of course, the female clergy, can 'marry' their girlfriends - if they promise to refrain from sexual activities with their 'spouse.' In a decision that may go down in history as being the first to render Monty Python parodies redundant, Rowan Williams offered this compromise as a solution to the problem created by a British law that recognizes same-sex unions for purposes of tax and inheritance benefits. The decision is part of the Anglican bishops' draft Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships. The bishops also agreed to change ecclesiastical law to enable gay partners to occupy vicarages for up to two months after the death of their clergy 'partners.'"

Here's the Times of London account

. Meanwhile,

Get Religion

says Benedict XVI may want to "

check his voicemail

for messages from England."

Radical Ideas!

May 31, 2005 | 4:30 p.m.

A

report on the cause of crime

among the young in England reached some fairly radical conclusions:

"After a lengthy investigation into criminal behaviour among young people, the committee reached the following conclusions: the main causes were the 'improper conduct of parents', the 'want of education' and the 'want of suitable employment'. Moral guidance and civilised order were seen as the remedies."

Adopting Embryos

May 31, 2005 | 4:30 p.m.

"Catholics Split on Embryo Issue"--the headlined looked like another of those stories reporting that Catholics don't embrace Church teaching (with the subliminal message that teaching should be changed to accommodate them).

But it was actually

a fascinating and troubling discussion

of the issue of adopting children while still in the embryonic state:

"[T]he debate over embryo adoptions is just beginning to take shape. 'There are very few moral issues on which the Catholic Church has not yet taken a position. This is one,' said Cathy Cleaver Ruse, chief spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.

"One of the leading voices in the church in favor of embryo adoptions is the Rev. Thomas D. Williams, dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome. 'It's reaching out to another human being, albeit in an embryonic state, in the only way that that little being can be helped,' he said.

"But the Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, who has a doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and is staff ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, argued that embryo adoptions would make Catholics complicit in test-tube fertilizations, which the church considers illicit. Moreover, he said, artificially implanting an embryo in a woman's womb is a 'grave violation of the nature of marital sexuality.'

"When counseling Catholic couples on the issue, Pacholczyk said, he is careful to point out: 'The Vatican could prove me wrong tomorrow. But I don't think the church will ever give them permission for this.'"

It would seem to me that the creation of these embryos is wrong and adopting them is right. But like Father Pacholczyk, I think I'll wait and let the Vatican decide.

Modern Memorials

May 27, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

"Modern memorials stand for the warriors, not the war," a USA Today headline (story no longer free) proclaimed. Sad when our nation is committed to bringing freedom and justice to the people of Iraq. This Memorial Day, I'll think about our soldiers--and our noble cause.

God Bless Our Native Land

.

Trying to Make Us Feel Small?

May 27, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

Does your size matter in determining your moral status? Yeah, I know that's a really stupid question. But

here's the brilliant New York Times on embryonic stem cell research

:

"The president's policy is based on the belief that all embryos, even the days-old, microscopic form used to derive stem cells in a laboratory dish, should be treated as emerging human life and protected from harm. This seems an extreme way to view tiny laboratory entities that are no larger than the period at the end of this sentence and are routinely flushed from the body by Mother Nature when created naturally.

"These blastocysts, as they are called, bear none of the attributes we associate with humanity and, sitting outside the womb, have no chance of developing into babies. Some people consider them clumps of cells no different than other biological research materials. Others would grant them special respect but still make them available for worthy research. But Mr. Bush is imposing his different moral code on both, thereby slowing research that most consider potentially beneficial....Unfortunately, none of this week's heated debate focused on the most promising area of stem cell research, research cloning or therapeutic cloning. Mr. Bush is adamantly opposed to such research, which involves creating microscopic embryos to derive stem cells that genetically match a diseased patient, thus facilitating research on particular diseases and ultimately potential cures. There, too, he seeks to impose his morality on a society with pluralistic views."

Blastocysts, as they are called...

