Monday, October 17, 2005


Matt Drudge leads off this morning with a flash
from Madonna. Sometimes I think Matt D. must be her secret fan, the way he follows her about...

It seems Madonna has decided the Beast - the biblical one, we are led to assume - is the modern world and all of its material excess. One has to wonder if that includes the rather large chunk of material she owns... The lady[?] goes on to insist most Priests are gay.

And to think that word used to mean "happy."

Meanwhile, John Fund at the Wall Street Journal has tossed another live grenade into the already shell-shocked Miers nomination. Fund claims to have detailed notes from a teleconference of a religious activist umbrella organization known as the Arlington group. The meeting's purpose was to provide a forum where two close friends of Ms. Miers could answer questions concerning Mires' views pertaining to social issues.

Among the attendees: James Dobson.

From Mr. Fund's account:

""Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?" "Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade. "I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

The account continues: "Shortly thereafter, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: "That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls."

Interestingly, Mr Fund hasn't been able to get substantial collaboration of this account... Yet.

This meeting was BEFORE Mr. Dobson alluded to insider knowledge about Mires stand on Roe v. Wade, an allusion thought then to refer to conversations between Dobson and White House spin king Karl Rove. Later the same week, Mr Dobson attempted to smooth over his gaffe, saying during a radio broadcast:

" "I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade," But even if Karl had known the answer to that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion.""

""I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade,""

""That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls.""

Dobson, you damned liar. Don't people of your faith think liars go to hell?

Alright, perhaps it's the source. But this looks mighty peculiar. And here is the reason I am no longer a Republican. The party has become dominated by people so obsessed with the goal of making their religious views the law of the land they will sell their souls to achieve it.

Onward, Christian Soldiers!

Trying to fit the "right" to abortion into the Constitution is like putting sneakers on a horse. I doubt the framers of the Constitution could have conceived of the kind of medical technology that makes abortion safe and practical. I understand that "privacy" isn't really explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution. But it should be. The Constitution isn't infallible.

Some issues are just too personal to be left to the clumsy hand of government, constantly pushed by social whim. Oh, but wasn't that what Roe was in the first place?

No, it wasn't. Roe was the acknowlegement that technology had placed new choices before man, and it was an attempt, however flawed, to leave those choices in the hands of those most intimately affected by them.

I don't Like Roe and I don't believe in hell. But I like far less people who insist it's their place to interpret the mind of God and use those muses to rule over such matters.

And I'm certain of this: If there is a hell, it'll be a lot fuller of liars for God than it will be full of women who made the best bad choice they could.

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?