New Media Alliance - Daniel Clark

Link: http://shinbone.home.att.net/abort.11.htm

by Daniel Clark

One of the most effective ways of defending the indefensible is to use its very indefensibility as a rhetorical shield. All you have to do is to say that nobody would ever do the terrible thing you’re doing, and most people will believe you, contrary to what their own eyes and ears tell them.

The pro-abortion movement has adopted this tactic, through its employment of the talking point that “nobody is really pro-abortion” – a claim whose absurdity ought to be self-evident. The latest illustration of this is in Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s decision to sell Christmas gift certificates. The PPIN website says that the certificates can be used “to cover essential services like screenings and birth control.” The fact that they can also be used to pay for abortions, the one “service” for which the population control organization is best known, is treated as if it were an unintended consequence.

PPIN president Betty Cockrum feigned surprise at the inevitable criticism from anti-abortion groups, defensively adding that “95 percent of what we do is provide basic health care.” If that sounds implausible, that’s because of the total dishonesty with which supporters and practitioners of abortion define their terms. The way Planned Parenthood tallies its services, “basic health care” encompasses everything except the abortion procedure itself.

The simple fact that pregnancy tests fall into that category makes the number of abortions sound comparatively insignificant, despite the fact that the purpose of the tests is to sell the abortions. Naturally, once you subtract all the women who test negative, and then all the pregnant women who refuse to abort, the ratio of abortions to pregnancy tests is fairly small. Cockrum’s using that fact to downplay Planned Parenthood’s involvement in abortion, however, is a complete and deliberate misrepresentation.

In reality, the gift certificates are just the next in a series of stunts meant to tweak the group’s Christian opponents. For the last several years, Planned Parenthood has been trying to sell Christmas cards with the slogan “Choice On Earth.” Apparently, “Termination On Earth” didn’t go over as well in the focus groups. More recently, the “not pro-abortion” activists tried peddling “I Had An Abortion” tee-shirts. “I Survived The Abortion Clinic” might have been more fitting.

Their claim that they want to reduce the number of abortions would be laughable, if so many people didn’t take their word at face value. Planned Parenthood owns the largest chain of abortion clinics in the world. For them to deny being pro-abortion is like saying that Krispy Kreme is not pro-donuts. Nevertheless, abortion opponents are routinely criticized for refusing to cooperate with Planned Parenthood, toward the mythical common goal of reducing the frequency of abortion. Seldom, if ever, are representatives from that group asked why they would be committed to do such a thing, in light of their obvious motives to the contrary.

If they were, then the fundamental flaw of the indefensibility defense would make itself apparent. Those who are committing the indefensible act must recognize their disavowal of it as an indictment of themselves. For that reason, this tactic threatens to stir controversy among abortion advocates, some of whom, finding others’ repudiations too harsh, will begin to question those people’s commitment to the cause.

This is what happened to Kate Michelman, when she was president of the National Abortion Rights Action League back in 1993, and said during an interview, “We think abortion is a bad thing.” Under intense criticism from her colleagues, Michelman tried to deny making the remark, until the reporter reminded her that their conversation had been recorded.

If it’s wrong to say that the thing that nobody’s “pro-” is a bad thing, individual abortion apologists can’t possibly know where to draw the line. If abortion is not a bad thing, then why must one say there should be fewer of them? If there’s nothing wrong with one abortion, what can be so wrong with millions of them? This dilemma points to a more elementary weakness in their movement, in that individuals within it are not free to speak their minds, but instead must restrict themselves to a tiny reservoir of approved terminology.

That’s one of the problems with using a rhetorical shield; it’s confining. Another problem is that it’s always right there in front of you. In this case, the promoters of abortion have constructed a constant reminder to themselves that what they’re doing is so wrong, they’ve got to publicly denounce it. Funny, it’s almost like having a conscience.

Link: http://shinbone.home.att.net/apno.htm

by Daniel Clark

Obviously, we’re headed into challenging economic times, but can things really be as bad as the Associated Press describes them? A November 23rd AP article about a Colorado farm was so bleak that it read like a Steinbeck novel, except that it was more coherently written, and slightly shorter.

The owners of the farm had opened it up to the public for the annual gleaning, the gathering of crops that had been left behind in the fields after the harvest. To their amazement, many times more people took them up on their offer of free potatoes, carrots and leeks than they’d expected. According to the story, 40,000 people descended on the farm, apparently illustrating a nation on the brink of famine.

