MEMBER LOGIN
Ads


Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Secondhand Smoke
Archives

Categories

Monthly



Friday, November 6, 2009, 10:54 PM
Wesley J. Smith

It takes remarkable hubris–not to mention a pronounced anti-democratic streak–to shove through Congress a bill that is wildly unpopular with the American people, and apparently getting more so every day. How unpopular? According to a CNN poll, a solid majority now opposes Obama-style health care reform. From the poll:

26. From everything you have heard or read so far, do you favor or oppose Barack Obama’s plan to reform health care? Favor 40%. Oppose, 54%

And get this, when you get into greater detail, more than 70% do not wish the bill passed anything close to its current form.

27. As you may know, several health care bills have been passed by committees in the U.S. House and Senate and they can be brought before Congress for debate and a final vote at any time. Which of the following do you think Congress should do:

Continue working on those bills this fall and make relatively minor changes before passing final legislation 26%
Continue working on those bills this fall but pass final legislation only if major changes are made 33%

Start work on entirely new bills that would not be ready until some time next year 24%
Stop working on any bills that would change the country’s health care system 15%

No opinion 1%

That’s a whopping 72% against passage in its current form without major changes, wanting to start over, or not doing it at all. Only 26% can said to be happy with what is being done.  A remarkable loss of the political debate–which for some representatives seems irrelevant to the passage of the billby President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid.


Friday, November 6, 2009, 6:49 PM
Wesley J. Smith

This is an interesting study that belies the notion that fetuses are insentient: Apparently, babies cry in their own languages.  From the story:

From their very first days, the cries of newborns already bear the mark of the language their parents speak, scientists now find. French newborns tend to cry with rising melody patterns, slowly increasing in pitch from the beginning to the end, whereas German newborns seem to prefer falling melody patterns, findings that are both consistent with differences between the languages. This suggests infants begin picking up elements of language in the womb, long before their first babble or coo.

Prenatal exposure to language was known to influence newborns. For instance, past research showed they preferred their mother’s voice over those of others. Still, researchers thought infants did not imitate sounds until much later on. Although three-month-old babies can match vowel sounds that adults make, this skill depends on vocal control just not physically possible much earlier. However, when scientists recorded and analyzed the cries of 60 healthy newborns when they were three to five days old — 30 born into French-speaking families, 30 into German-speaking ones — their analysis revealed clear differences in the melodies of their cries based on their native tongue.

The more we know, the more remarkable human development becomes.


Friday, November 6, 2009, 5:50 PM
Wesley J. Smith

It’s one thing when the Environmental Liberation Front (ELF) pushes criminality in the name of saving the planet. That’s what fringe types often do.  But when a supposedly respectable figure like Al Gore–a former U.S. Senator, Vice President, and Peace Prize Nobel laureate–does it, you know that radical environmentalism is going completely around the bend.  But it’s true: Gore urges people to commit non violent crimes to coerce the world into bending to his radical  agenda.  From the story:

Al Gore has sought to inject fresh momentum into the Copenhagen build-up, saying he is certain Barack Obama will attend and predicting a rise in civil disobedience against fossil-fuel polluters unless drastic action is taken over global warming. Amid increasing incidents of climate protesters disrupting the operations of fossil-fuel industries and airports in Britain and elsewhere, Gore suggests the scale of the emergency means non-violent lawbreaking is justified. “Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play,” he says. “And I expect that it will increase, no question about it.”

This is utterly irresponsible and anti-democratic.  Perhaps because he imperiously refuses to answer challenging questions or engage in true debate, Gore has been unable to convince the population that global warming–or climate change as it is now called–is a bona fide emergency. Indeed, the numbers who are truly alarmed is shrinking.  So, he calls out the Brown Shirts.

Shameful. Utterly shameful.  If a conservative urged people to break the law to stop Obamacare, he would be hounded into obscurity.  Gore should be called on this in the same way.  But no one will.  These ubiquitous double standards make me sick.


Friday, November 6, 2009, 2:16 PM
Wesley J. Smith

Speaker Nancy Pelosi-no democrat, small “d”–wants to shove her 2000 + page monstrous bill down our throats by forcing the House to vote before anyone–including legislators–can absorb all its provisions.  Toward this imperious end, she scheduled the vote for a rare Saturday House session.

But all is not going down the collective throat smoothly. The very hangups I predicted would make health care reform difficult to pass–abortion funding and coverage for illegal aliens–may (emphasis, may) hold that up.  From the story:

House Democrats acknowledged they don’t yet have the votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system, and signaled they may push back the vote until Sunday or early next week. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters in a conference call Friday that the make-or-break vote on President Barack Obama’s top priority that had been set for Saturday could face delay.

The apparent problem: Democrats have yet to resolve intraparty disputes over abortion funding and illegal immigrants’ access to health care.

