Volokh links to a story from the Huffingtonpost by Erica Jong regarding Bush and stem cells.

About the only thing you can feel for her is sympathy. Surely, one cannot be this clueless.

If every three-day-old embryo has the legal protection of a human life, how far are we from the time that sperm and egg cells are also protected as incipient human lives? Philip Roth had a spoof on this three decades ago when he imagined the Christian Right outlawing male masturbation on the grounds that it was anti-life. At the time it seemed like slapstick comedy, now we are catching up with Roth's wildest fantasies.

Nature is full of waste. Of all the fertilized blastocysts created for in vitro fertilization only a few actually implant. One female proponent of (Christian) blastocyst adoption, Kate Johnson, had eleven blastocysts implanted before one lived. Do the other ten (which failed to thrive) represent human lives? What about all the eggs flushed away by menstruation in a woman's life? We ovulate many more times than we get pregnant. Any woman who is sensitive to her own cycles knows that each twinge in her lower belly (mittleschermz, the OB-GYNs call it), represents an incipient human life. But that egg may be damaged and never implant or it may never be fertilized, or if fertilized it may die for reasons unknown. Miscarriage is common. Pregnancy is precious and makes one feel like a goddess (unless one throws up for nine months as my daughter did), but it would be nightmarish to have to take care of every blastocyst a woman may create in three decades of fertility. Even women who have six children--like one of my sisters--eventually reach a point where they have more children than they can care for psychologically and financially. While I can empathize with earth mothers and fathers who want to have as many children as possible, even such couples cannot use every blastocyst they create.

The political agenda here is obvious. By exalting the blastocyst, we are diminishing the rights of the mother. Give us a break, George. Your wife had one pregnancy and two daughters. How many blastocysts will you adopt to show you care?

Nobody is equating an unfertilized with a fertilized one. Even the most ardent opponents of stem-cell research realize that an egg flushed away post-menstruation is not murder. I think this is called reductio ad absurdum.

What we're concerned about is fetus and embryo farming. There is a very real and present danger, a very real and none-too-distant attempt at gentic manipulation and pseudo-scientific racial purification. It is nice to see Ms. Jung recognize the preciousness of pregnancy, versus the typical feminist view, of carrying around a burdensome and amorphous mass of cells.

Nobody is "banning" stem cell research, just simply limiting federal funding of such. Restrictions on creation of new embryoes, as well as the potential of actual implanting and harvesting of fetuses is good policy. That people such as Ms. Jung cannot allow herself to think clearly and accept that there are legitimate concerns is disturbing. That she compares nature's waste to the wanton destruction of ebryoes is even more so.

Perhaps it's time for a sectarian civil war after a suicide blast rips through shrine in Pakistan.

Islam has never had a reformation nor a deadly intericine struggle the way Christianity did in the early 16th century. People forget that 30 years of violent warfare, much of it on German soil, followed the Diet of Worms. It wasn't until 1555 that the issue was "settled" at Augsburg.

Sure, religious massacres were to follow, like St. Bartholomew's day in 1572 in France, but it was the specifically the putting aside of those difference in France under Henry IV and England under Elizabeth that allowed those countries to prosper.

The violence in Iraq has been marked by an unblievable amount of restraint on the part of the Shia. Maybe it's time they settle the problem once and for all. I'm not an expert on Islamic history, but I do know that the divisions are deep and unsolved.

And frankly, there's never going to be another caliph, so it doesn't matter how he's chosen. However, if one day there should be a caliphate, well it won't really matter anymore in the west as we'll have lost.

Bob Herbert's at it again smearing the US troops. Maybe the pay-for model of the NY Times is going to work. People won't actually pay for this garbage, and so they can use it as an excuse to get real op-ed writers.

