The Smarmy Carny

Too graphic?!?

The Joliet Herald-News, a newspaper in Illinois, refused three separate pro-life advertisements on three separate occasions, including the one pictured here.

Why? The reason given was that the pictures were "too graphic." I'm sure that the actual reason should be much more obvious than that. The newspaper reserves the right to reject ads for any reason, so why didn't they just come out and say that these were rejected because they did not fit the media's liberal ajenda? Isn't it the liberal mindset that is frequently criticizing conservative viewpoints for being too closed-minded?

When Jill Stanek asked the advertising department what type of ad could run, she was told that pictures of already born babies could be included.

To view these "graphic" ads, you can visit the NRL ad campaign page or see them in PDF format by clicking below:

• I Am an American
• She's a Child
• Excuse Me America

If you're interested, you can contact the Joliet Herald-News:

• Joliet Herald News
  300 Caterpillar Drive
  Joliet, Illinois 60436
• 815.729.6161
• Senior editor Bill Wimbiscus: bwimbiscus@scn1.com

As is common knowledge now, Bush nominated John Roberts Jr. to fill Justice O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. The New York Sun referred to Roberts as a "Supreme Court nominee with conservative credentials who would inspire a minimum of fuss at a confirmation hearing." He has been described as a constitutionalist, which is encouraging.

Anti-Life groups are upset that Roberts may attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade because he tried to overturn it during his days as a lawyer, but they can't be so sure about that. At the time, Roberts was arguing on behalf of a client. Additionally, the AP Newswire has noted:

Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. … There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Still, Roberts doesn't have a clear record on many issues, which can be disconcerting. He could possibly turn out to be another unintentionally non-conservative nomination to the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, liberal advocacy groups like People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice issued statements expressing dissatisfaction with Bush's recommendation, leading me to believe that this is probably an excellent choice.

Gloria's Nuts (Pun intended)

Melody Berger reported her (intentional) encounter with Gloria Steinem in an article in The F-Word Ezine. In it, she not only fawns over Steinem the entire time, but even after the interview, she admits that "The two hours we spent chatting over coffee comprised, quite easily, one of the most amazing highlights of my entire life. Basking in the aura of "Glo" was such an intensely inspirational experience." Yikes.

Here's one particularly confusing section of the interview:

Melody: When I saw the picture, the famous picture of him, with a bunch of other white guys, gleefully signing away our rights as women [with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban]… all I could think was, "ok, how is that not just pure evil?"
Gloria: Well, you know, there is certainly evil effect. There are certainly going to be millions of women and a lot of men who simply are not alive because he's in the White House. There are going to be whole species of animals, and living things, and plants that are not alive anymore, and will never come back, because: he killed them. So, that's an evil impact. I don't think it's inevitable. He wasn't born that way.

So, class, what have we learned today? There will be "millions of women and a lot of men who simply are not alive" because we can no longer kill as many of them before they are born? In order to avoid conflicting lessons, we will not be teaching Statistics, Formal Logic, or Ethics today.

WorldNetDaily published an article titled "Abortionist accused of eating fetuses." While I was hoping to find an article about something different, there is no odd pun or miswording here. The story is, as the title suggests, all about Krishna Rajanna, an abortionist in Kansas City.

A Kansas City abortionist is out of business after investigators discovered a grisly house of horrors at his clinic — with fetuses kept in Styrofoam cups in his refrigerator and one employee accusing him of microwaving one and stirring it into his lunch.

Police described in detail many of the disgusting, unclean facets of the facility. It's not exactly what you like to think about when you think of hospitals. I won't go into detail here, but read the article if your inquiring mind wants to know. "Rajanna said in his 10 years of performing abortions in Kansas City, no patient has complained about care." Perhaps that's because most of them didn't make it out of the facility alive!

The article also notes that "Rajanna's activities have reportedly been the subject of law-enforcement investigations for nearly two years." Two years??? My immediate reaction is that it's kind of mind-boggling that the authorities would allow this to continue two whole years after finding out about it. Then again, perhaps they didn't want to place charges with a weak case, but still . . . you'd think a few months would be sufficient!

The only thing I can think of that's more disgusting than this is actually killing all those babies in the first place.

Buy Freakonomics at Amazon

The subject of economics is boring as far as I'm concerned . . . unless, of course, the subject is being discussed by Steven D. Levitt.

The first few chapters deal with questions like "What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?" "How is the Ku Klux Klan like a group of real-estate agents?" and "Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?" Levitt's answers will surprise you.

Whereas the vast majority of economists look for the simple, obvious explanation or solution, Levitt has the ability to think so far out of the box that he's thinking in a separate, correct box. He also seems to have a knack for pulling out the truly interesting examples that tend to spark one's interest.

Levitt brings some refreshing creativity to an age where scientists are too focused on empirical results.

All that aside, I am attracted to anything that includes "Freak" in the title. So, when I heard about a book titled Freakonomics , I simply had to give it a chance.

Stay tuned, as I will be posting a follow-up to this regarding Freakonomics in a few days.

Get U.S. Out!

Members of the dignified United Nations jeered and whistled catcalls at U.S. delegate Ellen Sauerbrey while she outlined U.S. policy regarding abortion, AIDS prevention, and other items.

According to a Reuters news story, the loudest jeers came when she mentioned that the U.S. policy on AIDS prevention for adolescents includes abstinence, faithfulness, and correct/consistent condom use.

Additionally, Sauerbrey requested that the document be amended to say that abortion is a matter of national sovereignty and not a human right.

Support was limited to the Vatican, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama. . . . Delegates from the European Union, Asia and Africa forcefully opposed the U.S. position.

Interestingly, you might want to read the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (or read the PDF version), which was introduced two years ago tomorrow.

And to think, ten years ago I naively hung a U.N. flag in my room.

"The text of Beijing is unequivocally clear. We should not spend hours splitting hairs over phrases that mean the same thing," said New Zealand's U.N. Ambassador Don Mackay, speaking for his country, Canada and Australia.

My thought exactly. If you all agree about the "same thing", then why not just quickly pass the amendment?