Normally I don’t do this, but I’m about to copy today’s Gail Collins column from the NY Times here. I’ve done this before–once I copied a post from Andy Borowitz, and another time from Dave Barry of the Miami Herald, where I more or less begged them not to prosecute me for giving them more publicity. Today Collins ‘ op-ed concerns the closing of the Guantanamo prison. I was about to post my own thoughts on it, but some days, people just say it better than you ever could. Okay. Gail Collins always says it better than I ever could.
The opposition to closing Guantanamo is a wholly manufactured issue. The Republicans are using it to scream that Obama is soft on terrorism. The Democrats are scared to death to oppose them, for fear of…not getting re-elected. Congress. Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em.
I just remembered that I was going to let Gail Collins speak for me. Yeah. What she said.
When Did Cowboys Get Wimpy?
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: May 22, 2009
Out of all the problems we have run into in dealing with the giant hairball that is known as the Bush War on Terror, one of the weirdest is the reaction to President Obama’s plan to close down Guantánamo.
In the rank of threats to public safety, putting the Guantánamo inmates in maximum-security prisons in the United States has got to come in way behind, say, making it easy for customers to purchase firearms at gun shows.
But to hear the howls coming from Congress, you’d think the Obama administration was planning to house the prisoners in suburban preschools. “Terrorists. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you,” warned a Republican Web video, which mixed pictures of accused terrorists with road signs in states where the G.O.P. predicted they might be sent. In another production, the occasionally loyal opposition resurrected the infamous “Daisy” countdown ad to show a little girl picking petals off a flower while the president prepares to close Gitmo.
“To bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come,” snarled Dick Cheney in his “no middle ground” speech. Although really, for the sake of the national mental health, it might be better if we all just ignore the former vice president until he agrees to undergo therapy. Forget I ever mentioned it.
Instead, consider the case of Hardin, Mont., a community of 3,400 people just down the road from the place where Custer made his Last Stand.
Lately, things have not been going any better for Hardin than they did for the general. Unemployment is rife. “You go look at our downtown, there’s many closed businesses … you’ll see drunks laying in the street. It’s not a pretty sight,” the head of the town’s economic development authority told National Public Radio. The town built a $27 million, 464-bed prison under the theory that other parts of the state would pay to have Hardin look after their problem residents. But it’s been empty since it was declared open for business nearly two years ago, and the construction loans are in default.
So, with the town council’s enthusiastic support, Hardin volunteered to take the Guantánamo prisoners.
It’s unlikely that the White House would have accepted the offer, but it was certainly an example of pluck and you’d think everyone would give Hardin three cheers. Instead, Montana’s Democratic senators went ballistic.
“We’re not going to bring Al Qaeda to Big Sky Country — no way, not on my watch,” said Max Baucus.
“If these prisoners need a new place, it’s not going to be anywhere near The Last Best Place,” said Jon Tester.
This shows us two things:
1) Montana has given itself many nicknames.
2) Montanans are more easily frightened than Manhattanites.
Think about it. New Yorkers live in the top terror target in the nation. This week four new would-be terrorists were arrested for plotting to blow up synagogues in the Bronx. On the same day, President Obama announced that the first Guantánamo prisoner to be tried in the United States would be coming to court in Lower Manhattan.
Even though it appears the guys involved in the Bronx case were deeply, deeply inept, this is still not the kind of news package you want to hear. But nobody had a fit over it. “Bottom line is we have had terrorists housed in New York before,” said Senator Charles Schumer.
New Yorkers aren’t the only ones who have learned to calmly resist both international terrorism and national hysteria. The small town of Florence, Colo., has a 490-bed high-security facility known as Supermax, which houses 33 terrorists, including Ramzi Yousef, who led the first World Trade Center bombing; the failed shoe-bomber Richard Reid; and Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks.
The local residents seem fine with it, possibly because they know the prisoners spend 23 hours a day in their cells, which are made of poured concrete and furnished with concrete tables and bunks.
Nobody escapes from maximum-security prisons. But even if they did, who would you rather have on the lam in your neighborhood — a native of Afghanistan whose history suggests an affinity for jihad? Or a resident of your own state whose history suggests an affinity for breaking into people’s houses, tying them up and torturing them?
