So in France, a woman has just admitted murdering 8 of her children, immediately after they were born. The Telegraph newspaper in England says that this is "France's worst ever case of infanticide." According to reports, the woman hid her pregnancies from her husband and everybody else, killed each infant as it was born, wrapped them in plastic bags, and buried them in the back yard, without anybody else's knowledge.

So here's my question... why is this such a horrible crime? According to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, Dr. LeRoy Carhart,and 4 members of the Supreme Court of the United States, if she had seen a doctor 30 minutes before the children were born, and he had used medical tools to puncture their skulls, crush their bodies, and suction their remains out of her uterus, she would have been merely exercising her constitutionally-protected right to control her own body, and to terminate the parasite in her body (so long as the doctor decreed that the woman's "health" required such a measure). Heck, according to all the lectures I heard during the health care debate, apparently if the woman were poor, we as taxpayers would have some sort of moral obligation to help pay for her to see the doctor and have her infants killed... as long as this was done moments before, rather than after, they passed through her vagina and into the world. How is it that condemning this woman's act is morally righteous, rather than simply conservatives in a tizzy because somebody, somewhere had sex?

So how about it, pro-choicers? Anybody able to say why THIS woman, who killed her children within moments of their birth, without anybody else in the world ever knowing they existed, is a horrible criminal, guilty of infanticide, while if she had gone to see a doctor to kill the infants a day or two before, as long as the doctor would say that her "health" required it, then she would be guilty of nothing, would deserve not even moral shame, because she would merely be exercising her human and constitutional rights over her own body?

This would have been inconceivable just twenty years ago.

China, take note. As the soviets once did, for a little while you have your boot on the throat of your salvation. But, my dear brothers and sisters:

Quia pulvis es et in pulverem reverteris.

The concluding paragraph of this is filler, and badly-written filler at that.

Yager's point is that Terrie Rouse, fired this week as CEO of the Capitol Visitor Center, was fired fifteen years ago by another employer. Unprecedented! Fired, you say? Why, she was fired just this week, too! Is there some connection, do you suppose? If there is, it goes unexplained, leaving the reader wondering what possible relevance this could be; are we supposed to infer that she had a record of being fired for poor behavior? If so, that seems like quite a serious charge to leave dangling—remarked on but undeveloped—from the story.

And how about that employer? The California Afro-American Museum, Yager wants us to know, is "the country’s largest black museum in the nation." A splendid catch on the part of Mr. Yager and his editor; mutatis mutandis, see this.

A clever play by Judge Bolton in the Arizona case, who today grants in part the United States' request for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law.

I say clever because the corpulent Ninth Circuit is a slow eater. The median case processing time last year was 17.9 months, and—although I don't know the circuit's caselaw on this, so take the comment with a grain of salt—it's hard to see how a stay request would fall within circuit rule 27-3's authorization of emergency motions. Thus, the combination of the court's injunction against the enforcement of SB1070 with the state's inevitable appeal will supply about a year and a half to moot the case by acting on immigration at the federal level while avoiding a final determination on the merits. On the other hand, while the law will not be enforced, if the United States fails to act in this window, the possibility of upholding the Arizona law remains open.

If I was counseling Arizona, unless an emergency stay is thought a viable option, I dare suggest that months could be shaved off this case's disposition if they swallow their pride, forgo appealing the preliminary injunction, and pursue a ruling on the merits in the district court.

Added: But, of course, they will appeal, even though the only thing accomplished is delaying a ruling on the merits by months. The district court now lacks jurisdiction to proceed (see, e.g., UNIC v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001); Resnik v. La Paz Guest Ranch, 289 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1961) ("As a general rule, … once an appeal has been taken—once notice of appeal has been timely filed—the district court is divested of jurisdiction to take any action except in aid of the appeal")), and as discussed above, the Ninth Circuit will take an average of 18 months to deny the appeal. Arizona would have been better served by accepting the preliminary injunction (the law wasn't "struck down," as some reporters have put it) and pursuing the merits in the district court.

A betrayal of their oaths of office, constitutional heresy, and a recipe for Bush v. Gore II and electoral catastrophe. It is as desperately urgent as it it unlikely that Governor Patrick veto this move. Until I have time to write more, I join Tara Ross' comments.

Added: Consider just the practical question, to say nothing of constitutional principle. What will happen when, on election day 20xx, this change—and its constitutionality vel non—is decisive? The salient questions can't be litigated in advance; even if the question were ripe outside of the context of an election, who would have standing other than the candidates? So the election will be litigated in medias res, a case that will make Bush v. Gore look like a picnic.

"... that violate human rights not in deviation from their own principles but systematically. This underscores their bad faith."

