Trying Not to Overreact

It's so easy to overreact to news stories these days, especially when the entire nation has become so polarized over issues ranging from health care to gay marriage and everything in between. Thus when I saw the headline "Aborted fetus cells used in beauty creams" I found myself feeling that gut-wrenching rage almost immediately. All sorts of pre-conceived biases and prejudices came wallowing up from somewhere deep in my digestive tract.

Almost reluctantly I followed the thread from The Jawa Report (a bunch of hyper-reactive bloggists if any such exist), through The Interested Participant (one of the Report's frequent bloggers), and on to the actual article posted yesterday at The Washington Times. All the while I fully expected my blood pressure to skyrocket.

Written by Valerie Richardson, the article seems meant to provoke precisely the kind of strong emotional response one expects from the pro-life movement when it comes to any discussion of abortion. Richardson quotes extensively from Children of God for Life, a watchdog group that apparently "monitors use of fetal material in medical products." The target of their wrath is a company called Neocutis, Inc, and they are said to have used "skin-cell proteins from an aborted fetus" in their anti-aging creams.

So far, so good. This is exactly the sort of thing that gets our pro-life dander up because we 1) hold all human life, even aborted fetuses, to be sacred, and 2) always suspect that the right-to-choicers would stop at nothing to profit from their perfidy. And, I suspect, the Washington Times would love nothing more than to see this issue become a major controversy which, understandably, would sell papers.

Still, the article bears deeper reading.

[DISCLAIMER: I know nothing of either Children of God for Life, or Neocutis, Inc. beyond what I read in this article. This opinion I express here is based solely on the strength of this single article and no other research has been made or attempted.]

The fetus (singular) was that of a 14 week old child who, doctors had determined, would not make it to term.

Now we enter that grayest of areas in the entire abortion debate. It has often been said by pro-life politicians that they only support abortion in the case of medical necessity. With few other details available to us, we may presume that a difficult decision had been made by the parents. Certainly there are strong emotions even for this kind of decision; many parents would choose to carry the baby until the inevitable end, even if that end were a miscarriage. Yet other parents may not be able to face the emotional drain for any longer than is absolutely necessary. This is one of those times that we cannot second guess the participants. This was a personal decision and the reasons are theirs alone.

Next comes another hard decision. Post-mortem organ donations have been commonplace for many years now. Vital organs, skin and bone grafts, even full facial replacements have been made possible by those who decided at some point in their lives to donate their bodies for that purpose upon death. In this case, Neocutis claims that the cells harvested from the skin of this baby were used to develop a treatment for "severe dermatological injuries."

Having nevered suffered a "severe dermatological injury" myself, I can only imagine the pain and emotional stress caused by third degree burns, for example. Were I thus afflicted, I would likely be crying out for any available treatment. The provenance of that treatment would be of lesser import to me at that moment.

So, if the company's statement is in fact true, that makes the headline of this article somewhat misleading. The cells weren't used in mere "beauty creams" as the headline would have us believe, but for something that may well have healing properties for someone in critical need. Beauty creams smack of vanity and the hypocrisy of ever-younger-appearing Hollywood elitists. But a dermatological treatment is something used in healing — whether physical or emotional. But healing nonetheless.

Hence I find that I am not quite ready to jump on the boycott demanded by the watchdogs in this case. Given the circumstances, the choices made, and the outcome, I choose to leave this one be. All I would ask is that all women give such careful, even prayerful, consideration to the young lives entrusted to their care, especially when those young lives have no ability to speak up in their own defense.

When Veeps Debate

Just hopping around different blogs and news orgs to see initial responses to tonight's debate. I think my own perceptions are confirmed: Palin delivered.

To his credit, Biden made no major gaffes tonight. Did he misstate facts? He did. But at least he didn't resort to any of his "Hillary would have been a better choice" thrillers. Big relief for Obama, I'm thinking. I sometimes wonder if Obama doesn't have those moments like Dan Akroyd in "My Fellow Americans." Oh, Lord. Please don't let him start quoting lyrics.

