The assisted suicide slippery slope

The New Neo Posted on by

Medical euthanasia is legal in Belgium “if those making the decision [to die] can make their wishes clear and are suffering unbearable pain, according to a doctor’s judgement.” It’s no surprise that those categories are starting to slip and blur, and evidence of this is the recent case of a pair of identical 45-year-old brothers from Antwerp, born deaf, who found out they would be going blind, who were euthanized according to their wishes by doctors at a Belgian hospital.

The twins had spent their entire lives together, and their unbearable pain consisted of the prospect that they would be unable to see each other. From the article, it seems that the blindness had not occurred yet, but it’s difficult to tell by the way it’s written. At any rate, the issue here is not the twins’ decision to commit suicide; they could have ended their lives by themselves and we would not be reading about them. It is the participation of the medical profession with the blessing of the state that is the subject. If that was possible in a case like this, it seems that the definition of “unbearable suffering” will end up being purely subjective and/or arbitrary and/or strategic (i.e. whatever the state thinks it should be).

Dangerous. And foreseeable.

There may be more to come in Belgium and Switzerland and elsewhere:

Just days after the twins were killed Belgium’s ruling Socialists tabled a legal amendment which would allow the euthanasia of children and Alzheimer’s sufferers.

The draft legislation calls for ‘the law to be extended to minors if they are capable of discernment or affected by an incurable illness or suffering that we cannot alleviate.’

The proposed changes are likely to be approved by other parties, although no date has yet been put forward for a parliamentary debate…

A bid to tighten legal controls on assisted deaths in Switzerland and ban suicide tourism was recently rejected by the country’s parliament.

“Suicide tourism.” Now, that’s a term I’d never heard before. But it makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

Europe appears to be sliding down this particular slope, and I would not be at all surprised if the US follows. Oregon, Washington, and Montana have already set foot on it by allowing physician-assisted suicide under certain fairly strict guidelines.

There are big differences between suicide itself, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia at the request of the patient (the Belgian situation), and euthanasia by the decision of another party, as well as differences when the person is unable to move or communicate and therefore cannot act him/herself. This post would be at least ten thousand words long if I were to tackle those issues and those differences today. Instead, I merely acknowledge them.

But I will say that the story of the Belgian twins is deeply disturbing. If the medical profession saw fit to be involved in this particular case, where would the limits be in the future? Will there be any?

What about banning violent video games?

The New Neo Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Powerline makes some good points about the different reactions two suggestions to reduce violence: extending the ban on certain guns versus trying to limit violent video games (or violence in the entertainment media as a whole). Why is the first being pushed, but not the second?:

Today it was the turn of video game makers to meet with Joe Biden to talk about cures for violence. The conversation didn’t seem to go far”“no surprise there”“but the idea of regulating or banning violent video games offers a thought experiment…

I suppose Biden is just going through the motions; everyone knows that video games can’t be banned because they are protected by the First Amendment. I think the world would be a better place, and a safer place, without violent video games. But I don’t want to ban them, not only because they are constitutionally protected”“that could change”“but because only a criminal is responsible for his crime. If we start regulating all the influences to which we think the demented may be subject, there will be no room left for freedom. That seems rather obvious to me; I am not sure why it is not equally obvious to those who want to ban guns…

And if we want to cut down on spectacular mass shootings, let’s really go to the source: why do mass shooters do it, knowing, in most cases, that they are going to die? They want to go out in a blaze of glory. So why not deny them the glory? Far more effective than banning guns, movies or video games would be banning news coverage of mass shooting events…

So why don’t we do it? Is the only reason the fact that such news coverage is protected by the 1st Amendment? Maybe, but rights wax and wane over time. Why isn’t there a mass movement to restrict the 1st Amendment within reasonable limits, for the sake of the children? And guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment, so why are we even talking about gun control, if we are unwilling to talk about press control? I say, let’s talk about both, or neither.

