Skip to content

The late Justice John Paul Stevens: laws incorporating the view that potential life must be protected from the moment of conception are fundamentally theological, thus amounting to an unconstitutional establishment of religion.


(photo by William Thomas Cain/Getty Images)

This information from the New York Times article about the late Justice Stevens, who was a great (but not perfect) justice.

There is also the argument as follows: assume, for the moment, that the embryo (or fetus) is in fact a living human being with a “right” to life.  However, admit that the woman within whose body it gestates is unwilling to permit it to feed off of her for nine months and then force their way out of her body through a too-small opening…  and consider what would happen to the average person if he/she woke up one morning attached through intravenous lines and a cumbersome carry bag to another human being; and then that average unsuspecting person were told, “you are the only person who can save this other human being, whom you do not know and have not consented to being attached to… If you disengage yourself from this person, they will die, and no-one else can volunteer to take your place.”

Are you in fact, ethically required (not to mention legally) to save the life of another person based on enormous personal sacrifices when you do not know that person and have not given prior consent to this arrangement?  That is what a prohibition on abortion (under whatever circumstances) implies, and it is not so.  You are not required to save a person just because they have picked you to implant themselves within.  You can ethically tell them to take a hike and die, if you’re not willing to make a twenty-year commitment to bear and raise them at this time.

Those people may not like it, but… it’s not their baby.  True stories have been told about virulent anti-abortion activists who, when push came to shove, had an abortion personally (and secretly.)  It has happened.


[redacted]’s Biggest Lie Yet: “They Hate Our Country” (referring to four nonwhite women who hold opinions contrary to His own, and dare to speak up about it.)


This makes me very angry when I see Him quoted as saying, “They hate our country.”  I wish someone would stand up, preferably one of those accused, and say “That is not so.  I love my country, as evidenced by my running for office and exposing myself to all those haters out there like you.”

“The party of Reagan is dead. What has emerged in its place is something unspeakable.”– Daniel W. Drezner, Fletcher School at Tufts, former Republican.


This is the peroration of an article by Daniel Drezner in the Washington Post on July 16, 2019 at 2:25 PM.  The article is titled, “What do Republicans stand for in 2019?  The only plausible answer to this question is beyond depressing.”

There’s that “depressing” label again.  There’s enough of this mood, especially expressed by columnists, particularly ex-Republicans, flowing out to sink the most buoyant spirits.

(image courtesy of

This Bears Repeating: Leslie Stahl: [redacted] said that the reason he maligns the press is “to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.” 


From the latest New Yorker, in an article about the flat-earth movement:

Recently, Lesley Stahl, of “60 Minutes,” revealed that, in an interview after the 2016 election, [redacted] told her that the reason he maligns the press is “to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.”

PS: I changed my mind about not mentioning him at all after going through my drafts and finding all these things that I hadn’t published that were really important…

PPS: [redacted] is almost as good as “He who must not be named.”

(picture courtesy of

Who does this look like to you?


I pulled this off of pixabay, credited to reidy68.  It looks awful.  But I couldn’t resist.  Descending to the level of personal insult seems appropriate when you are so frustrated and depressed by the present political administration as well as the alternatives…

All is lost. He who must not be named will be re-elected and the country will descend into civil war– unless the Democrats can get their acts together.


(cartoon courtesy of

As the weeks wind down towards the Democratic Convention, it seems that all of the candidates have endorsed radical proposals such as Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, decriminalizing immigration violations, citizenship for Dreamers, and so on.  Not to be outdone, He who must not be named has said the Democrats are endorsing abortion until birth and infanticide after, free medical care for illegal aliens, gun confiscation, raising taxes on the middle class, etc. etc.

I thought the platform that the candidate would run on was supposed to be decided at the Democratic Convention, not during the first debate.  All of the candidates need to dial back their policy proposals just a little.

At the same time, it is clearly necessary for candidates to show sympathy to people laden with student debt working minimum wage jobs, people who are stuck in rural areas with no jobs and no transportation, etc. etc.  That was Clinton’s biggest failing in the last election: her neglect of the suffering people with no voice.  They turned to Him because he claimed that he would do something about their plight.  Clinton should have called him out for lying every time his lips move.

Not that there’s anything wrong with Warren’s detailed policy proposals.  It’s just that untutored morons will be the swing votes in this election, just like every election, and they need to be fed their meat.  Stay away from reparations for slavery, any mention of undocumented immigrants, abortion after the second trimester, and all that stuff.  The rest can wait ’til after Democrats putatively win the election.  Just like Republicans, Democrats need to dissemble a bit about some of those unpopular radical ideas.

Science magazine: To combat climate change, plant a trillion trees


This proposal comes from an article in Science magazine recently that suggests that a billion hectares of forest land would counteract the current global warming effect…