Pelosi and President Obama don’t care that the American people oppose this huge, power grabbing bill.  But there may be enough House Democrats in marginal districts who like their jobs sufficiently to  prevent this mess from moving forward without dramatic revamping. I am not holding my breath, but hope springs eternal in the human breast.


Friday, November 6, 2009, 12:00 AM
Wesley J. Smith

Oh no! It looks as if the coming Copenhagen climate change, prosperity murdering summit will not produce an enforceable treaty to raise taxes, stifle employment, and kill energy production. From the story:

A global treaty to fight climate change will be postponed by at least six months and possibly a year or more, senior negotiators and politicians conceded today. In a day of gloomy statements, the world’s key industrialised nations said they had abandoned hope of a legally binding treaty at the Copenhagen summit next month and had begun to plan only for a meeting of world leaders. The stark statements follow weeks of pessimism and represent a significant downgrading of the summit’s goal. In London, Ed Miliband, the UK climate change secretary, became the first British politician to acknowledge publicly that Copenhagen would produce no legal climate change treaty.

We’re all doomed!  At least that’s what UN head hysteric, Ban Ki-moon said a few months ago.


Thursday, November 5, 2009, 9:32 PM
Wesley J. Smith

I have never been so disgusted with the leaders of Congress. Speaker Nancy Pelosi–so predictably–broke her word about posting her gargantuan version of Obamacare–already more than 2000 pages and growing–on the Internet for 72 hours so people could try to figure out what is in the darn thing.  But no. That would be too democratic.  From a Weekly Standard blog:

On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was “absolutely” committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:

TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it’s voted on at the very end?

PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.

But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what’s in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: “No; [the] pledge was to have manager’s amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that.”

Apparently Pelosi’s agreement to leave the “final” bill online “at the very end” of the process wasn’t such a straightforward pledge.

We have entered a new era when the intent of our leaders is to hide what they are doing from us. Such imperious tactics risk tearing this country apart.


Thursday, November 5, 2009, 7:46 PM
Wesley J. Smith

Now, the busy bodies in the US Senate want to use Obamacare to fund “community transformation.” From the story:

The bill reads:

“Activities within the plan shall focus on (but not be limited to)— (i) creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases; ii) creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment; (iii) developing and promoting programs targeting a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition, physical activity and smoking cessation, enhance safety in a community, or address any other chronic disease priority area identified by the grantee.”

The transformation plans must also take action to promote certain “healthy options” at privately owned restaurants as well as “prioritizing strategies” to “reduce racial and ethnic disparities,” although the bill does not explain how racial and ethnic disparities figure in to community transformation.

The state, local, or community organization groups must also monitor the progress of their transformation plans among community members, measuring things such as weight loss, physical activity, and eating habits.

They can’t just deal with health care funding, can they?  No. They have to try and “transform” society?  It is a Utopian tilting at windmills that won’t make us more healthy or better society. But it will strip increase government intrusion into even the most mundane aspects of our lives as it drives us off a fiscal cliff.  Good grief.


Thursday, November 5, 2009, 7:27 PM
Wesley J. Smith


Next week I will be in Scotland debating against the legalization of assisted suicide.  The following are the planned events:

Scotland:

November 11, I will be debating at the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh versus Jeremy Purvis MSP,  Time: 13.00 – 15.00 hrs. Subject: “Should Assisted Dying be Legalized in Scotland?” I believe this event is by invitation only.

November 12: Glasgow University Union, 32 University Avenue, Glasgow, G12 8LX,  Title of event: ‘Should assisted dying be legalised in Scotland?’ Time: 19.00-20.30 hrs, versus Dr. Alasdair Maclean, MBBS, M.Jur., PhD – Dundee University School of Law.

November 13: “Assisted Dying: A Good Death or a Choice Too Far?” Time: 19.30 hrs versus Dr.Libby Wilson: Friends at the End.  Church of Scotland General Assembly Hall, Mound Place, EH1 2LX, Centre of Edinburgh. Tickets: Normal Price £ 5, Concession £ 2.

London

After that, it is off to London where I will  be giving one lecture on Monday evening, November 16. Time, 6:00 PM.  Title:  “The Culture of Death in the United Kingdom: A Perfect Storm.” Location, the Cadogan Hotel, Sloane Street, SW1X, 9SG.

I may be doing various media and perhaps, other events to be announced.

I hope SHSers in Scotland and England can attend. I would very much like to meet you.


Thursday, November 5, 2009, 2:01 PM
Wesley J. Smith

American assisted suicide advocates engage in a great pretense–abetted by the media who willingly suspend their disbelief–that assisted suicide is to be very limited, a last ditch safety valve for the terminally ill for whom nothing else can be done to relieve suffering. That it isn’t actually practiced in such a limited way–for example almost all assisted suicides in Oregon have had nothing to do with unrelievable pain, but rather, with fear of the future–doesn’t deter either advocates or media from pounding away at the false talking point.