Of course, we know the reason: it’s because liberals like the idea of banning guns much more than they like the idea of restricting the press or the entertainment industry, both of which are largely made up of liberals. But it seems to me that Hinderaker is correct about consistency here, although I also think that he is absolutely correct when he writes, “a criminal is responsible for his crime.”

Until the Warren Court in the 50s and 60s, the First Amendment was not thought to apply to the states, and so it was possible to do a lot of banning at the state and local level (remember the old “banned in Boston”)? Now any censorship is pretty much voluntary and subject to market pressures—plus a film ratings system that is a guide to the consumer, supposedly informing him/her of what to expect in a movie before going to see it.

Which comes first, a society that is shocked by the depiction of certain things in popular culture, or the official rules that govern what can be made? They work in concert, reflecting each other, following each other, and guiding each other. In the days of the Hays code for movies (1930-1968), the rules were surprisingly stringent (take a look). And it’s no coincidence that this system of rather strict censorship ended during the 60s, that famous era of hope and change.

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

Bot of the helpful hints:

Our Blog is made for many couples one of the most tedious aspects of planning a wedding is wrapping the wedding favors.

Ah yes, so tedious!

I had a small, intimate wedding. There were no wedding favors to wrap, because there were no wedding favors. I’m not sure I’d even heard of wedding favors at the time, although I had been a bridesmaid once and was given a little bracelet for my troubles.

But on looking up “wedding favors” now, I discover that the wedding favor is a little gift given to all the guests at a wedding as a sort of souvenir, and that it is not a new innovation, but a rather old custom. And I realize that I’ve been the recipient of wedding favors before, although not wrapped ones.

The most memorable was probably from a fancy wedding on Long Island that had lasted till about four in the morning (it had started late, too). There was valet parking, and when we got back into our car and drove home, we discovered that on the rear seat had been placed a copy of the Sunday NY Times (this was back when I had a high opinion of that paper; I still enjoy some parts of the Sunday section) and a large bag of about a dozen really good NY bagels.

Now, that was a wedding favor.

Approval of Congress is at 14%…and so…

The New Neo Posted on by

…what does it mean?

Approval of Congress is not only low, it’s been low for a long time. Americans do not respect their own representatives, although of course they keep electing them, perhaps because voters see no other way. And curiously, they often elect the same ones, over and over, despite their dissatisfaction. It often seems to be a case of disliking all the others rather than one’s own, the one who gets the perks for the state or the district, the one who’s the familiar name.

My knee-jerk reaction is to tend to think disapproval of Congress is an okay thing, since I share it, and it reflects what I consider to be a reasonable perception of reality. But actually, when I think about it more deeply, it occurs to me that it’s not such a great thing after all. Cynicism in the public can breed apathy, a “plague on both your houses” mentality that means that only extremists (some of them holding to extremes that I don’t agree with) will vote. Of course, in an increasing number of House districts, the results are a foregone conclusion anyway, because the district has been gerrymandered so carefully that winning the primary of a certain party means that the election’s a done deal (that’s another reason for the existence of House members who get elected over and over again as long as they stay in favor with their party and therefore are not primaried, and as long as they want to keep going back to Congress).

But with Obama as president, there’s an extra added danger to this public disapproval of Congress. Obama relies on that disapproval to a certain extent; it keeps people from blaming him as much if Congress is the one at fault. Note that his approval ratings are far higher than those of Congress, although IMHO they should be far lower (I know, I know; most Democrats are never going to disapprove of him). And with Congress’s approval ratings so low, my guess is that if Obama decides to do an end run around that pesky branch of government when and if it thwarts him (gun control and debt ceiling, to take two possible examples)—well why then, many people will probably say “more power to him”!

Teaching American history has come down to this: race, class, gender

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m old enough to remember the beginning of the push for courses that catered to special interest groups. Women’s Studies. Black Studies. Those were the big two at the beginning, and now no doubt there are many more.