Here is a definition

of a blastocyst. As you can see, it has a lot in common with human beings--it is a human embryo--though the New York Times probably believes you have to have consciousness and high SATs to qualify as a human being.

Christian blogger

Dawn Eden

found the New York Times editorial even smugger than usual:

"Putting aside the question of what are the attributes we associate with humanity--e.g. embodying a human life at a particular stage of development--the Times is making a disturbing distinction. Apparently, any creatures that 'bear none of the attributes we associate with humanity' and 'sitting outside the womb, have no chance of developing into babies' are fair game for slicing and dicing. That criteria--particularly with the attributes of 'humanity' left vague and subjective--could quite easily be taken to mean any fetus that is not yet viable.

"Then there's this: 'Mr. Bush is adamantly opposed to such research, which involves creating microscopic embryos to derive stem cells that genetically match a diseased patient, thus facilitating research on particular diseases and ultimately potential cures.'

"Note the emphasis on 'microscopic.' As in, 'insignificant.' As in, 'Don't worry your pretty little head about what you can't see.'"

Has the Times moved from mere condescension to belittlement?

Love the Guy with the Horns!

May 27, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

Why we should never have thawed God's frozen people: I've already mentioned the clown Eucharist at New York's posh Trinity Episcopal Church, but you really shouldn't miss this

picture

.

Is There a Cover-Up?

May 27, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

In

"Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul II,"

Jason Berry and Gerald Renner charge that the Vatican protected Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the influential Legion of Christ, who has been accused of molesting seminarians. The National Catholic Reporter's John Allen has a

fascinating report

on the Vatican's confusing stance on Maciel:

"On May 20, the Legionaries of Christ issued a news release stating that the 'Holy See' had informed them that 'at this time there is no canonical process underway regarding our Founder, Fr. Marcial Maciel, LC, nor will one be initiated.' Subsequently, the Catholic News Service and other press agencies quoted the Vatican Press Office as confirming the statement.

"That news startled some observers, since an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican agency charged in 2001 by Pope John Paul II with responsibility for reviewing cases of sexual abuse of minors by clergy, traveled in early April to New York and Mexico City to collect testimony from alleged victims. Those efforts by Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the Promoter of Justice within the congregation, suggested that a preliminary investigation was underway.

"Most observers assumed that the new communication to the Legionaries must have come from that congregation, the office once headed by Pope Benedict XVI

. "In fact, however, the communication came from the Secretariat of State, the department that handles papal diplomacy and acts as a coordinator for the work of other Vatican agencies. It came in the form of a fax, which was unsigned but bore a seal from the Secretariat of State indicating official status. Italian Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State, is a longtime supporter of Maciel and the Legionaries of Christ.

"What this means is that the statement did not come from the Vatican agency that ultimately has responsibility for deciding Maciel's fate. Officials of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith have refused to make any comment on the recent news reports, but a senior Vatican official told NCR May 25 that the congregation has made 'no statement' on the Maciel case, even to the Secretariat of State.

"The official stressed this does not mean that there eventually will be a canonical case against Maciel, merely that the agency charged with making that decision has not yet communicated its intentions. Given the preeminence of the Secretariat of State within the Vatican, at a minimum these recent developments suggest there are grave doubts within the Holy See about proceeding."

In other words, as Allen points out, the communiqué did not come from the Vatican office.

Anti-Americanism of the Rich and Famous

May 27, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

Victor Davis Hanson has

figured out what's really so awful

about America-hating elites abroad: they're boo-ring:

"The anti-Americanism that we frequently see and hear, then, is often a plaything of the international elite - a corporate grandee, a leisured athlete, or a refined novelist who flies in and out of the West, counts on its globalizing appendages for wealth, and then mocks those who make it all possible - but never to the point that their own actions would logically follow their rhetoric and thus cost them so dearly."

Judging Wicca

May 26, 2005 | 5:10 p.m.