That perception is predicated on the fact that this particular farm had never before experienced the post-apocalyptic scene described in the article. There’s no reason it should have, though, since this was the first time its owners had opened the gleaning up to the public. If they’d done so a couple years ago, when the economy was booming, they would have been stampeded all the same.

What the story really tells us is that there’s a segment of our society that can’t stand to miss out on anything they don’t have to pay for. When they refer to America as the Land of the Free, they interpret it as in “free continental breakfast.” You’re familiar with these people if you ever attend major league baseball games, because they’re the ones who only go when bobbleheads are being given away, and then attack each other like piranhas when the mascots throw tee-shirts into the stands.

An insatiable hankering for freebies does not directly correlate with need, as was illustrated by Gore 2000 campaign mascot Winifred Skinner, who had supposedly been forced to pick aluminum cans out of her neighbors’ trash in order to buy medicine. It turned out that Skinner owned a Winnebago, a poodle, and a United Auto Workers’ pension. She only rummaged through her neighbors’ garbage because she wanted to, not because she had to in order to survive.

The same is surely true of most of the Colorado vegetable pickers, whom the AP would have us believe are barely sustaining a hand-to-mouth existence. The story quotes one of the pickers explaining, “Everybody is so depressed about the economy.” One of the farm owners agrees, saying, “People obviously need food.”

Of course needy people exist, but that’s why the farm had been inviting church groups to help glean the crops for years. A church is capable of distributing large quantities of vegetables through food banks and soup kitchens, where enough different kinds of food are available to produce entire meals, instead of simply burying the needy under a mountain of spuds.

If you were desperate to feed yourself and your family, filling enormous bags with potatoes, carrots and leeks would not be the most efficient way to go about it. However much of those things you managed to consume before they spoiled might not even be worth the amount of gas you’d burn while driving to the farm and back. The only way it really makes sense to put the time and effort into it is if you are going to give or sell most of the food to others.

To assume that the people hauling away the huge sacks of produce are doing so for their own consumption is to perceive them as living at a Dickensian level of poverty. One imagines them subsisting for weeks on baked carrots, carrot soup, carrot pie, carrot pudding, and any other revolting thing you can think of to do with the things.

We know, of course, that this wouldn’t be necessary, with all the assistance that’s available to the poor in this country, both from private charities and from government. By omitting that factor, the story depicts America as a place where the average citizen’s life is hanging by a thread. It’s as if he’s the protagonist in a sequel to D.O.A., who must consume a bushel of leeks within 24 hours, or else succumb to luminous poisoning.

The focus of this story, if it wouldn’t have strayed too far outside the media template, should have been the generosity of the successful capitalists who own the farm. That may not be as interesting, or as pleasing to the editors, as a depiction of life in America as a chaotic nightmare, but at least it would have had the advantage of being true.

Link: http://shinbone.home.att.net/oooo.htm

by Daniel Clark

I, Barack Hussein Obama – recognize the irony of using my middle name as a part of this oath. Throughout the campaign, I took the position that it’s racist to say the name “Hussein,” although it logically can’t be, unless it is also racist to say “Barack Obama” – which my pollsters assured me I could not get elected without saying.

I know that the real reason my detractors have used my middle name is because they say Saddam Hussein would still be in power if I’d had my way. I make no apologies for this, because I still feel that outcome would have been preferable to war. If I’d been president, I would have simply met with Saddam, and found out what we needed to do to redress his grievances.

I will continue to forbid others from using my middle name, so consider yourselves put on notice. I only use it now to satisfy the expectations of these arcane traditions, which I will busily begin undermining the second this public charade is over.

… do hereby solemnly swear – and by “swear” I mean “take under advisement.” I am not going to literally promise anything, because I reserve the right to change my position on anything at any time, without any warning or consequence. For starters, about my recent support for energy exploration and the missile defense shield? Forget it.

… that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States – meaning “execute” in the cigarette-and-blindfold sense, that is, because the presidency is about to cease to exist as you know it. Oh, I’ll still be addressed as “Mr. President,” but the powers of the office must be dramatically expanded, if I’m going to fulfill my promise to “fundamentally change this country” – and don’t pretend now that you didn’t understand what I meant by that.

… and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution – which is an easy promise to make, thanks to the successful corruption of our educational system by my Marxist friends. Under the “living document” paradigm, I can tell you that the Constitution means the exact opposite of what it says, and instead of telling me I’m wrong, you’ll accept my overt rejection of the Constitution as merely an alternative constitutional theory.