At the time it seemed like the redressing of a previous omission, an expansion of knowledge rather than a contraction, a chance to look at history in a different and meaningful way. The courses were just small and specialized additions to otherwise conventional history departments that still (at least for a little while) emphasized Western Civilization and its achievements.

But the camel had gotten its nose into the tent, and that camel is very very pushy and very very well-entrenched now. In fact, it’s taken over American history, even in Texas:

The study found that U.S. history courses at both universities strongly emphasize race, class, and gender (RCG) in reading requirements. Fully 78% of faculty members at UT emphasize race, class, and gender, while 50% of faculty members at Texas A&M do the same. Likewise, 78% of UT professors have special research interests in RCG, while 64% at A&M do too.

The study contends that the strong emphasis on RCG crowds out other relevant themes in American history, such as the nation’s intellectual, military, spiritual, and economic history. The emphasis on RCG studies also influences a further narrowing of history subject matter and the tailoring of “special topics” courses, which omit the use of significant primary source documents. These narrowed-focus classes, the study finds, “seem to exist mainly to allow faculty members to teach their special interests.”

The effect: Students at two of Texas’ flagship universities are not being assigned to study such important and influential milestones as the Mayflower Compact or President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. “Only one faculty member,” the study finds, “assigned the ”˜Letter from a Birmingham jail’” or Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. Major historical figures, from John Dewey to Alexander Graham Bell to Thomas Edison and the Wright brothers, are increasingly being left out of American history courses at both universities. The result of this is that we are losing touch with our history, replacing it with an overemphasis on grievances.

And of course, this is hardly limited to Texas:

“These trends extend beyond the two flagship Texas universities,” the study report says. “History departments at other universities around the United States share similar characteristics, such as faculty members’ narrow specializations; high emphasis on race, class, and gender; exclusion of key concepts; and failure to provide broad coverage of U.S. history.”

Has any other nation in history been so focused on self-flagellation? We may be destroying and Balkanizing ourselves as a country and jeopardizing our future, but we certainly are a wonderfully penitent group. And so diverse!

Obama’s second-term foreign policy: not really like Ike

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a riddle for you: How is Obama like Eisenhower?

My answer would be: they both love[d] to play golf.

David Ignatius sees a great many more similarities. Seriously, he does.

I repeat: he is serious.

After I wrote the beginning of this post, I noticed that Scott Johnson at Powerline mentions the Eisenhower article, and then points us to this piece by Barry Rubin about Obama’s “noxious nominations.”

Here’s Rubin speaking of the “four horsemen” of Obama, Kerry, Hagel, and Brennan:

Their ideas and views are horrible. This is especially so on Middle Eastern issues but how good are they on anything else? True, they are all hostile to Israel but this isn’t the first time people who think that way held high office. Far worse is that they are pro-Islamist as well as being dim-witted about U.S. interests in a way no foreign policy team has been in the century since America walked onto the world stage.

Brennan is no less than the father of the pro-Islamist policy. What Obama is saying is this: My policy of backing Islamists has worked so well, including in Egypt, that we need to do even more! All those analogies to 1930s’ appeasement are an understatement. Nobody in the British leadership said, “I have a great idea. Let’s help fascist regimes take power and then they’ll be our friends and become more moderate! That’s the equivalent of what Brennan does.

”“They are all stupid people. Some friends said I shouldn’t write this because it is a subjective judgment and sounds mean-spirited. But honest, it’s true. Nobody would ever say that their predecessors””Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, and David Petraeus””were not intelligent and accomplished. But these guys are simply not in that category. Smart people can make bad judgments; regular people with common sense often make bad judgments less often. But stupid, arrogant people with terrible ideas are a disaster.

What do I have to say about that? I note that it is certainly no surprise. None whatsoever. Nor should it be a surprise to anyone. And most Americans aren’t paying attention anyway; the reason Obama was elected was that Romney was going to take away women’s right to abortion or birth control or tampons or that he wasn’t the kind of guy you’d want to have a beer with or that he looked down on the 47% or that he wasn’t conservative enough or some combination of those things.

