Bad time to be a Celebrity

There goes another one...

A Good Day

The Supreme Court today upheld the 2003 Congressional ban on the procedure known as Partial-birth Abortion:

The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how - not whether - to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

What of course they've never acknowledged is the barbarity of the act. It is that barbarity that I--and most conservatives who cared about this--have argued to ban.

It seems that at least in analysis coming from some corners, that the door is still open to a return to this procedure under a more and better-clarified statute. Perhaps, perhaps not.

If so, at least one person will be comforted. The rest of us can cross the bridge when we get to it.

He looks average enough

Cho Seung-Hui, the lone gunman who murdered 32 at Virginia Tech yesterday. There's nothing remarkable about him it appears.

Though it seems that some had questions, concerns and had even raised a quiet alarm:

The gunman who shot 32 people to death before killing himself at a Virginia university was described Tuesday as a depressed and deeply disturbed young man whose “grotesque” creative writing projects led a professor to refer him for psychological counseling.

What to Say

There really is not much to say about such a thing as the events of early today in Blacksburg, other than to note the horrific nature of the entire incident. Regardless of motive or cause.

If I do have anything to say, it would be about the already unfolding analysis of different elements of the story as the day went by. First, it seems to me that any discussion of this needs to understand why it is only for would-be killers or criminals to carry weapons on campus at Virginia Tech.

Not a nice sentiment at this point and it borders on inappropriate only 12 hours later but why on earth would an administration advocate such a policy that leaves thousands of staff, faculty and students vulnerable to just this sort of event?

Moving on, MKH notes the first bits of the political fallout in this: ...to look at their websites, you wouldn't know a thing about what Mitt, McCain, and Rudy think about this national tragedy. It's doesn't mean they're terrible, selfish men, as I'm sure the Left will infer. On the contrary, I'm sure all of their thoughts and prayers are with the kids of Blacksburg, just as all of ours are. But the fact is that the Big Six in the presidential race are huge, public figures who are required, for better or worse, to have a public position on every issue, ever. Today is certainly no exception.

Political web operatives on the Left understand that websites move with the news, and are sometimes the fastest way to move those messages. Today, the Dem candidates' sites reflect that and the Republicans' do not.

I think that Mary Katherine Ham has a valid point here and it is in fact true; the left feels...more and better...it's a key part of the essence of what liberalism is. At the risk of sounding too much like a dittohead, it is what they do.

It's nice as far as it goes and in the immediate aftermath of such a horrid event it is not without meaning or comfort. Sadly however, it doesn't do anything about the problem.

This kind of feel-good rhetoric is what made my hair stand up on end upon first hearing a presidential candidate tell me he felt my pain in 1992. I don't need the government or the people that form it to "feel my pain."

I need them to govern. I need them to create and implement sound policy and to protect me from reasonable threats at the federal, state and local levels.

It is wonderfully compassionate to read of Senators Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's undoubtedly real concern for the lives touched by the tragedy at Virginia Tech but it accomplishes nothing but to tell me what I already knew: they are human beings just like me.

Taken Aback

What does it say about our culture when a pure act of simple honesty draws stares and elicits derisive comments? How low have we sunk?

On Sunday--a mere 12 hours after our Grand Opening had finally concluded--we found ourselves on the road to L.A. for the 2007 Spring Flower & Gift Show at the LA Mart. Ably hosted, the Mart offers an amazing array of vendors and goods for everybody from local florists to large design firms and wholesale buyers from all kinds of chains.

The showroom that elicits the most sideways glances and interesting commentary is undoubtedly Katherine's (as a quick glance at the product lines will make clear). Nothing in our experiences over the course of the day, however, drew anywhere near the kind of reaction (from us or anyone else) than my wife's aforementioned act of simple honesty at lunch.

Already tired from just 3 hours and only 2-floors of shopping, we traipsed back down to Barkley's deli on the main floor for lunch. Two of our five grabbed a table outside while the rest of us ordered.

The menu was quite full of intriguing options but what caught most of our attention were the nicely priced lunch specials. Feeding five on the road is not an inexpensive venture and we liked the idea of keeping it simple, quick and, yes, cheap. After all was added up, my wife paid out the $21.00 and followed us out to the table.

In the course of picking up our offerings, our friend and floor manager mentioned to my wife that she couldn't make the charges add up based on the menu pricing. Sure enough, she was right. By our calculation, we should have paid $28.00 for lunch and not $21.

When we ordered the line had been long; when my wife went back to the counter it took less than half-a-minute to get to the register and make the dastardly statement: "I think you under-charged us. We owe you $7.00."

The looks of incredulity from the clerks were surpassed only by the dumbfounded expressions on the faces of customers now in line behind her. One couple, in the middle of a conversation stopped on a dime while the gentleman turned to stare, apparently incapable of understanding what he'd just heard.

Meanwhile the clerks, thankful for being saved the consequences of a short till at the end of the shift, thanked my wife and collected their shortfall while my wife and I and our companions shook our head over the commotion we'd just created, figuratively if not literally, by such a simple act.

So I'm left wondering exactly what such a simple thing means. At a gathering of professionals, am I to believe that most or at least many of the business people there think it's okay to short a payment? Is that acceptable in their firms? In their homes?

It is a simple but large question that I leave behind then: what does it say about us when such a simple act can draw such reactions?