I have written about the recent brouhaha involving my school and the rather interesting dilemma that has arisen as a result. Now that the shoe is truly on the other foot, it is fascinating to observe the responses of people who, for want of a better description, must feel betrayed. Now perhaps they know how we feel, the conservatives unfairly and unjustly branded a racist, a hatemonger, a bigot, simply for holding differing views. Never has a more closed-minded group existed than the left. They resemble religious extremists they so detest far more than the actual religious zealots.

An interesting occurrence happened today as I was in the office. Throughout the school petitions have been passed around, students signing them in support of the principal. It is a wonderful experience I must admit, seeing a spontaneous outpouring of emotion and support from all the students and staff. Instead of dividing us, this malicious attack has brought us even closer together.

But what troubled me is that the petition had boxes for signature and name, as well as race and gender. And right there is exactly the problem. Despite the best wishes of the petitioners to show broad based support, it serves the accusers purposes far more. I heard two faculty discussing the petition by saying "I'm this...." and "I'm this....". I simply replied that I'm American. Period.

As long as we define ourselves by our race or ethnicity, we will always have the problems, the perceptions, the schisms. As long as we embrace the hyphenization of people, the current situation at my school will be repeated elsewhere.

A student asked me about the suit this morning to which I tried to explain it this way. The problem is this: we simply can't prove not X. Thus X exists. The argument being that the existence of X causes the school environment to be inimcal to group Y. Since X exists, it becomes simply a matter of degree, to which the amount necessary to cause the situaiton becomes irrelevant. It isn't a matter of empirical proof, but personal opinion. Thus, the amount necessary is whatever the person or persons affected perceives it to be. It's a hostile environemnt because it's a hostile environment.

Getting back to the deadly hyphen, this is the foundation of multiculturalism. It is deadly and divisive and it's a game I don't play. I don't have African- or Mexican-, or Fill in the Blank- Americans in my classes. I don't have black, white, brown, yellow, pink, or blue students. I have kids. Some are smarter, some are funnier, some are taller, some are thinner, some are more athletic, some are harder working. The day I see my kids and see their skin color, then I no longer deserve to be in a classroom. The day I treat them differently based on their ethnicity is the day I should be fired.

I am an American. My students are Americans. We could move to China, France, or Nigeria yet we'd never be Chinese, French, nor Nigerian. Yet, immigrants from there and every other country in the world come here and are granted the most special and unique of titles: American.

It comes courtesy of the blood and sacrfice of millions, and it comes without reseravation ot qualification. And most of all, it had always better come without the deadly hyphen, for that more than anything else, will serve to destroy this great land, to sever its people, both new and old, from its past.

I learned early on while pursuing my teaching credential that I was walking into the devil's den. What an unbelievable realization, that the nation I had grown up to love, that had done so much for so many, and asked for nothing in return, was an evil, racist, hegemonic, oppressive nation. And to think I learned such wisdom while being trained to become a public school teacher.

Of particular concern, stressed in every class, was the need to abandon the loathsome ethnocentric idea of a melting pot. As it turns out, a century ago came immigrants who learned to speak English and adopt American culture, who discovered freedom and opportunity impossible anywhere in the world, that were actually tragic victims of a terrible crime. They were horribly robbed of the primary culture. Who'd have thought?

So now, to help the new wave of immigrants achieve the success of the previous wave, we tell them they're not Americans, they're hyphenated Americans. And more than that, they should, at all costs, keep the "home culture". In fact, their "home culture" should be granted equivalency to the American culture, and if at all possible, which means always, elevated to a status greater than the American culture.

This they dubbed multiculturalism.

For decades now schools have foisted this on students, succeeding only in generating animosity not acceptance. Resentment is felt by those who welcome all who come, to the richness our society has to offer, who now believe their country under assault. Compounding that are generations of children who grow up hating the country that welcomes them, educates them, provides them more opportunity, and protects them to the fullest extant of the law far more than the home they have never been to, and most likely, never will.

