I’m on another vacation, sitting in a cyber cafe, working at a small computer with a microscopic keyboard, so it must be random thoughts day. Thank goodness DQ is doing the heavy lifting.
The first thing that caught my interest is what Mitt said at the debate, which I really liked:
But it was Romney forced on the defensive on the issue of abortion, when Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback defended automated phone calls his campaign had been making that highlight his rival’s one-time support for pro-choice policies.
“It’s truthful,” Brownback said.
Romney called it “desperate, maybe negative,” adding moments later, “I get tired of people that are holier than thou because they’ve been pro-life longer than I have.” (Emphasis mine.)
The fact is that many people who came of age in the 1960s have taken a long slow journey from one side to the other. As my own change in political convictions shows, the fact that I came late to the game doesn’t mean I’m not one of the biggest fans. In any event, as I keep reminding and reminding people, the best we can hope for is a chief executive who appoints strict constructionist judges, since it is they, not the President, who will change abortion policies.
Indeed, I’m reminded again and again that, probably, the most important thing the new President can do is change the Supreme Court — and we must really hope that the new President is a conservative. I think I’ve hammered hope the point that, if you haven’t already read Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan, you must. It points the finger of blame at activist judges who decided that the laws and traditions of their own country were irrelevant, because they were connected to a higher authority of human rights law, courtesy of the EU and the UN. (As you may recall, some of our more liberal and aged Supreme Court justices have been making tentative moves in the same direction.)
I’m now reading Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, which describes in chilling detail what is happening, day-to-day, on the streets of Europe as a result of the multi-cultural, socialist, non-democratically judge ruled European nations that allowed unlimited Muslim immigration, with full funding no matter the fraud, and has proven unwilling because of its doctrinal blinders to deal with the inevitable Islamist nihilism, violence and brutality. Bawer is a liberal gay man who is mad, frightened, and finally aware the America is the last, best hope for Western freedom and democracy.
Continuing randomly, Confederate Yankee continues to eviscerate the once reputable TNR over the Scott Thomas propaganda piece. It now turns out that when TNR did it’s little “we were sort of wrong” mea culpa, it left out a few pertinent facts. Whoops!
TNR’s not the only one covering up information to score political or ideological points (or just to cover up journalistic malfeasance). Turns out that, again, the Times is guilty of allowing the publication of an article attacking Orthodox Jews that used as its starting point a known false anecdote. Starting with Walter Duranty, journalistic integrity at the Times seemed to have morphed into, if we beieve the underlying ideology, we are acting with integrity when we lie about those facts to support our ideological beliefs. Incidentally, that’s psychologically similar to the European Muslims who have no problems breaking European laws because, as far as they’re concerned, such laws don’t exist.
Incidentally, since I’m in Times bashing mode (it’s editorial policies make it an easy target), let me just direct you to an American Thinker article exposing its decision to publish a piece by known Israel basher — and Canadian — Michael Ignatieff as he explains why he can’t support the war in Iraq. Surprise, surprise! It’s all about the “Jooos.” As Babu said to Jerry, finger rhythmically wagging, “You are a very bad man.”
And the last random thought, a surprising report today that more women are living with the fathers of their children! We used to call that marriage, but they don’t because they aren’t (married, that is). I suppose this should be heartening, but I find it depressing, at least from the child’s point of view. Marriage says (even though it may not mean) “we’re committed for the long haul.” Living together says (even though it may not mean) “I can walk out at any time.” I think the former is better for children’s sense of stability, rather than the latter.