I have not written about the Terri Schiavo case because it is too complex, too multilayered, and too steeped in unknown or unknowable facts for me - indeed for most people - to have a fully informed opinion.
I don't know - and neither do you - if Michael Shiavo is trying to murder his wife or trying to fulfill her stated wishes for just such a scenario. I don't know what Terri Schiavo would want - and neither do you - because she didn't tell us via a living will. We have only the word of her husband who assures us that his wife once said she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way, and we have her parents, who love their daughter and desire only to care for her.
I do know that the Congress did the wrong thing, intervened where it had no Constitutional right, and solved nothing.
In coming years, political historians might look back and try to pinpoint the day or week or month that the Republican Party shed the last vestiges of its small-government philosophy. If and when they do, the week just past should make the short list. For it was in this last week that the Republican-controlled Congress made it clear that it sees no area of American life -- none too trivial and none too intimate -- that the federal government should not permeate with its power.
It looks like we're heading for a terrible result here. Congress has passed legislation that raises serious federalism and rule-of-law concerns. And Terry Schiavo is probably going to die at the hands of the state anyway.
The Surpremes got it wrong--donchaknow!
I am certain I am not the first to post on this, but had yesterday's shooter in Minnesota not turned the gun on himself, he would never have been eligible for the death penalty because of the recent Supreme Court decision. He killed young people, teachers, a security guard and his grandfather, but the Supreme Court has ruled that no civilized society could even consider executing him for his massacre.
That is an absurd result, and the Supreme Court's foolishness is underscored by yesterday's carnage.
Our International hit men
President Bush has infuriated liberal Democrats and other leftists by nominating John Bolton as ambassaor to the United Nations and Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank. The opposition to Bolton's nomination is rational. Bolton's statements about the U.N. are quite controversial, and therefore it makes sense that his nomination is also controversial. Should our representative to the U.N. be someone who takes such a dim view of that organization? I think so. But I also understand the presumption to the contrary.
The Wolfowitz nomination is a different matter. Wolfowitz has a long history of supporting the World Bank's goals and objectives, and no history of disparaging that organization in any fundamental way. If one reads the second half of this Washington Post story, it becomes clear that Wolfowitz is an excellent fit for the job.
The opposition to Wolfowitz is based not on his qualifications or issues of "fit," but on his role in helping to formulate administration policy on Iraq and, more generally, Middle East democratization. And the intensity of that oppostion is based on the left's distorted view of that role. In the left's cosmology, administration policy has been hijacked by dreaded neo-conservatives with Jewish sounding names like Wolfowitz. Thus, the left (and the many Democratic politicians under its sway) views Wolfowitz as too evil to run the World Bank or, more precisely, too evil to be rewarded with any position (much of the left holds the World Bank in lower regard than John Bolton holds the U.N.). In short, the oppostion to Wolfowitz stems from the Democrats' new role as the "permanent opposition," not from any good faith concern about the future of the World Bank.
Nothing lasts forever. But the more the Democrats engage in this sort of posturing, the more permanent their opposition status is likely to be.
Can this guy be any more transparent?
Kofi Annan has released his report detailing his plans to reform the United Nations. In a speech to the General Assembly yesterday, Kofi made several proposals. One is that he wants rich nations like the U.S. to spend .7 percent of their GDP on "official development assistance." That's a fancy phrase for "international welfare." Keep in mind that the gross domestic product of the United States is something like $11 trillion a year. Kofi's little seven-tenths of a percent works out be several billion dollars. And we're supposed to just hand this money over to the corrupt United Nations? Right. They seem to be managing money so well these days...and certainly Kofi's stewardship of the oil-for-food program demonstrates that. How many rapists/peace keepers can you feed, clothe and house with a billion dollars?
Kofi the Korrupt also linked prosperity to the environment...making the nonsensical statement that the depletion of natural resources is somehow bad for business. Actually, if a nation is using natural resources, that's how you know they're prospering. Take a look at the African continent. Is there a continent more rich in natural resources? Africa has natural resources coming out the whazooo ... but it is still mired in poverty. If not depleting natural resources is good for business we would all be driving African automobiles and importing African HD televisions. But capitalism and prosperity is not the goal of the United Nations. The goal is the creation of a one-world government ... under the auspices of the UN.
And one of Kofi's most ridiculous schemes is his proposal to enlarge the security council. He wants to expand it from 15 nations to 24, adding countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America. But the U.N. security council is for nations that provide security, weapons and have a large, ready military. It is not a seat to be handed out to some tin horn dictator in Africa as political patronage.
Does the United Nations even have a point anymore?