The nation, as we all know, is divided into crowded states and empty states, and I was always under the impression that folks in the empty places were particularly brave and self-reliant. Those of us who live in the crowded parts have many good qualities, but we are not necessarily all of pioneer stock, given the critical importance we assign to restaurants that deliver at 2 in the morning.
Who knew we were tougher than Montanans?
The Abortion “Debate”
May 24, 2009 · 5 Comments
I put debate in quotation marks, because as far as I can see, there isn’t much debate actually going on. There is conversation of a sort, but it mostly falls into the category of “My way or the highway”. You would expect me to be for abortion rights without reservation, given that I have no religion and that being for abortion rights is generally considered a liberal position. Well, you would almost be right. The part that would be wrong is “without reservation”.
I have tried to have many conversations with myself about the issue, and a surprising thing happens. My mind just skips ahead to some other subject. I find it a painful topic to contemplate. I bring it up now because of two recent developments: one, Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, which was protested by, among others, Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in Roe v. Wade. Second, the results of a recent Gallup poll on Americans’ attitudes toward abortion. Both CNN and the NY Times, in conjunction with CBS, have also done recent polls, and the results of all three are close. Of course, listening to polls is about as accurate as throwing a bucket of paint on the wall and trying to read meaning into the drip pattern. I’ve participated in a number of polls and I generally find they aren’t asking the right question, haven’t defined their terms, or don’t give you enough choices–forcing you to choose an answer that doesn’t really reflect your opinion.
But for the sake of the discussion, the Gallup poll asked this question: Do you believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal under all circumstances? 22% said always legal, 23% said always illegal, 53% said legal under certain cirumstances. And that is the heart of the problem, isn’t it? What circumstances? If there is any debate going on, it’s between the people in the 53% as to what the circumstances should be. You most often hear rape, incest, and situations where giving birth would be harmful to the health of or even fatal to the mother. The 23 percenters say that rape and incest are despicable, but it isn’t the child’s fault. Why kill it for the actions of others? As for the life of the mother argument, they say that doesn’t even rate a discussion. That isn’t our place to decide. It’s in the hands of God.
The issue that stops my heart is the question of whether abortion is murder or not, which leads to the question When does life begin? I’ve always held to the belief that until a fetus can survive on its own outside the womb, it is not a viable being, so you can’t “murder” it. But as a recent article I read pointed out, medical technology has advanced to the point where fetuses can be kept alive outside the womb at earlier and earlier stages. So what if ten years from now, a fetus can be kept alive at 3 months instead of 5? What then? Of course there is a limiting factor there. It does take a certain amount of time for fetuses to develop structures like brains, hearts, and lungs which are arguably important for independent survival.
Now for Ms. McCorvey. I feel very sorry for her. I get that she regrets her decision. But I find it weird that she now would deny others an option that she herself has already taken.
In a sense, I’m no closer today to answering the question in my own mind about when life begins. I’m fortunate that I’ve never had to make the decision about whether or not to have an abortion, but of course I know women who have. More of them have opted for abortion than not. I cannot give any serious weight to the “circumstances” under which abortion should be legal. Is “not being wanted” not reason enough? Better yet, today’s NY Times op-ed by Nicholas Kristof concerns malnutrition in Africa, which was the tipping point for me. If I knew that my baby would be likely to starve, and that I would have to watch it starve and suffer for two years, what would I do? Answer: I would prevent that through abortion. Before it became a conscious being, capable of suffering.
And if I were the father of a fetus that was likely to kill the woman I loved in childbirth, I would have no hesitation. We could maybe have other children, or maybe not. But to take the chance of sacrificing a person I love for a being I’ve never even met? That makes about as much sense to me as the extremist environmental people who commit suicide in order to rid the world of overpopulation.
I’ve been speaking of the personal struggle to decide whether abortion is a “moral” choice or not, but the question of whether it should be legal or not is a completely different matter. Even if I had concluded that abortion was “murder”, I reluctantly conclude that I could do it. But whether or not it should be legal is not something that is up to us to decide. The results of repealing Roe v. Wade are too terrible to contemplate, but beyond that, we are a nation which respects individual freedom. Which means we have to respect the choices of others even when we disagree. Count me among the 22% “always legal”. Nobody is a good enough judge of whether your circumstances count or not.
Categories: Abortion · Health · Medicine · Philosophy · Politics · Social Commentary
Tagged: Abortion, polls, Roe v. Wade