Jacob Weisberg, on the rank and insidious hypocrisy of the various Hollywood celebrities boycottting Israel:

Boycotters are not trying to send a specific message, such as "We object to your settlement policy in the West Bank" or "We think you need to be willing to give up more for peace." What they're saying instead is: "We consider your country so intrinsically reprehensible that we are go[i]ng to treat all of your citizens as pariahs."

You know that I'm a nitpicker where language is concerned, so I loved this:

Via the Rogue Classicist.

"Space," [the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy] says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen..." and so on.

And so on indeed! While the CS Monitor raises some doubts, it appears that scientists have stumbled onto a star that is really, vastly, hugely, amazingly, mindbogglingly big:

R136a1 is approximately 265 times more massive than the sun.

USCCB has posted a copy of remarks offered by Bp. Gerald Kicanas (Diocese of Tucson) to a House subcommittee considering immigration reform. I found these helpful and interesting, and maybe you will too.

A good start, in trying to cut through the hysteria and bluster, over the JournoList revelations, from Philip Bump, at Mediaite:

The takeaway for today: a group of journalists who have a tacit bias seek to undermine a narrative they disagree with. But that takeaway is as much about the Daily Caller and Breitbart as it is about the subject of the original article. Those who think that there wasn’t the same email back-and-forth between Caller staff and Breitbart as there was between those who signed the letter the Caller criticizes are, I’m afraid, a bit naive. If those emails came to light, what should we think of them?

And that brings us to the key question in this tempest. Which is worse: a journalist who strives to be objective but is seen as partisan – or one who strives to be partisan and is seen as objective?

Right.

Now, please don't misunderstand--I'm not defending any of this. The whole JournoList enterprise seems to me to have been flawed from the start--an almost self-parody of entrenched liberal groupthink journalism with a clear political agenda. This sort of behavior ought to be opposed by both sides, and the whole thing smells foul. My only point is that we ought not take things beyond what the facts show, or in the interest of combating agenda-driven journalism, place much stock in the analysis of those who have a clear-record of agenda-driven journalism.

Or, as an unlikely source puts it:

I'm glad Journo-list is over. It should never have been begun. I know many of its members are good and decent and fair-minded writers. But socialized groupthink is not the answer to what's wrong with the media. It's what's already wrong with the media.

ADDED: This is what I'm talking about. I don't think I've ever seen such a hatchet-job in quite some time, with the embrassing and shameful enabling by the USDA, and the White House. Shame on Breitbart, the NAACP, Vilsack, and the White House. Shame.

"... if they haven't been dispensed with already. This is a lesson that gays ignore at their peril."

Jamie Kirchick sounds off on the banning of the Tel Aviv float in Madrid's big gay pride parade. Apparently, hating on Israel just seems to take precedence over everything these days:

Like so many other democratic values, when it comes to gay rights Israel is an oasis in a sea of state-sanctioned repression, a "little patch," to use Mr. Poveda's words, that he and his comrades ought to defend. Gays serve openly in the Israeli military. While gay marriages can't be legally performed in Israel, the government grants gay couples many of the same rights as heterosexual ones and recognizes same-sex unions performed abroad. Many Palestinian gays seek asylum in Israel.

You know, this reminds of, I think it was a comedy bit, that mocked a real life group that was called "Gays for Palestine." The thing is, anyone who supported such groups would neccessarily be oblivious of what actually happens to gays in Palestine, and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and, well you get the idea.

HT: Frum, at the Dish

"...and tell me it's the 'most revolutionary rain storm ever!' "

Mark Shea and Fr. Longenecker have some thoughts on clericalism. With respect, I dissent, at least in part, and have some thoughts of my own to chip in (PDF warning).

If Nicholas Carr is correct that the internet is shortening our attention spans, surely we will never know it, since his theory demands that his 35 paragraph article arguing the case is doomed to go unread?

but one salient point stands out. There is increasing concern amongst Israelis, and non-Obama hating supporters of Israel, about the direction of a number of Obama's policies concerning Israel. A regrettable portion of criticism of Obama's Israel policy has been hysterical and off the wall, but a great deal of it, especially from actual Israelis, is real, and valid, and to basically paint them all as Tom Tancredos is beneath you, Mr. President.

First, let's remember that Obama's first name is Barack, which is as much of Semitic language derivation as Hussein. Of course, that first name is found in Hebrew as well as Arabic. After all, Israel's defense minister is Ehud Barak and my Hebrew name sound the same though there are two different roots involved, while Hussein is more distinctively Arabic. But still, Obama's lack of awareness about the implications of his own name doesn't indicate a great depth of knowledge about the Middle East.

Second, Obama was initially--when he had the same name as he does now--quite popular in Israel as polls show. Only when he evinced hostility did the attitude of Israelis change sharply.

Third, that same name belies the impliction that Israelis are biased against him because of his middle name. Israelis, after all, have dealt with two famous Husseins: King Hussein of Jordan and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The former was a good friend, the most popular Arab leader in Israeli history. (Note 1)

So one can be a good Hussein or a bad Hussein. Of course the issue with this third Hussein is his policies. And that's why I find his saying this thing far more upsetting.

