Click on WORD or PDF below for full content
David Warren reports on Canada’s new “human rights” wrinkle.
… Canada’s taxpayer-supported “human rights” apparatchiks have decided that it is not yet time to directly challenge freedom of the press. They will bide their time, and return to the routine business of staging quasi-legal proceedings against defenceless victims, with no resources for lawyers, and no access to media publicity, until they have acquired more power.
That power is on the way. For instance, Dalton McGuinty’s government has recently committed many millions to a huge expansion of the Ontario kangaroo-court system, opening new star chamber facilities across the province, and providing a fresh supply of publicly funded lawyers and activists to assist the enemies of freedom in making their prosecutions. The argument behind all such “public investments” is the same: that complainants need a “resolution process” that is less “formal” than the one in our legitimate court system. In other words, they need kangaroo courts in which their victims are stripped of due process.
But a much more significant advance has now been proposed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, to bring the tyranny of “political correction” to bear on its own membership. As usual, the process was being advanced in the dark, away from the possibility of public discussion, and was only pried open in the course of the last week when a large number of physicians, surgeons, and even politicians found out about it.
As I’ve written before, the “human rights” revolution that has been sweeping through Canada’s law schools and legal establishment depends on an Orwellian inversion of the term, “human rights.” For human rights were traditionally conceived as the individual’s legal and moral resort against the arbitrary power of unaccountable organizations. In the new definition, “human rights” become a device by which unaccountable organizations may crush that individual. …
Russia’s Pravda has a columnist as unhinged as Keith Olbermann. This Condi Rice rant was over the top.
… The constant arrogance and hypocrisy of this failed female makes it that much more apparent that here is a person way out of her depth. Instead of regarding sensitive issues from a balanced viewpoint as she is supposed to do, this incompetent loud-mouthed, bad-mannered, bullshit-mongering bimbo takes one side, ignores the other and then speaks down from a holier-than-thou platform as if she were on a lecture dias.
This is not a classroom, Condoleeza Rice, and you are not a diplomat. You are a liar, a cheap, shallow, failed, wannabe actress on the diplomatic stage. This is the real world and out here, you have to be prepared to face up to your responsibilities.
For a start, you have failed to mention one single time the Georgian war crimes against 2.000 Russian civilians on the night of 7/8 August. Why have you systematically refused to admit they happened? Why have you not mentioned the devastation of Tskhinvali by your allies’ forces? Why do you continue to support the Saakashvili regime? …
Pickerhead has been looking for a clear concise explanation of Obama’s votes on protections for children born subsequent to a failed abortion. It is beginning to look like Obama has a real problem with his votes on this subject when a state legislator. And, he has been lying about it. Follow the thread here as we visit various blog and websites that feature many of our favorites writers.
John Fund is first.
… “Senator Obama got caught in the twisting of the truth,” says Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. “His campaign was later forced to put out a clarifying statement that it was the Senator himself who was actually wrong on the facts. He did indeed vote against a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was identical to the federal legislation that sought to protect babies who survive abortions.”
Mr. Obama’s stand on the issue is significant. The federal “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” sailed through the Senate in 2001 on a vote of 98 to 0. The bill was supported by Senator Barbara Boxer, the body’s leading pro-choice spokeswoman, and was not opposed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. By getting his facts wrong, Mr. Obama is now in the difficult position of trying to explain why he voted against a bill that the legislative record shows addressed infanticide rather than abortion. …
You would think the mainstream media might get interested if a presidential nominee got caught lying–as Barack Obama did–on an issue of intense controversy, which the Born Alive Infant Protection Act certainly is. Still (I know you’re stunned) the mainstream media isn’t much interested, although the reversal combines all the key elements of a good political story: lying, a hot-button issue, and a major candidate gaffe. But it is about Barack Obama. So . . . I guess we get virtually noting from the mainstream media.
Rich Lowry has a helpful summary and cogent take here. He concludes: “Here’s one of the central dilemmas of Obama’s candidacy. Nothing in his career supports his contention that he’s a post-partisan healer. …
… this issue has now traversed into the matter of public character. Obama accused the National Right to Life Committee of lying because it said that he voted to kill legislation that included a “neutrality clause” he now claims was the sine qua non for his support for pro-life legislation. If the neutrality clause was in the legislation, Obama now says, he would have supported legislation protecting the life of newly born children who had survived an abortion. But National Right to Life has, in Rich’s words, “unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.” So Obama was, at best, wrong in recalling his own past position. At worst, Obama himself is misrepresenting his position and, in accusing the National Right to Life Committee of lying, is doing so himself. …
As Dean Barnett points out, the only people who had a worse summer than Barack Obama were the Obamaphiles and media pundits (okay, there is an big overlap between those two groups). The latter seemed to have misread utterly the candidates’ performances during the summer. While the Obama’s fans cooed and kvelled, the public slowly but surely seemed to have tired or soured on The One. Could Obama’s shortcomings (”preening narcissism, a fondness for platitudes, a tendency to whine and a potentially fatal lack of substance”) have gone undetected by the media mavens, while ordinary folks — those religion-clinging, gun-hugging, drilling-happy voters — caught on? …
… Therefore, even if we accept any one of Obama’s explanations regarding his vote against Born-Alive, we’re holding him to an incredibly low standard for someone who intends to lead the nation. If he supports the principle of Born-Alive, the question isn’t why he voted against it — the question should be, “Sen. Obama, given your education, skills and background why didn’t you take the relatively simple step of amending the draft so that the bill would work?” Isn’t that what we expect from a leader?