But where Biden has had a couple of months now to campaign for his new boss (and, subsequently, spend time backtracking on all the nasty things he'd said about Obama during the primaries), Palin has only had a bit more than a month to prepare for this one opportunity to meet her opponent in open combat.

Palin's preparations have included two of the biggest travesties ever called "interviews" with major networks. What Palin said was fine. The way the networks framed the questions, then edited her responses was criminal. That neither interview succeeded in tanking McCain's standing in the polls is remarkable, and says perhaps more about Palin's value to this campaign than any of her stump speeches.

Palin's strengths are two-fold: she has a command of the facts that support her positions (and, by extension, her boss's), and she has an engaging personality that probably makes many liberal alarmists want to hurl. Irrespective of debate rules, Palin disarmed Biden before the debate even started with her "may I call you Joe?" greeting. However much a man of the people Biden may try to portray, Palin could have just come straight out of a Connecticut kitchen; in command and ready to roll up her sleeves and work.

I don't think Biden quite knew how to parse all of that. And Ifill hadn't even asked her first question yet.

Were there cringe moments for me? Absolutely. I remain unconvinced about the bailout bill, and hope it fails to scrape enough votes tomorrow. I agree that certain restrictions are required in the mortgage industry, and all predatory practices need to be outlawed. Ditto holding CEO's accountable for their intentional stupidity. What worries me is the "oversight" built into the bill. Government interference ALWAYS equals higher costs passed on to the taxpayers, and this will be no different. Palin is a little too eager to support this deadly "rescue plan."

[Quick sidebar: Did anyone else choke when Alan Mulally of Ford characterized the auto industry's $85 billion bailout as "just a loan?" No? Just me, then.]

There were also the obvious efforts of Gwen Ifill to bail Biden out of uncomfortable exchanges. She threw him quite a few more life preservers than she did for Palin. To Palin's credit, however, she needed far fewer of them. The only frustrating part was that she thus missed a few opportunities to really put Biden in his place. She was gracious about it all, though, which wins her points on style.

Taken altogether, a very good performance by Palin tonight. I would hope that it helps give McCain a bit of a bounce in the polls, but I'll settle for him keeping the spread to single digits at this point. He still has two more debates of his own to handle, and we're not out of the woods yet.

I'm Still No Fan

Didn't tune in to the debate until about midway through, when they were already discussing foreign affairs. This is actually a relief, since the economy just gives me a headache, and I really don't believe either candidate has any clue how to fix it anyway. They'll just naturally pick whichever political solution fits with their anticipated base of voters and go for it.

It was interesting to note the opportunities McCain missed. I agree with Michelle Malkin that McCain didn't make any noteworthy boo-boos during the (part of the) debate (that I bothered to watch). But he noticeably missed opportunities to really slam the door on Obama's particularly naïve world view. McCain never really answered Obama's stated goal of "restoring America's reputation" with the world. Started re-hashing his already scored point that Iraq is still a fundamental key to our success in the whole war on terrorism.

Meh.

Both men cut across each other frequently and forcefully enough that no one will be accused of being a shrinking violet. To this old conservative's eyes, though, Obama looked more and more tense as the debate progressed. His noticeable hesitation when attempting to respond to McCain's bracelet story was particularly telling. He actually had to glance down to remind himself of the man's name. Not a gaffe, per se, but an indicator that the war is for Obama something to be closed out and distanced from sooner rather than correctly. He's not interested in a lasting solution in Iraq. He's interested in how the world views that solution.

I also don't think the rest of Obama's base has got to be thrilled with their Anointed One's stated desire to close out the Iraqi theater, while at the same time ramping up in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hey, war is war, guys, and if Iraq is unpopular, why should Afghanistan or Pakistan be any more popular as a place to spill American blood?

I also have to wonder how Russia and China are ever expected to consider US interests by helping with sanctions against Iran. Given Russia's continuing "imperialist" tendencies of late, and China's continual thumbing of noses at any human rights violations, I just don't see either one of them getting excited about helping us prevent Iran from going nuclear. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see nuclear centrifuges in Iran with parts made in Russia and/or China.