The reason that Obama chose these particular people over all the other possibilities is threefold:

(1) He agrees with them on foreign policy, and they agree with him.

(2) They are basically non-entities in their own right (Kerry is the one who’s most his own man, and the only thing he’s ever really done, besides run a lackluster presidential campaign, was to throw away his medals and testify that American forces in Vietnam operated “in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan”). They are virtually certain to be Obama’s willing handmaidens and not threaten him in any way.

(3) As a side benefit, these nominations will outrage the right.

Even if somehow a Republican—or at least someone to the right of Obama on foreign policy—were to be elected in 2016, the damage these four people can and probably will have done is likely to be severe. And people the world over will have realized (in fact, they already do realize) that American foreign policy is more mutable than it used to be, that the range of possibilities and fluctuations has widened, and that America’s word cannot be relied on.

What a guy.

Just like Ike.

Does this mean the apocalypse is coming?

The New Neo Posted on by

Scene at the Western Wall in Jerusalem:

wallSnow

But don’t despair–maybe the snow’s a good sign:

YNetNews spoke to “prominent kabbalist” Rabbi David Batzri who said the snow was an indicator of forgiveness from God.

“The kabbalists torment themselves and pray for snow, which is a sign that the Jewish people’s sins are being forgiven and erased,” Batzri said.

A quote to note

The New Neo Posted on by

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
— C.S. Lewis

Holder’s a holdover

The New Neo Posted on by

In Obama’s second term, Eric Holder is a holdover, according to Ben Smith at Buzzfeed, who calls Holder Obama’s “heat shield.

The reason he stays, despite his unpopularity? Holder (like Obama) is a completely political animal, and is Obama’s man:

In choosing Holder, a well-respected but low-profile Washington lawyer and former Deputy Attorney General who joined his presidential campaign early, Obama chose trust over symbolism. The Attorney General wields immense and independent power. A high-profile political figure chosen, like most Cabinet secretaries, for traditional reasons of politics, may act independently and do the president real harm…[Holder] carries no brief for Obama’s staff, and has clashed with the likes of David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. But he is extremely close to the president.

…Holder lacks the independence of Bush A.G. John Ashcroft and the professionalism of Holder’s immediate predecessor, former federal judge Michael Mukasey. “Holder is and remains very much about politics.”…

And those politics are exactly and precisely whatever Obama wants them to be.

This is something my gut told me a long time ago (if you want to read the whole thing, it’s still pretty apropos). I’ll repeat here what I wrote then:

So I would like to clarify: by using the word “proxy” in Holder’s case, I meant something different than the usual Cabinet appointee, the usual presidential representative. I could be wrong about this, but my gut senses a close identification between Obama and Holder, an almost-Vulcan-mind-meld between them on the legal issues involved in fighting terrorism. This is not a compliment to either man; I think both are sadly misguided.

Holder serves a purpose for Obama. If there is an issue on which the President is somewhat loathe to express his opinion fully, perhaps because he knows it will be unpopular or controversial, I believe that Obama purposely uses Holder as cover, to draw the opposition’s criticism and deflect it from himself.

That’s that “heat shield” thing that Smith is talking about when he writes:

“One thing that people never understood about Holder’s importance in this administration is how he has absorbed so many attacks that could otherwise land in the White House,” said one former administration official who admires the Attorney General…

“He’s got the scars to show for it, but it’s better to have a Cabinet official take those hits than have them land on the president. After all, the Attorney General’s not on the ballot,” the former official said…

“President Obama probably could not have found a more pliant attorney general,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, who accused Holder of looking the other way on Administration scandals.

Indeed.

[NOTE: Obama’s Cabinet as a whole is shaping up about as expected, isn’t it? Jonah Goldberg has a good word (actually, two) for at least part of what motivates Obama when he nominated Hagel: spite, and pettiness. Obama is actually the first president I can personally remember to whom I’d say those two words apply. Perhaps Nixon, in some sense, at least privately—but not in his public moves, such as his Cabinet appointments.]