Nothing epitomized this disgusting duplicity more than the classes I took many years ago while pursuing my credential. Apparently another tenet of multiculturalism was the need to treat people differently depending upon their race or culture. As I was to discover, I was no longer to view all people as equal, not even as unique individuals, but rather as members of a homgenous group. Thus, any and all members of that group a) needed to be represented proportionately, b) be constantly reminded how special they are, c) given special status and accommodation due to past grievances, and d) treated differently.

How quaint of me to assume that I should treat all people equally. I should instead see them as members of a particular group, and adjust instruction to meet their cultural needs. I thought such ideas had ended along with the 19th century. I hear bell-bottoms are coming back in style.

On the larger political stage, a similar strategy was used to stifle debate for decades. How many times were we told that holding a contrary view meant you were racist. Question the validity of affirmative action? You're a racist. Want to pass welfare reform? Your're a racist. Concerned about open borders and unchecked immigration? You're a nativist and a racist.

And the pathology continues. The 2000 presidential election witnessed the odious ad by the NAACP linking the James Bird killing with then governor Bush. Today, for whom are the greatest attacks reserved? Condi Rice and any other non-conforming minority who dares to challenge to stranglehold of fear that the democrats have used successfully to maintain their virtual lock on the black vote.

So long has the ad hominem of one being a racist been successfully deployed that the ability to think and debate has atrophied. So too has the ability, or at least the willingness to discern fact from fiction, to investigate and seek the truth by those entrusted with such task. For too long, any claim was truth, any claimant a victim.

No institution has been more committed to the task of multiculturalism and grievance promotion than schools. No group more unified in their support for such than teachers.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. I often wonder, were this not their great school, their committed friends and colleagues, their dedicated principal, would they maintain such strident opposition to such unfounded attacks? Were they a disinterested third party, would they be willing to hear the arguments of the accused? Perhaps we can call this progress. Perhaps.

We do reap what we sow.

UPDATE: Belmont Club notes the same thing.

As I have repeatedly written, a healthy democracy depends on two viable parties and right now, the democrats are doing everything in their power to make sure that never happens.

Let's take a look:

First, I completely understand Senator Byrd leading the fight against Condi Rice. I completely understand why a former klansman would not want a black woman as secretary of state. I just wish he'd have been honest and just proffered that he was following in a long tradition of democrats fighting against progress of blacks. After all, it was Byrd and the democrats who filibustered the Civil Rights legislation. And it is Senator Byrd alone, who has the historical distinction on being the only person to have voted against both black nominees to the Supreme Court.

And today they continue the long tradition of being hostile to minorities as they filibuster minority judges whose only crime is holding differing views on issues. They continue to defend programs which have only served to destroy minority families, keep them permanently destitute, and rely on the most vicious of racial identity politics to keep their constituency in fear.

The inability to be serious about national defense cost the democrats the last election. Whether they are meeting en masse to watch vile propaganda or rallying around their drunken doyen and his ramblings about the insurgents prior to the Iraqi elections, we aren't really sure who's side they're really on.

And now we have God's gift to bloggers everywhere, Howard "Osama deserves a trial but DeLay doesn't" Dean.

First, it is essential to castigate the Republicans. They used to be the party that wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Education. NCLB is a federal takeover of education. They used to be the party of limited government. Now they're the party of the largest entitlement since the 1960's. They used to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Now they run up huge deficits and pass pork-laden highway bills. They used to be the party of governmental restraint. Now they pass a national ID card bill, send the justice dept. after file traders, and were behind the McCain-Feingold, "There's a first ammendment?" bill.

And they get away with this because the democrats are completely inept. They could have done infinitely better than Kerry, and instead of learning from their mistakes, they appoint Dean to head the DNC. This truly is physician assisted suicide.

Yesterday, Dean goes on the "Meet the Press".

One of the great geniuses of American democracy, unlike most of the democracies in the world that minority rights are protected, 48 percent of us didn't vote for President Bush, but we still have some say in shaping the agenda of the country.

Minority rights means that they are protected against injurious or punitive attacks by the government. They cannot be denied access to or services from the government. However, it doesn't allow the minority to prevent the majority from governing.