This is going to be a case of strange bedfellows: Loose Canon and Wiccans. A judge has told Wiccan parents in Indiana, who are in court for a divorce, that

they can't bring up their son

according to their beliefs:

"Thomas E. Jones Jr. questions an order that Marion County Superior Court Chief Judge Cale Bradford put into divorce proceedings that bars Jones or his ex-wife from exposing their child to 'non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals,' the Indianapolis Star reported Thursday. Jones has asked the state appeals court to look into the case."

Because I don't especially like the idea of children being reared as pagans, I was tempted to post this item without comment. But I will comment: It's wrong for a judge to inject himself into a family's religious practices.

As blogger

Ed Morrissey notes

:

"[Judge] Bradford's reasoning behind this ban? The boy attends a Catholic grammar school -- and the judge doesn't want the parents to `confuse' Junior with contradictory doctrine. The father attended the same school as a youngster, despite also being a non-Catholic, and along with his ex-wife considers this ruling a flagrant violation of both their parental rights and their right to free expression of their religious beliefs.

"I carry no brief for Wicca, nor do I want to enter into a debate about its wisdom or foolishness. The important and relevant fact is that government has no business telling people how to practice religion unless the rites themselves break the criminal code (i.e., if someone practiced human sacrifice, etc). The child's attendance at a Catholic school has no relevance to the parents' practice, or even that of the child. Many non-Catholics send their children for Catholic education because of the quality of instruction delivered at these schools, and understand the trade-off of religious instruction."

Setting the Record Straight

May 26, 2005 | 5:10 p.m.

Just to set the record straight: I am very much in favor of stem cell research; I am very much against

embryonic

stem cell research. Today's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal embraces an opinion quite different from mine. But it

sets the record straight

on several factual issues (issues on which supporters of embryonic stem cell research are wont to play the demagogue):

For example, how about that federal "ban" on research that is preventing U.S. scientists from curing everything from Parkinson's to the common cold?

"So what's happened, research-wise, since 2001? Given the rhetoric of some of the President's critics, you might think the answer is nothing. In fact, federal funding for all forms of stem-cell research (including adult and umbilical stem cells) has nearly doubled, to $566 million from $306 million. The federal government has also made 22 fully developed embryonic stem-cell lines available to researchers, although researchers complain of bureaucratic bottlenecks at the National Institutes of Health."

But Back to the Moral Issues: Eric Cohen

takes issue with a statement

by the

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations

in support of embryonic stem cell research:

"While acting positively to save life is a great Jewish good, so is preserving a society that welcomes the weak and never kills the innocent. Even if embryos are not our ontological or moral equals - though the argument for such a position is hard to make on rational grounds - there are good Jewish reasons not to promote the destruction of nascent human life, precisely because it will corrode the sensibilities that make us good people - and good Jews. It is simply wrong to appeal to Jewish law on abortion, which privileges the life of the mother over the life of the unborn child, as a moral justification. Jewish law does so, after all, only in cases where the unborn child is a "pursuer" who threatens the mother's life and health directly. With embryo research, by contrast, there is no direct conflict between an embryo and a patient, and we are not in the position of using particular embryos to save particular patients. Rather, we are proposing a speculative research project that requires the massive, ongoing destruction of human embryos. And this should make all Jews and all decent citizens shudder - not only for what it is, but for where it might lead. Where is the Jewish 'fence around the law' when you need it?"

O, Imperiled Town of Bethlehem?

May 26, 2005 | 5:10 p.m.

Few things are sadder than intolerance towards Christians in places where sacred feet have trod. Christians in Bethlehem are

concerned about their fate

:

"Christians in Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, are concerned that their city may slowly become an Islamic stronghold following recent municipal elections in which radical Islamic groups took a number of seats....

"Bethlehem, a once-thriving, predominantly Christian town with a booming tourist trade and easy access to jobs in neighboring Jerusalem, now has high unemployment, cut off as it is by more than four years of violent uprising and now by Israel's security barrier."

The Empire Fights Back

May 26, 2005 | 5:10 p.m.

