Jun 8, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes David Holcberg from the Ayn Rand Institute:
This week the Supreme Court dealt a blow to individual freedom by ruling that federal agents may arrest and prosecute people who grow or use marijuana for medical purposes.
The fundamental issue at stake is not federal law versus state law, but personal freedom versus government coercion. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist to protect every individual's right to life and liberty. An individual who grows or consumes marijuana violates no one's rights while legitimately exercising his own. Just as government has no right to determine what food we eat or what books we read, it should have no right to determine what drugs we take. As long as we don't violate the rights of others, we should have the right to do with our lives--and our bodies--whatever we think is best.
May 26, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
From ABC News:
A judge has ordered best-selling writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci to stand trial in her native Italy on charges she defamed Islam in a recent book. The decision angered Italy's justice minister but delighted Muslim activists, who accused Fallaci of inciting religious hatred in her 2004 work "La Forza della Ragione" (The Force of Reason).
Fallaci lives in New York [...] In "La Forza della Ragione," Fallaci wrote that terrorists had killed 6,000 people over the past 20 years in the name of the Koran and said the Islamic faith "sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom."
State prosecutors originally dismissed accusations of defamation from an Italian Muslim organization, and said Fallaci should not stand trial because she was merely exercising her right to freedom of speech. But a preliminary judge in the northern Italian city of Bergamo, Armando Grasso, rejected the prosecutors advice at a hearing on Tuesday and said Fallaci should be indicted. Grasso's ruling homed in on 18 sentences in the book, saying some of Fallaci's words were "without doubt offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith." [May 25, 2005]
From David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute:
The decision of an Italian judge to indict author and New York resident Oriana Fallaci for being "offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith" is a violation of her right to free speech and an absurd concession to Islamists at war with Western Civilization.
Fallaci, as any individual, should have the right to criticize any religion or ideology, free from government censorship or retaliation. If Muslims (or Italian judges) don't like Fallaci's books, they are free to not buy them. They have no right, however, to punish or silence her.
May 26, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From The New York Times: Text of Senate Compromise on Nominations of Judges:A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
May 26, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
From The New York Times: House Approves a Stem Cell Research Bill Opposed by Bush:The House passed a bill on Tuesday to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, defying a veto threat from President Bush, who appeared at the White House with babies and toddlers born of test-tube embryos and warned the measure "would take us across a critical ethical line." ...
The House vote followed an impassioned lobbying campaign by advocates for patients, including Nancy Reagan. Mrs. Reagan, who became a strong backer of stem cell research as her husband struggled with Alzheimer's disease, telephoned fellow Republicans this week urging a yes vote, [said the bill's chief Republican backer, Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware.] ...
The White House event, on what conservative Christians and the president call an important "culture of life" issue, demonstrated just how far Mr. Bush is willing to assert himself on policy that goes to what he considers the moral heart of his presidency. ...
[T]he embryonic stem cell debate ... inflamed the passions of the House, sounding at various times like a lesson in cell biology, a theological discourse and a personal confessional. Lawmaker after lawmaker came to the House well to recount struggles with conscience and searing personal experiences with death and disease.
Representative Jim Langevin, Democrat of Rhode Island, rolled to the microphone in his motorized wheelchair to speak of his spinal cord injury, which he said could be helped by the research. Representative Jo Ann Emerson, Republican of Missouri, told of a young man named Cody, who had been paralyzed in a car accident at age 16 and asked her to rethink her opposition to embryonic stem cell studies.
"I later wrote a note to Cody's family telling them that even after hearing his story, I couldn't do as he asked," Ms. Emerson said, "and I have regretted writing that letter ever since."
May 25, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
From the Ayn Rand Insitute:
In the current Senate debate over President Bush's judicial nominees, some senators appear to be using a simple test: if a nominee has ever ruled in favor of property rights, he is unfit to serve as a federal judge.
The left has been preaching for many, many decades that so-called human rights trump property rights, that altruistic feelings for the weak, the poor, the handicapped, etc., ad nauseum, must guide a judge's decisions, not some "outmoded" concept of justice based on the sanctity of the individual's right to property. The senators worry that the nominees will reverse some of the massive violations of property rights that the left has subjected this country to for so long.
Consider one of Justice Janice Rogers Brown's opinions that is thought objectionable. When the city of San Francisco forced hotel owners to pay a fee to convert from residential to tourist use, Justice Brown observed: "Private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco…. Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery. Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government."
There are, however, legitimate reasons to oppose Bush's nominees--not because of the rights a nominee promises to uphold but because of the rights he threatens to extinguish (such as the right to abortion)--as Bush strives to open another breach in the wall separating church and state.
May 24, 2005 | Dollars & Crosses
Some gems from "Writing a Convincing Editorial" by Robert Tracinski:
The single greatest error made by beginning writers is that they try to say too much. This error comes from the belief that, in order to be convincing, an argument must be utterly comprehensive, addressing every possible issue that relates to it. But no argument is effective unless it can be absorbed and remembered by the reader. An effective editorial must be essentialized, focusing only on the most important issues and integrating them into one graspable whole.
[...]
The primary goal of one's writing is to be clear: to convey one's conclusion and the evidence for it in a manner that the reader can easily understand. Eloquent phrases, vivid images, and humorous examples are only valuable if they advance that goal.
The article goes on to cover in some detail on the following guidelines:
1. Focus on a central theme.
2. Know the viewpoint you have to refute.
3. Make inductive arguments.
4. Base moral evaluations on the facts.
5. Rely on the reader's implicit knowledge and values.
6. It is more important to be clear than to be eloquent.
7. End on a call to action.
8. Good writing comes from exhaustive editing.
Well worth reading [Link].
From The New York Times: 