But it has much worse implications. The president has a Social Security plan, which is kind of out there. He basically wants to turn over Social Security to the same kind of people who gave us Enron. Privatization is something the America people don't support by a very large margin. Without extended debate, he can march marshal his party and just ram it right through. They already ram things through the House. We need more than one party in charge. And the vote on Tuesday is going to be critical to decide whether American democracy still allows those of us who didn't vote for the president to have any say in running the country whatsoever.

Speaking of being "kind of out there..." He wants to allow voluntary privitzation of 1/3 of social security contributions. And if the good doctor would actually look at the polls, people do support allowing private investments. They also show that most younger people no longer expect the money to be there.

That you think we need more than one party in charge apparently doesn't correlate with one particular group: the American electorate. And you do have a say in running the country, but if your side loses, there's a term for that: democracy. Of course, as I written previously, the democrats really hate democracy.

I think I've finally figured out democratic strategy. They are going to completely implode, demonstrate they are so incapable of governing, that the Republicans will gain even more control. At that point, as is happening now, the Republicans will overplay their hand, forget their conservative principles, and become the party of big government. Too late for that though, it's already happening.

Then the democrats can swoop in and be the party of fiscal responsibility. They'll even regain credibility on national security as someone will have a defense "Sista Souljah" moment and take their party to task for their pacifism.

Why do I think that person will be Hillary?

From today's WaPo Sunnis Step Off Political Sidelines:

BAGHDAD, May 21 -- More than 1,000 Sunni Arab clerics, political leaders and tribal heads ended their two-year boycott of politics in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq on Saturday, uniting in a Sunni bloc that they said would help draft the country's new constitution and compete in elections.

If the insurgents were winning the Sunni wouldn't be willing to join the government. As I wrote a few days before the election:

3) The Sunni see the writing on the wall.
No matter what happens, there will be elections, Iraqis will go to the polls, they will draft a new constitution, they will form a government, and they will ascertain a level of sovreignty over their own country. As they say, it's all over but the crying. The writing is on the wall, and the Sunni can read it quite well. They either play or pay. After thirty years of minority oppressive rule, and the Kurd and Shia are offering an olive branch, and most Sunni, I believe, are smart enough to take the best deal they're going to get. This leads to the final point.

4) All other options are bad.
Actually, they from bad to worse. If the Sunni don't participate, they are ending any chance they had at representation in the new government. And they'll have nobody else to blame but themselves. Who's going to come and help them out? Syrian or Iranian involvement would be seen as a violation of territorial sovreignty, aimed at overturning a legitimately elected government. And surely the US would have something to say about that as well.

Should they provoke a civil war, a remote possibility, the odds are decidely against them. They know they can't win. The Kurds are armed, the peshmerga a fierce fighting force. The Shia will certainly field a force more than willing to exact revenge. That Sunni would start a war they cannot hope to win, and worse, one they know will crush them, is highly unlikely. The few jihadis who harbor their own jihadist gotterdammerung are going to find few happy warriors among the mostly educated populous. They know that all options go from bad to worse. And go that way in a hurry.

It's still not over completely, but the insurgency targeting Iraqis has apparently backfired. Humbled by the US forces, they turned to killing the innocent. Bad decision. Even the most jaded, cynical, and anti-US Iraqi, Sunni or Shiite, can see more and more who the real enemy is.

Ultimately what has defeated the insurgency is that they don't represent anything other than chaos and destruction. They aren't really fighting for anything as much simply against everything. And what they're fighting most is Iraqi progress. What's most ironic about that is that the Iraqis want the exact same things as everyone else: good schools to send their children to, goods jobs to work at, and safe neighborhoods to raise their families in.

That the US had to play a major role was desired by neither us nor the Iraqis. And likewise we both agree that US forces should stay not one day longer than necessary.

