Rusty, that was a great piece on Harvard’s new curriculum. You did a fine job of identifying the ills afflicting modern collegiate pedagogy. To your analysis I would add a brief comment. The modern university can teach students to be critics, and indeed modern college students are very good at being analytical and critical. The problem is that because modern universities do not hold any coherent and functional systems of belief themselves, they end up teaching students nothing to fill the ideological void in their lives. When all philosophies are torn down and none embraced there is no victory won; there are only young people who are left looking at their lives, wondering if there is any purpose or meaning in them. It is no wonder, then, that when Billy Graham asked the then-president of Harvard Derek Bok what the greatest problem was for today’s students, Bok responded with one word: “emptiness.”

I finally got around to reading an excellent article that appeared some time ago in the New York Times Magazine. In “Death in the Family,” Daniel Berger writes of the former governor of Washington State, Booth Gardner, who now has Parkinson’s and wants the right to end his life. He knows, however, that euthanasia for those who are not terminally ill will not pass public muster, so he is working on an incremental strategy, beginning with the legalization of assisted suicide for the terminally ill. The article talks of his campaign, but talks just as much, if not more, about the efforts against assisted suicide. First there is Gardner’s own son, who is an evangelical and against assisted suicide. Then there is a feminist, a Latino politician, and a disability-rights activist (himself a quadriplegic), all of whom worry about the impact that such a law would have on society’s ability to dispose of those it does not want. Despite a conclusion that seems tacked on by another hand, the article insightfully explores the debate surrounding assisted suicide and provides ample testimony of those who support the culture of life for reasons other than those of religion. Those interested in learning more about the debate over the right to life and the right to die will benefit from giving “Death in the Family” a read.

Protesters in Gaza say President Bush is a vampire. But a recent study proves that vampires don’t exist. Therefore, President Bush doesn’t exist. In which case, it’s foolish for Palestinians to get so riled up.

I’m so confused.

It’s an old story, but it’s in the news again: Activists are claiming there is a human right to intentionally create deaf babies. BioEdge has the latest report:

“There is a small minority of activists who say that there is a cultural identity in being born deaf and that we should not destroy that cultural identity by preventing children from being born deaf.” She argued that if other parents are allowed to create “designer babies”, then deaf people should also be allowed to do so, as well.

But there is another side to these allegations of eugenics, as the outraged response of the British Deaf Association showed. A contemptible exaggeration, fumed Dr Steve Emery. Deaf people simply want access to the same rights as hearing people. Deaf activists view themselves not as disabled, but as a linguistic minority. All they want is to have the same rights to fertility treatment as other minorities, such as blacks or gays.

Paradoxically, the BDA contends that privileging hearing is eugenicist. “And if [embryo screening] can be available to ensure the baby is hearing, the next step could be: why not ensure it can also be blue eyed, blonde, straight, etc?” asks Dr Emery.

The deaf community in the UK is gratified by advances in deaf culture: British sign language has been officially recognised as a language by the government and 400,000 hearing people are learning to sign. But it also seems painfully aware that these hard-won achievements could be lost through depopulation if embryos are screened for deafness. The BDA points to disappearance of Down syndrome children from the community, despite the increasing number of older mothers. IVF and embryo screening may be widely accepted but they are multiplying the number of ethical dilemmas faced by governments.

It seems there are really two issues here: On the one hand, human embryos shouldn’t be “screened for deafness” and then “discarded”–deafness, like Down syndrome, doesn’t negate human dignity or make life not worth living for a person–even in the embryonic stage–who is deaf or has Down syndrome. On the other hand, human embryos shouldn’t be intentionally created to possess a disability on the grounds that disability isn’t really disability but is a “cultural identity” or “linguistic minority”–preferring hearing over non-hearing is not prejudicial like preferring white over black. The one really does have to do with authentic human flourishing, and the other has nothing to do with it at all.

I present to you the Reverends Veitch and Lobert.

I wonder where they stand on penal substitution?

Stop it.

Imagine this one for a second. The government sends inspectors to abortion clinics to crack down on illegal abortions and the pro-life movement steps up its protests and activism. In response, the abortion clinics do the unforeseen: they go on strike. This may sound like a pipe dream, but the New York Times reports that it is actually happening in Spain. While I have never heard of capitulation to one’s opposition as a form of protest, I can’t say that I mind.

To be sure, the insults, physical violence, and vandalism that some abortion providers report is not to be condoned. But much of the recent anti-abortion activity has come in the wake of the arrest of Carlos Morín, an abortionist who apparently agreed to a Dutch journalist’s request for an abortion during her seventh week of pregnancy while she was secretly filming him. Dr. Morín is now in jail, but his arrest put Barcelona and Madrid’s abortion clinics in the Spanish national media. Another video was released, this time of an abortion of a baby at 21 weeks, and later in December of 2007 a Dutch woman was arrested in the Netherlands for having a late-term abortion in a Spanish clinic.

So in light of publicity about the realities of abortion, chiefly illegal abortion, and in light of an increase in pro-life activism, Spanish abortion clinics close in protest. If only America could be so European.

The Dutch have stopped growing.

Holy jumping dust bunnies! Where does your candidate stand on this? (If he or she is stumping in the Netherlands, probably on a box.)

By way of Slate.

Obama annoys Edwards. Edwards gives Richardson the creeps. Richardson ignores Kucinich. Mike Gravel asks, “Who am I? Where am I?”