So I obviously give the nod to McCain, even though he muffed quite a few chances to put this upstart in his place. I heard absolutely nothing that I wasn't expecting from either candidate tonight, nor was I particularly impressed with either man's debating style. (CNN was hilarious with their little "instant audience reaction" graphic. Gee, look at that... the overall average goes up when Obama is talking — even before he actually answers the question — and goes down when McCain speaks. What a shocker. Could it be that CNN viewers are in the tank for Obama? Nah... That's cynical, even for a Republican.)

Woody ranks this one: Big Hairy Deal. (Not!)

Question of note in the Woody household: Jelly Woodyette asked, "Daddy? What did he say about torture?" My first political discussion with Daddy's little girl. *sigh*

No Fan of Debates, Either

Sigh.

I was really kind of hoping this one would be cancelled. There are two reasons, primarily:

1. I still think the financial crisis is more critical. Yeah, we need to know what our potential leaders think, but this crisis is going to affect more people in this country for a longer time than a mere 4 or even 8 year administration ever will. We need to get this one right, even though I fear we will not.

2. Along the lines of knowing what our potential leaders think, debates in modern politics don't do that. Here's the rub: thanks to modern media, the internet, and a plethora of opinionated people (present company included), if we don't know the candidates by this time after more than a year of listening to their dribble, the debate ain't gonna fill that void. The one possible exception to this axiom is Sarah Palin. Still relatively unknown, even to those who are throwing their whole-hearted support her way (including your gracious Blog Host), the VP debate may yet reveal some qualities about Palin that have not yet been reported. This is especially true since the MSM weevils insist on reporting everything BUT where Palin stands on the issues. Her "interviews" with Gibson and Couric were both carefully transcripted so as to show her as not having ready answers to anything, and made her statement about getting back to Couric on one specific question seem weak. It was a perfectly reasonable response to a question designed as a media "gotcha."

Otherwise, debates in modern politics are the functional equivalent of beauty pageants. They are designed by the same geniuses that long ago decided to cater to America's incredible shrinking attention span by providing us everything we need to know in soundbites of 1 minute or less. May as well dress McCain and Obama in swimsuits, have them pivot a time or two, then answer "The Question" (answer: world peace!) for the benefit of our media judges, whose opinions of who won seem to be the only ones that matter.

Will I watch the debates? Maybe. I'm definitely more interested in the Vice Presidential debate than the Presidential ones, if more for the potential entertainment value than the political "capital" that will be claimed by both sides. Debates are fascinating things. They seem to mirror our predilection for so-called "reality TV." It's like watching a season of "Survivor: Washington, D. C." for two years. The debates are designed to show how the contestants can outmaneuver each other, stab each other in the back, make alliances they have no intention of ever keeping, and generally showing what schmucks they are. It's not politics at its finest.

So with morbid fascination, America will watch tonight's debate between McCain and Obama. My prediction: each side will claim victory on principle and no one's mind will be made up.

Sigh.

Ordinary Conservatives to Coulter: "Not Helping!"

It says something about modern culture that no one in high visibility positions of the media (whether news or entertainment) seems able to communicate without going for the "zinger." That one sound bite guaranteed to catapult them back into the limelight, where they will spend the next umpteen months having to defend themselves.

Et tu, Ann?

I have admired some things Coulter has said in the past because they show that many conservatives are not afraid to confront the insanity we see in the so-called "progressive" movement from the political left. "Progressive" is another word for "irresponsible" in most cases, as it denotes the kind of philosophy that worships at the altars of "choice" (abortion), "diversity" (gay marriage), and "immigration reform" (entitlement programs). As a conservative I find these things unpalatable, and I've certainly never been shy about saying so. Count me firmly among those who count entitlement programs as socially irredeeming, gay marriage as just another attack on the traditional family unit, and abortion as pre-meditated murder in most cases (not all cases, but that's a subject for a much later date).

No matter what my views may be, however, and no matter how passionately I believe those views, I see absolutely nothing of value in lowering ourselves into the depths of bitterness and gall that generate the kinds of filthy mud-slinging we've seen in recent decades in our on-going national debate. Vehemently disagreeing with an opponent is one thing; calling that opponent a "faggot," even indirectly, is worthless.