Jordanian King Abdullah understands that Middle Eastern feudalism must go the way of it's European forerunner. Will Iraq succeed?:

I think at the end of the day Iraq will succeed and stand on its own two feet and be independent and completely capable...
...
In January, I started [a] committee for complete decentralization. We want to create a northern, central and southern region in Jordan. What this will do is create grass-roots support for the political system. We have tried pushing democratic reform from the top down and that is sluggish. By doing it this way, we are now moving from the bottom up.
...
Basically, the Amman message says the taking of lives of innocent people, hatred, anger and suspicion against your fellow man have nothing to do with Islam. Winning the Muslim street back is not a five-, 10- or 15-year process. You have to reverse wrong education that has been used in the madrassas and other institutions that taught in the name of Islam you could kill your fellow man.

The Jordanians have been between a rock (Iraq) and a hard place for decades, both figuratively and literally. They have survived by adeptly picking the winners (1991) or cutting and running before catastrophe (1967). This time looks to be no different. Abdullah sees the poltical winds. And he knows whose winning.

We are.

I wrote back in December that we face two enemies, one foreign and one domestic."Based in the results of the Iraqi war, each future operation will have two enemies: one military, one political. And if we don't account for the latter, then we'll surely lose the former."

Today, over at Belmont Club, Wretchard writes:

Glenn Reynolds notes that the New York Times coverage of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan may not really be about prisoner abuse or even Afghanistan, but about maintaining the prestige of Newsweek. He calls it "circling the wagons", the idea being to teach press critics an object lesson in how expensive it is to humiliate the mass media by catching them at sloppy reporting by flooding the zone with stories similar to the one which was discredited . That may or may not be the case, but it is nearly undeniable that the effect of the media's coverage of American misdeeds has been to make the slightest infraction against enemy combatants ruinously expensive.

No truer indictment of the media can be found. They are every bit as much at war with America as the Islamofascists. In a odd yet ironic symbiosis, both groups have the same object of hatred, the US, and use each other in similar manner. The jihadi feeds off of supposed oppression while the press is all too happy to feed them whatever morsels they can find.

That the numbers of Muslims killed by fellow Muslims numbers in the millions, and that the number of Muslims saved by the US forces also numbers in the millions goes alrgely unreported should be seen as failure not victory. Were the jihadi truly concerned about his fellow Arab and Muslim brethren, he'd admonish the press to highlight the atrocities. Were the liberal press, so taken with the plight of the oppressed everywhere, willing to show the despair that the much Arab world lives in, than the jihadi would have much more explaining to do.

As it stands they both seek a nihilistic gotterdammerung. Most ironic of all, is that like the natives who helped Cortez, when the fighitng is done, the press will be next. Capricious though they may seem, the jihadi nevertheless knows what he wants, the press doesn't. The latter seeks victory for the sake of vanity, the former for retribution. The press wants to claim the head of another president, the jihadi millions of heads of the infidel.

Ponder the thought of an American failure in Iraq. Pleasing though that might be to the immature leftist in America, satiated with abundance neither earned nor appreciated, they will need to look at just who the victors are. This will be no workers' paradise, no age of the new man. No, they face 7th century man, dreaming of a day when the camel and scimitar ruled. The euphoria of the masses along Champs-Elysees not seen since 1945 will have to face a somber reality.

The Jew and Christian might be the infidel, but the atheist, the secularist, the modernist, those are far worse. The worshipper of a false god is one thing, the worshipper of man himself, the denier of any god is the greatest sinner of all. And surely, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Arnett, all the human shields, and the millions of mindless dreamers will find the same fate, their heads severed from their bodies, their last thoughts an ironic "et tu Brute".

Make no mistake about it, we face two enemies in this war. The awards for a buffon in Cannes, the two months straight stories of Abu Ghraib, the AP photographer plants, the latest flushing episode, and a host of other acts prove we're not dealing with a nuetral press, but a hostile one. The Arabs have a saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and nothing is truer about the press today. They are our enemies best friend which makes them an enemy as well.

We will win despite this as their best attempts have already failed. But they will prolong the battle.