When Chief Justice Roberts, here, was up for confirmation, I voted against him, explicitly because he based his opinions on the language of the Constitution, instead of on liberal sentiment. Nevertheless, you let me get away with calling myself a constitutional expert, just like I call myself a law professor, which I’m not either. While I’m at it, I’m tempted to tell you I’m a professional bowler, just to see how much I can get away with.

Even before becoming president, I’ve tried to muzzle political dissent, supported infringements on your gun ownership rights, condoned infanticide, and disdained liberty rights by proposing mandatory “volunteerism.” Yet your minds are so addled by relativistic drivel that you don’t even see anything wrong with my taking this oath.

… of the United States – I know you’ve heard me, my wife and my friends say a lot of negative things about the USA, but I can still get away with taking this oath because I interpret our country the same way I interpret the Constitution. When my fellow travelers and I say we love America, what we mean is that we love the entity with which we mean to replace America, which we will also call “America.” You will not question this semantic evasion, because you have by now been browbeaten out of ever questioning anyone’s patriotism.

When I made wealth redistribution the centerpiece of my campaign, and then joked about myself being a Communist, you zombies didn’t even blink. As soon as this ceremony is over, I could light an American flag on fire and start singing Pete Seeger songs, and still it wouldn’t disturb you, because most of you are too busy worrying about who’s going to be on “Knock-Knock Jokes with the Stars” next week.

To summarize, when I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States, I’m saying I’ll defend a legal philosophy to be defined by me, in order to preserve a national identity, to be determined by me also. Those who don’t like it do not get to share in the spoils of redistribution.

In closing, I say, as George Burns says in the movie, “So help me Me.”

by Daniel Clark

If you’re shocked that Christopher Buckley has endorsed Barack Obama, you obviously haven’t been reading his column in the National Review. It’s not that he’s been expressing liberal opinions in his late father’s publication. Rather, his articles, while amusing, tend to be so devoid of substance that you’d expect them to have appeared in the mercifully defunct George magazine, perhaps on the opposite page from a story about what Carrot Top would do if he were president.

Buckley made the endorsement in an article called “Sorry, Dad, I’m Voting for Obama,” which he did not bother submitting to NR, for obvious reasons. Shortly thereafter, he offered his resignation to NR, which accepted it, leading to another piece misleadingly titled “Sorry, Dad, I was Sacked.”

He whines that John McCain’s “once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly.” At this point, it becomes tempting to believe the piece is satiric, because there’s no way he can possibly believe what he’s writing. McCain is among the all-time leading snarlers in Washington. If anything, his relative lack of snarl during the campaign has been a source of repeated frustration for his supporters.

Buckley says the one with a “first class temperament” is now Obama – a conclusion that can only be derived from his outward presentation, because his words and actions certainly don’t bear it out. This is the candidate, remember, who warned liberal columnist Maureen Dowd, “I’m putting you on notice,” just for mentioning the size of his ears. He threatens TV stations with nuisance lawsuits for running National Rifle Association ads against him, and deploys Stalinesque “truth squads,” comprised of sympathetic law enforcement personnel, to intimidate his detractors with thinly veiled threats of imprisonment. One would hope that Buckley – whose fellow NR contributor Mark Steyn recently had to defend himself before a Canadian thought crimes tribunal – would be a little more sensitive to such matters.

Obliviously, he assumes that Obama will “surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of the pit we’ve dug for ourselves.” In reality, the Illinois senator’s “spread the wealth” income redistribution plan couldn’t be more traditionally leftist if he broke into a chorus of Huey Long’s “Every Man a King” jingle during his stump speeches. “Traditional left-politics” are destructive under any circumstances. Why assume that Obama will start understanding that now?

Though undisturbed by Obama’s many disqualifying factors, Buckley expresses “embarrassment” over Sarah Palin, about whose selection as McCain’s running mate he writes, “not to belabor the point,” but, “What on earth can he have been thinking?” By “belabor,” he must mean “explain,” because he, like Palin’s other pseudo-conservative critics, feels no need to substantiate his objection. If you don’t already know what’s wrong with Gov. Palin, you’re just not among the people who matter.