I say again that the rift's degree has been exaggarated by some, but it is real, and this sort of thing isn't helping.

HT: Frum, at the Dish

ADDED: Looking over the actual video in context, his comments seem less harsh, but he still seems to be avoiding the reality that many of his actual policies have generated some real concern. I think Obama is going to have to take real steps to smooth things over, and actually address these concerns. This sort of rhetoric doesn't help.

Michael Totten spells it out clearly:

I was in Jerusalem the day he was inaugurated. Everyone knew his middle name then, and the Israelis I met on that trip swooned over him as much as my bohemian neighbors in Portland did. Whether for good reasons or bad, his plummeting poll numbers are based entirely on what has occurred between then and now.

We have followed McConkey v. van Hollen since almost the bitter start. Last week, the story reached its end with the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejecting McConkey's challenge on the merits, and as I predicted in December 2007, it was Milwaukee Alliance v. WI Elections Bd., in the library, with a candlestick.

The President will make a recess appointment to the vacant CMS administrator post. I recently explained my view of the recess appointments clause in great detail, so the only business today is to apply those principles. My understanding is that this is a long-time vacancy which actually arose on 9/5/2006, a day on which the Senate was in session. Because I believe that a recess appointment is invalid unless the vacancy arose during the recess of the Senate, no recess appointment to this post, be it Berwick or anyone else, is valid.

He's still alive.

The federal government sues Arizona over its immigration law on a preemption theory. We have the complaint in United States v. Arizona here; NPR has the United States' motion for a preliminary injunction here

After PaPACA was enacted in late March, I urged the GOP to campaign on "full and immediate repeal." A few days later, opinion polling found a 55%-42% majority for repeal, with 59% of independents supporting.1

Nevertheless, all the usual caveats about opinion polling applied. It was one poll, taken in the immediate aftermath. Blood was still up. It's much more interesting to see that Rasmussen has been keeping an eye on things, and the majority for repeal appears to be durable. Fourteen weeks later, we learn that a 60%-36% majority favors repeal, comprising not only the predictable 81% of Republicans, but also 65% of independents.

This is happy news indeed! While it remains a full-court shot, undoing the mistake appears a viable goal, at least insofar as public support is there. The GOP can, and should, campaign on a platform of full and immediate repeal. Those two qualifications are important, though. It must be full repeal, because once you start talking about unbundling particular pieces (or worse yet, what will ultimately replace PaPACA), the coalition will crumble.2 It's much easier to assemble a majority against a bad idea than it is to get agreement on what should be done instead. And it must be immediate repeal, because the longer we dither, the longer the odds of success. There is a strike-while-the-iron-is-hot aspect to repeal; "once regulatory programs have given rise to communities of interest in their continuation, amending or repealing [the enabling statute] ... may be more difficult than enacting it in the first place."3 This tendency isn't limited to regulatory programs and is particularly acute with direct entitlements. Once Obamacare goes into full effect, it will create a constituency of dependents primed to oppose repeal tooth and nail. As the old saw goes, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Lastly, it bears noting that as repeal seems possible, it is also desirable. Even if undoing this economic train wreck was not sufficient incentive, there's a more abstract reason to do it. Obamacare represents a catastrophic resurgence of a failed paradigm that must be put back in its cage before it devours more of our heritage. Repealing it would not only disprove Chesterton, who wrote that as the "business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes," that of "Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected," but would also teach, if only for a while, a lesson that progressives should be taught anew in each generation: it isn't a one-way ratchet.4 We should discourage a frame of mind—readily apparent in the last days before the House vote—that sees politics as a desperate struggle to just sink that last putt at all costs on the assumption that once it's in, it's done, and the game is over.

1. 1. Independent support is important because the current breakdown in voter registration presumptively requires a GOP candidate to win approximately 60% of independents. It therefore is or should be a tough sell to make something the focus of a campaign when it lacks independent support, and conversely, an issue that enjoys independent support is all the more appealing as a campaign issue. Independent support also makes it tough to paint an issue as the sole concern of the fringe, placating faint-of-heart Brooksians.
2. 2. More precisely, the existing cracks and joins in the coalition will become visible and deepen. Cf. my post here.
3. 3. Cynthia Farina, Deconstructing Nondelegation, 33 Harv. J. of L. & P.P. 87, 98 (2010).
4. 4. I am glumly aware that this may get me branded a "fundamentalist." Cf. Richard McBrien, Catholicism 93 (3d ed. 1994) (fundamentalists "want to reclaim a place they feel has been taken from them. They would restore what are presumed or claimed to be old and secure ways retrieved from a world they are losing" (quoting Marty & Appleby, The Glory and the Power 17 (1992))).