Loose Canon gets the feeling that the Mainstream Media is ready to fight back, and that the Newsweek fiasco may be their rallying point. Like

Jeremy Lott

, I heard from a friend (well, he heard from lots, but I maybe don't get out enough) today who insisted that the retracted Newsweek story alleging that the Koran had been flushed down a commode is true.

Their perception is based on a

story about an F.B.I. report

:

"Nearly a dozen detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba told FBI interrogators that guards had mistreated copies of the Koran, including one [!] who said in 2002 that guards 'flushed a Koran in the toilet,' according to new FBI documents released today....

"Nearly all of the hundreds of pages of documents consist of FBI summaries of detainee interrogations, and therefore do not generally provide corroboration of the allegations. At least two detainees also conceded that they had not personally witnessed mistreatment of the Koran but had heard about incidents from other inmates, the records show."

Lott says it best:

"I'm willing to believe that a Koran - or pages of a Koran, at any rate - were indeed flushed down a toilet as part of U.S. interrogations of prisoners. But I am not willing to believe this wholly on the prisoners' say-so."

Killing Embryos: Don't Forget to Follow the Money

May 25, 2005 | 5:15 p.m.

Loose Canon doesn't know whether to chalk up the

stunning vote in the House

in favor of funding research that kills human embryos to ignorance or something more sinister.

The picture of President Bush holding baby Trey Jones (

here

and

here

), adopted while still in the embryonic stage, was pretty effective in dramatizing what's at stake.

There was a great deal of misinformation and moral confusion in the arguments. As

National Review's editors note

:

"In yesterday's House debate, the most popular argument for the funding was that the embryos were going to be 'discarded' or go 'unused' - so why not derive some advantage from their demise? That argument appeals to people's practical streaks, but it rests on a bit of sleight of hand. It is a way of assuming that human embryos are not human beings with rights without actually trying to establish the point. Anyone who takes seriously the idea that human beings in the embryonic stage of development have rights would find the language jarringly inapposite. Nobody complains that death-row inmates and nursing-home residents are going 'unused' since their organs are not being taken from them before their inevitable deaths. (The argument is also misleading, since the vast majority of embryos are not going to be 'discarded anyway,' but rather would be indefinitely frozen - a problematic situation, but not the same as death.)"

In a

piece on "meeting the leftovers"

Ann Morse introduces you to children who, like Trey Jones, were adopted as embryos.

Most reports say something to the effect that the House voted to relax restrictions on scientific experiments with human embryos--actually what they voted to do was force taxpayers defray the cost of something many of us find morally repugnant.

A Heritage Foundation

pointed out some things taxpayers should know

about this kind of research:

"In the process of harvesting embryonic stem cells, the embryo is destroyed. The primary ethical question raised is whether embryos are people or property. A second ethical issue lies in the extreme inefficiency of harvesting embryonic stem cells. Specifically, the process requires women's eggs. To treat, for example, the 17 million diabetes patients in the United States will require a minimum of 850 million to 1.7 billion human eggs. Collecting 10 eggs per donor will require a minimum of 85 to 170 million women. The total cost would be astronomical, at $100,000 to $200,000 for 50 to 100 human eggs per each patient.

"Even more important than the dollars and the difficulty is that the process of harvesting a woman's eggs for stem cells places that woman at risk. Superovulation regimens for fertility treatments would be used to obtain women's eggs. The risks associated with superovulation regimens or high-dose hormone therapies are debated. But there is a growing body of evidence showing that these practices, when used for standard IVF, can cause a wide spectrum of problems including memory loss, seizure, stroke, infertility, cancer, and even death. This points to yet another ethical issue: the future commercial exploitation of women, and particularly poor women, to collect their eggs."

And don't forget to follow the money. Wesley Smith

gives you some financial hints

in an interview with National Review:

NRO: To what extent is the move toward "a Brave New World" about business? California making sure it rakes in the biotech money, etc?