Obama voted “present” more than 100 times in the Illinois state legislature. Why did he rouse himself to vote “No” on this one?
Obama has found time to ponder the habeas rights of foreign terrorists but no time to ponder the rights of babies born alive? Is it that far above his pay grade?
… It doesn’t help matters, of course, that Obama’s story is falling apart. Obama has been insisting that if the wording of the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection legislation had been similar to the wording of federal legislation, he would have voted for the legislation. But as the Washington Post reports today, “Obama aides acknowledged yesterday that the wording of the state and federal bills was virtually identical.”
Oops.
It’s worth noting as well that the effort by the New York Times to provide a political life-raft to Obama on this issue has been taken apart by my colleague Yuval Levin here.
While a state senator in Illinois, Barack Obama cast the most extreme vote imaginable on abortion, worse even than supporting partial-birth abortion. Children who had been targeted for abortion but were born alive were still not safe; in Barack Obama’s America, they still do not possess rights or the protection of the law. Obama’s effort to explain his vote away is in the process of collapsing. And the gap between him and McCain continues to close. For the first time in this campaign, Obama is on the defensive, a bit rattled, and worried. He has reason to be.
Along with the Washington Post item Seth mentions below, the New York Times also has a “Check Point” piece on Obama and the Born-Alive controversy this morning. It tries in every imaginable way to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and to accept or excuse every one of the contradictory stories the Obama campaign offers to explain his inexplicable vote, but it still cannot avoid the simple fact that, as the article puts it, “The statute Congress passed in 2002 and the one the Illinois committee rejected a year later are virtually identical.” Indeed, they do not differ in substance at all. …
While most on the right are celebrating McCain’s performance Saturday night at the Saddleback Church, Kathleen Parker has another take.
At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister — no matter how beloved — is supremely wrong.
It is also un-American.
For the past several days, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won.
Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn’t a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court.
Suffice it to say, each of the candidates’ usual supporters felt validated in their choices. McCain convinced and comforted with characteristic certitude those most at ease with certitude; Obama convinced and comforted with his characteristic intellectual ambivalence those most at ease with ambivalence.
The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state.
The loser was America. …
John Stossel on energy independence.
It’s amazing how ideas with no merit become popular merely because they sound good.
Most every politician and pundit says “energy independence” is a great idea. Presidents have promised it for 35 years. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were self-sufficient, protected from high prices, supply disruptions and political machinations?
The hitch is that even if the United States were energy independent, it would be protected from none of those things. To think otherwise is to misunderstand basic economics and the global marketplace.
To be for “energy independence” is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer’s floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving “energy independence” would expose us to unnecessary risks — such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn — and ethanol — shortages. …
A couple of important medical breakthroughs reported. London Times reports researchers have discovered how to manufacture blood from stem cells.
Vials of human blood have been grown from embryonic stem cells for the first time during research that promises to provide an almost limitless supply suitable for transfusion into any patient.
The achievement by scientists in the United States could lead to trials of the blood within two years, and ultimately to an alternative to donations that would transform medicine.
If such blood was made from stem cells of the O negative blood type, which is compatible with every blood group but is often in short supply, it could be given safely to anybody who needs a transfusion.
Stem-cell-derived blood would also eliminate the risk of transmitting the pathogens that cause hepatitis, HIV and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) through transfusions. …
The Economist on a new lease on life for the internal combustion engine.
SMALL cars sometimes struggle to climb steep hills. But a converted Chevrolet Lacetti has something special to help it along. Instead of having to keep changing down and revving harder to ascend a winding Alpine-type test track, the engine can cruise almost to the summit in top gear. This is because the car benefits from one of the developments that in these more economical and greener times promises to give the petrol engine a new lease of life.
Old technologies have a habit of fighting back when new ones come along. This is not surprising because they often have an enormous amount of design, engineering and production knowledge invested in them—especially so in the case of car engines. So new hybrid systems, fuel cells and electric motors will be chasing a moving target. The internal combustion engine will be getting better too.
The Lacetti is just one example. It gets its extra oomph from a supercharger forcing more air into the combustion chambers of its engine. This is an old idea that used to speed up 1920s racing cars, like “blower” Bentleys. But their engines tended not to last very long. With stronger engines, superchargers have been staging a comeback in big cars. The one in the Lacetti is different: it is a dual-speed supercharger that provides its highest boost at low speeds. This gives the car a huge 40% increase in torque, or pulling power. …