It's as if every nationally visible firebrand - conservative, liberal, and everything in-between - attended the same twelve-step program that I attended briefly in the 90's. "Speaking your mind, even if it's profane, is therapeutic," they said. This is the same kind of empowerment and enablement that has created an entire generation of comics who can't generate any true comedy of their own without resorting to what used to be shocking and vulgar language. This verbal dysentery has now spilled over into what used to be a reasoned and insightful discussion of the issues we all face. Global warming, the war, gun control, gangs; these are topics that need reason and insight, not an ability to out-shout or out-profane the other side.

Wanna know what effect profanity and name-calling have on Woody and his family? We have no idea who you are, because you have made yourselves irrelevant in our lives. Truly. Do you think this family ever has seen or ever will see "South Park?" Not a chance. Do you know how nervous I get whenever a movie comes out that we think we'd like to see but worry about it because it has Robin Williams in it? We generally don't see those movies in theaters anymore because Mrs. Woody and I feel a strong need to pre-screen them before we let the kids see them.

Well, Ann Coulter has just placed herself in the same category as Margaret Cho. One is a failed comic who tries to impress us with her "social awareness" and sewer-mouth, while the other is a failing pundit who can only express herself in terms of perceived liberal inhumanity.

John Edwards learned the hard way what happens when one allows guttersnipes to represent one's image to the nation. You become that image, even if that may be an unfair representation. You assume responsibility for the actions of those who are associated with you. At least, you assume that responsibility in the eyes and minds of your intended audience. Whether or not that may be fair, it's still a fact. Your reality is created by your audience's perceptions. You can't escape it.

I refuse to read Kos because this is a world that thinks comparing people with insulting bodily functions is funny, and who seriously believe that assassinating the Vice President is not only funny, but necessary. I don't need people like that running my country. I have a hard enough time trusting the ones that don't talk that way.

Which is precisely why, Ann, what you said at CPAC - joke or not - did absolutely no good to the conservative cause. We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be able to express our ideas without insulting the honor of the office we're striving to capture. That is why the candidates are backing away from you. Sure you're an intelligent pundit. You definitely have a firm grasp on the issues that most concern us. But you're also a loose cannon, and candidates do well to separate themselves from loose cannons. So do we average, ordinary conservatives.

Pack it up, Ann. You're not helping.

Wingnuts v. Moonbats

Fetching Jen and I don't always agree. Some of her positions in the last election with respect to our ballot initiatives here in California I just couldn't get behind, but my disagreements with her have always been amicable. (This is strictly a one-sided relationship, I hasten to add - Jen and I do not truly communicate other than when I troll her blog and make an occasional comment.)

I find her commentaries to be just a little more saucy than my own, but largely she holds the conservative torch fairly well. This is all to the good. She fully understands what she believes and has no problem stating that in her writing.

I have to say, though, that my attraction to her blog has less to do with what she's written, and more to do with the comments she gets from a few anonymous lefties.

It's altogether too easy to paint these characters with the same stroke of the brush. Reading their comments, one would gather that they have been well indoctrinated by the Kos Machine. That is to say, they spend more time making MTV-spawned personal attacks against the author ("You stink.") and less time arguing her more salient points ("You don't like Kerry. You stink."). Then, of course, they wait for guys like me to jump in and accuse them of just that so they can take the Victim POV and claim that we are all shills of the Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly triumvirate. (Did I mention that I never watch or listen to any of these gentlemen?)

Yeesh.

One such commenter to this post, wherein Jen links to some older commentary by Mark Steyn, went so far as to imply that we didn't get it. He (I'm assuming this is a "he") was only "poking fun" at Jen, apparently. I guess my own sense of humor is impaired enough that I didn't immediately see just how funny such zingers as "Boy, you are nothing but negative energy. Are you like this around your kids?" really are. Is this the sort of thing that Conan says? I've never watched the man, so I couldn't say.

But Mr. Anonymous went on to make (finally!) what I believe was his only money quote:

Sad actually, but the liberals were always more interesting since they are the ones who questioned authority and the status quo, kind of like some dudes 200 years ago who dared question a monarch.

To which I can only say: Dude, you'd really be surprised just how "right wing" those who questioned that monarch truly were.