Smith: I live in California. The proponents of Proposition 71 spent $25 million telling us that we would rake in the biotech money if we would just pass the initiative. But we will actually be shelling it out of our own wallets to the tune of about $7 billion, including interest. And this is borrowed money to finance corporate welfare in a state that is so broke our current medical needs are going unmet as our emergency rooms and trauma centers close for lack of funding.

The passage of Proposition 71 has set off an Oklahoma Land Race mentality as states compete to attract cloning companies. Yet, the private sector has mostly avoided investing in this technology because it is so highly speculative and unlikely to be a source of profitable medical products any time soon. Indeed, at this point private companies will be forming with a primary purpose of collecting taxpayer dollars.

I predict that eventually the coming cloning business boom funded by taxpayer dollars will eventually become the next dot-com bust. Only this time, the money that lost will be public funds and not private investments.

It Gives New Meaning to the Term "Kiddie Porn"

May 25, 2005 | 5:15 p.m.

As if having your kids exposed to Viagra ads or "Will and Grace" isn't enough, there are now dirty books for teens.

Michelle Malkin has the scoop

:

"Here's a rich irony: I'm writing today about a new children's book, but I can't describe the plot in a family newspaper without warning you first that it is entirely inappropriate for children.

"The book is 'Rainbow Party' by juvenile fiction author Paul Ruditis. The publisher is Simon Pulse, a kiddie lit division of the esteemed Simon & Schuster. The cover of the book features the title spelled out in fun, Crayola-bright font. Beneath the title is an illustrated array of lipsticks in bold colors...

"A 'rainbow party,' you see, is a gathering of boys and girls for the purpose of engaging in group oral sex. Each girl wears a different colored lipstick and leaves a mark on each boy. At night's end, the boys proudly sport their own cosmetically-sealed rainbow you-know-where bringing a whole new meaning to the concept of 'party favors.'

"In the end, the kids in the book abandon plans for the event and news of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases rocks their school. But the front cover and book marketing emphasize titillation over education, overpowering any redeeming value the book might have. Indeed, according to Publisher's Weekly, the bound galleys sent to booksellers carried the provocative tagline, 'don't you want to know what really goes down?'"

Is Alexander Hamilton Turning in His Grave?

May 25, 2005 | 5:15 p.m.

"You know that really dignified looking Gothic-style Episcopal church on Wall Street? You know, the one where Alexander Hamilton's buried?"

asks Amy Welborn

of Open Book. Yep, they had a

clown mass

. Don't miss the pictures! (Thanks to the orthodox Anglican wits who run one of my

favorite websites

for the tip.)

With Friends Like These...

May 25, 2005 | 5:15 p.m.

If I had any doubts that Republicans had snatched compromise from the jaws of victory, they were erased when liberal columnist David Broder

hailed dealmaker John McCain

as "the Senate's real leader."

Snatching Compromise from the Jaws of Victory

May 24, 2005 | 4:50 p.m.

Loose Canon is a traditionalist, which means she rightly regards change as anathema. But there's no right to filibuster in the Constitution, and I'm sorry that seven Republicans

blinked

. As columnist Neal Boortz

argues

:

"Republicans, on the other hand, had the votes to change the Senate rules to prohibit filibusters on judicial nominees, and have set such a rule change aside... They had total and complete victory in their hands, and they gave it up. Would the Democrats do that? Of course not! Democrats play for keeps. They know that when you have your opponent on the ropes, you don't feel sorry for them, worry about their 'minority rights' and offer them something they're not entitled to. You put your foot on their throat and defeat them by the widest margin of victory possible. The Republicans gained seats in the Senate in the last election. They defeated the sitting Democratic leader over this very issue. They should have voted to change the rules on the first day of business back in January. Now that they have the votes, it should have been simple."

The compromise doesn't really do much more than postpone the issue until there is a Supreme Court nomination. "Democrats will be still able to filibuster future nominees, including any Supreme Court candidate,"

writes Mickey Kaus

, "under what they decide are 'extraordinary circumstances.' Republicans get to revive the anti-filibuster 'nuclear option' if they believe Democrats are finding 'extraordinary circumstances' where there aren't any. ... So what did the 14 moderates actually accomplish with their deal?"

