ROGER SIMON COLUMN
JANUARY 24, 2005
SIMON SAYS:
Oh, admit it: Even though you may have contributed money, you got sick of the tsunami coverage long before it was over.
Are there still women named Trixie and guys named Gus?
Just as I was about to borrow a friend's line and call George Bush's recent inaugural address his "We'll give you liberty or we'll give you death speech", the White House decides that he didn't really mean it that way. He was just kidding. Disregard. Listen to the State of the Union instead.
Forget Red states and Blue states. The real difference between people in America is whether they hang stuff from their rear-view mirrors or not.
People who don't brush off the snow from the tops of their cars should be beaten with sticks. (Try driving behind one of them.)
Roe v. Wade was handed down 32 years ago last week. But how long will its basic holding last? What would a Supreme Court with new justices appointed by President Bush do about abortion? Well, the least likely scenario is the one some people want - - or fear - - the most: that at least five justices will decide a fetus has 14th Amendment protections from the moment of conception and, therefore, abortion is illegal everywhere in the United States. This is the "riots in the streets" scenario that not even the White House really wants. A more likely scenario is that five or more justices vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and let the 50 states each decide what to do about abortion. But how likely is that? There are currently three to four votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, leaving five justices who will probably continue to say a woman has a Constitutional right to an abortion before the fetus is viable and even afterwards if the health of the mother is at stake. Could President Bush get the opportunity to appoint enough new justices to change this? Well, there has not been a new justice appointed since 1994, the longest period without an appointment in modern times.
OK, I admit it: I don't have broadband at home and I still manage to live. (Though not well.)
I don't know why, but I find Bravo's "Project Runway" hypnotically watchable.
The United States should not use torture for at least three reasons:
1. It is immoral. There has to be a difference between good guys and bad guys or what are we fighting for?
2. It puts our own soldiers at greater risk of torture if they are captured.
3. It is ineffective. Information gained by torture is worthless. A person will say anything to get the torture to stop.
If, after a snowstorm, you go to all the effort to dig out a parking space in front of your house on a public street, is it OK to "reserve" that space by putting an old kitchen chair there? And what if someone tosses your chair aside and parks in your space while you are at work? Well, in Chicago, we used to drag out our garden hoses and encase the offending car in a block of ice. It was wet and cold work, but worth it to see the expression on the dweeb's face when he got back to his car.
Let me get this straight: The Bush administration paid a conservative commentator nearly a quarter of a million dollars to support Bush on TV? How goofy is that? Every conservative commentator I know supports Bush for free.
Do you work for someone who barges into meetings and says, "Can I have the room?" Quit.
Posted by rsimon at January 24, 2005 03:03 PM