At one point, Buckley lets slip what his real reason may be, when he writes, “On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian.” Since none of the candidates supports gay marriage, and Buckley doesn’t bother introducing us to al, abortion is left as the only understandable motivation for his endorsement. Even here, he refuses to spell it out, though, but instead passively attributes his own opinion to a broader philosophy. It’s as if any forthright discussion of a serious issue would undermine his position’s requisite superficiality.

To effete, socially liberal Republicans, being pro-life is as much as anything a breach of etiquette. They react to Palin’s presence in their party the same way as if they were having dinner with Tony Montana, when he started eating the lemon out of the finger bowl. Buckley does not, therefore, directly take issue with Palin, but instead snootily dismisses her.

Buckley complains that McCain “makes unrealistic promises” about balancing the budget within four years. By contrast, Obama’s promise to give “refundable tax credits” to millions of people who pay no income taxes, and to pay for them by “closing corporate loopholes” must strike him as a sober assessment. Ditto that for his plan to make America “more respected” by surrendering to an enemy that’s already been decimated. Then, of course, there’s his claim that his nomination was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” With Barack, all things are possible.

If Christopher Buckley wants to apologize to his father, it should be for what he’s done to the English language. He’s wasted a whole quiver of high-value Scrabble words just to parrot the mindless mantra, “Hope Change Yes We Can.”

by Daniel Clark

If you have any doubt as to who won the vice president debate, all you have to do is look at the transcript, and ask yourself how many minutes longer Sarah Palin’s political career would have lasted if she’d said some of the things that Joe Biden said.

In particular, if Palin had given the answer that Biden gave about the role of the vice president, it would now be treated as a national scandal. Not only did Biden’s remarks reveal a lack of knowledge about American civics and history, but they suggested that he doesn’t even understand the role of the office he’s running for.

“Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the Vice President of the United States,” Biden lectured. “That’s the executive branch.” Well, not quite. It’s Article II of the Constitution that deals with the executive branch; Article I defines the legislature. Both articles mention the vice president, but only Article I specifies one of his functions, by identifying him as “President of the Senate.”

Biden acknowledged this clause, but didn’t seem to understand it, when he said that the vice president’s role is, “to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote.” Actually, the vice president may preside over the Senate anytime he wishes. It’s just that he is only allowed to vote when needed to break a tie. Nobody seems to be bothered by Biden’s misunderstanding of Senate rules, though. After all, it’s not like he’s a six-term senator, or anything.

It’s been a fairly recent development that vice presidents have taken on executive initiatives, like Dan Quayle’s overseeing the Presidential Competitiveness Council, Al Gore’s ambitiously titled “reinventing government” project, and Dick Cheney’s ruling the universe from a hidden bunker with his evil cat. Early in our history, vice presidents like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson regularly presided over the Senate, since it was the only thing the Constitution explicitly authorized them to do. Adams, in particular, used that position to protect presidential powers from legislative usurpation.

Hammering his pointlessness home, Biden directly contradicted himself by saying, “The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to Congress.” Does the senator not realize that Congress and the legislature are one and the same? He strangely continued, “The idea he’s part of the legislative branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive.”

The purpose of this demented harangue was to support the senator’s fatuous claim that “Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history.” Far be it for the network “fact checkers” to point out that America once had a vice president by the name of Aaron Burr.

Any viewers who had been trying to follow Biden’s logic must have felt like the AFLAC duck after an encounter with Yogi Berra. The president of the Senate, who casts tie-breaking votes in that body, has no role in the legislature, just as the Constitution says when it entrusts him with that power. Now, let’s all go to Katie’s Restaurant for a bite to eat. It’s not nearly as busy as it used to be, now that it’s closed.

Had Gov. Palin made such a series of uninformed, contradictory and just plain silly statements, we would have seen them looped on every network and cable newscast, perhaps underscored with captions like, “Say goodnight, Gracie.” Roundtable pundits would be joking that she thought the vice president was the person who held the key to the White House liquor cabinet. Some wobbly-kneed conservatives might even notice that liberals were mocking her, and suggest on that basis that she step down. (Oh, wait a minute. That last one has happened anyway.)

Since these words came from the Democrat candidate, however, media analyses simply credited him with having “command of the issues.” In truth, Biden does not command the issues so much as scold them. The poor issues don’t even understand what they’ve done to incur his wrath.

Ironically, one of the few statements from the debate that has drawn some criticism to Sen. Biden was his claim that he spends “a lot of time” at Home Depot. This was undoubtedly one of the truest statements he’d made all night. Where else would he go, whenever he finds himself in need of a pair of foot pliers?