But in the UK, advocates are more honest. Assisted suicide hasn’t even been legalized, and already the head prosecutor of England and Wales has decided it isn’t in the “public interest” to prosecute the crime of assisted suicide when dying, disabled, or those with debilitating conditions are facilitated out of life by friends or families. Notice, no doctors. That’s because assisted suicide isn’t a medical act at all.

And the cases that are driving the debate on that side of The Pond mostly involve people who are not terminally ill. And now illustrating the radical scope of the assisted suicide meme, in the wake of an elderly husband and wife’s joint suicide, their daughter wants “assisted dying” debated–even though her parents were healthy when they killed themselves. From the story:

In a letter, the couple, who were longstanding supporters of Dignity in Dying, which has campaigned for a change in the law on assisted suicide, said that they had “chosen to peacefully end our lives”. They hoped to draw attention to the “serious human dilemma” faced by those who wanted to commit suicide. Chrissy Milner said that her parents had been happy but felt that their quality of life had deteriorated. “We have always been a very open and very close family and were aware of their views on assisted dying,” she said. “I don’t mean to take anything away from what has happened but I would like to see an open debate, both locally and at a national level, on the whole issue. [It] has been something that my parents were keen to promote.”

In a final letter to media organisations, including their local weekly newspaper, the Milners said: “We have each reached the point where all the finest available treatment and TLC can no longer attain the desired and acceptable level to support an enjoyable and worthwhile life.” Mr Milner had added a handwritten section which read: “Arranging this so it does not fail has been very difficult and traumatic for us. This need not and should not be the case. I have made many visits to friends and relatives in care homes. They cannot wash, dress, feed or toilet themselves. They cannot get out of the chair or walk. This can go on for a long time — years. Long before we reach this stage, the quality of life for us would be unacceptable, cruel and inhumane.”

In other words, death is better than disability or needing care. And if that is true, if fear of potential future problems justifies assisted suicide–then it should be available anytime a person experiences a life problem that makes him or her find continued existence unbearable; in short, death on demand.  That certainly is what Philip Nitschke believes, and note, he is holding how-to-commit suicide clinics in Washington-State even though it was legalized for the terminally ill in that state.

This is the truth about what this issue is really all about, and it is the debate we should have: Should society seek to prevent suicide or permit to be facilitated anytime the desire is other than transitory? That is the nub and it is where we will end up if we surrender to the culture of death.


Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 6:16 PM
Wesley J. Smith

A man has been given three years in jail for having sex with a horse. I feel somewhat sorry for the defendant in this case, who is clearly disturbed. But I do think it is a sufficiently important issue of human exceptionalism that sex with animals should be punished as a crime.  First, it is abuse. But beyond that obvious point, by definition, bestiality denigrates human dignity

On this final note, Peter Singer and I disagree–as we do about nearly everything. In “Heavy Petting,” a review of a book promoting bestiality (warning, the review contains crude imagery, some of which I have edited out in the quote below), Singer wrote:

But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty…At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo…While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious…As it happened, the orangutan lost interest…but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan’s come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.

Another bioethicist, Jacob Appel, has also defended bestiality, as he took a veiled slap at yours truly:

Opponents of bestiality often describe themselves as advocates of “human exceptionalism” and express the belief that intercourse with animals debases the dignity of human beings by blurring the lines between people and animals. (They fail to explain why sex is unique in this manner–why playing Frisbee with a dog, or eating a corned beef sandwich, does not also blur such boundaries)

Surely Appel understands the profound symbolic and intimacy differences between playing frisbee with a dog and having sexual intercourse with her (or him). Beyond that, I could not disagree with him and Singer more.  Indeed, when a man was killed having sex with a horse in Washington, I supported legislation making such sex acts a crime because bestiality blurs the crucial moral line between humans and animals.  I wrote in the Daily Standard:

Bestiality is so very wrong not only because using animals sexually is abusive, but because such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as “human exceptionalism.”…

MOST PEOPLE take human exceptionalism for granted. They can no longer afford to do so. The great philosophical question of the 21st Century is going to be whether we will knock humans off the pedestal of moral exceptionalism and instead define ourselves as just another animal in the forest. The stakes of the coming debate couldn’t be more important: It is our exalted moral status that both bestows special rights upon us and imposes unique and solemn moral responsibilities–including the human duty not to abuse animals.

Nothing would more graphically demonstrate our unexceptionalism than countenancing human/animal sex. Thus, when Roach’s legislation passes, the law’s preamble should explicitly state that one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind’s inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.

Our self image is crucial to how we act and what we countenance.  Human exceptionalism needs to be defended at all levels–including as here, by drawing a line in the sand against base human behavior involving animals.

Older Posts »