The compromise brokered by the moderates, in fact, included a huge power-grab by some senators (i.e., Senate Democrats) who now seek to completely rewrite the meaning of the right to give "advice" on the president's nominations:

"We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration."

They find a warrant for this imaginary right in imaginary history:

"Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate."

Back to Boortz:

"Maybe we should address this in terms of whether the Constitution won or loss. Here I would call it a loss. The Constitution has been losing for some time in Washington. There is no clause anywhere in the Constitution that gives a minority in the Senate any power at all to block a vote on a judicial nomination. This is a power that was created by Senators, not established by the Constitution. The Republicans had a chance to stand up for the Constitution, and they passed."

The Schiavo Legacy

May 24, 2005 | 4:50 p.m.

The starving of Terri Schiavo sent a message: don't get old, or sick, or in any way incapacitated.

Here's a frightening piece

from the Weekly Standard on the case of Leslie Burke, whom I've mentioned before, and who has the audacity to want to live out his God-given lifespan:

"The most important bioethics litigation in the world today involves a 45-year-old Englishman, Leslie Burke. He isn't asking for very much. Burke has a progressive neurological disease that may one day deprive him of the ability to swallow. If that happens, Burke wants to receive food and water through a tube. Knowing that Britain's National Health Service (NHS) rations care, Burke sued to ensure that he will not be forced to endure death by dehydration against his wishes.

"Burke's lawsuit is even more important to the future of medical ethics than was the Terri Schiavo case. Schiavo was dehydrated to death--a bitter and profound injustice--because Judge George W. Greer ruled both that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and (based on statements she allegedly made during casual conversations some 20 years ago) that she would not want to live under such circumstances. In other words, Terri Schiavo lost her life in order to safeguard her personal autonomy, though she never made the actual decision to die.

"But Burke, who is fully competent, worries that his wishes will be ignored precisely because he wants food and water even if he becomes totally paralyzed. Receiving food and water when it is wanted certainly seems the least each of us should be able to expect. But, it turns out, whether Burke lives or dies by dehydration may not be up to him."

Prepare for a Long, Hot Summer

May 24, 2005 | 4:50 p.m.

The Supreme Court's

surprise decision to take an abortion case

this fall will add heat to the fire, especially with confirmation hearings seeming likely in the near future:

"'It is a bold step to take the case, bold in a political sense,' said Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University. 'It may well be the court's way of reminding the president there's a lot at stake in a Supreme Court vacancy.'"

When Bad Blood Flows in Both Directions

May 24, 2005 | 4:50 p.m.

Just for Fun: Judy Bachrach has penned a

very funny review

of Alexandra Pelosi's new book,

"Sneaking into the Flying Circus: How the Media Turn Our Presidential Campaigns Into Freak Shows

":

"She seems to be awfully confused, given how she begins her book: 'This leads us to a conflict that is as old as democracy itself. Ever since the press stopped trusting politicians, the politicians have been suspicious and paranoid of the press. There is a lot of bad blood running in both directions, and that tug of war is undermining our democracy.'

"Let's leave aside--but only for a moment!--the ineradicable image of a lot of bad blood running in both directions (Dr. Harvey, please report to surgery). Pelosi clearly has given but limited thought to the premise of her book. After all, if something is as 'old as democracy itself,' then it can't very well be, 230 years later, the undermining of the republic. And if this conflict is truly embedded--as those of us who followed the career of John Peter Zenger might perhaps conclude--then the press hasn't 'stopped trusting politicians,' as it considered them untrustworthy from the start. And finally (and it does make one wonder how many books the author actually read before she began writing), in what possible way is all this bi-directional blood "undermining our democracy"? Pelosi gives no examples, possibly for good reason. Show me a country where politicians are fond of reporters, and I'll show you the Soviet Union."

Continued on page 2: »