The Pendragon's Hall

Listening to a local radio station today, the Pendragon heard an interview with Eric Massa, the Democrat challenger to Republican congressman Randy Kuhl here in western New York. Mr. Massa sounds like a well-meaning man, but his response to a question about abortion dismayed the hopefully-listening Pendragon. Instead of answering directly, he blathered on a bit about an operation he had and how he had told his wife if he didn't make it not to resuscitate him. This was, he said, a private decision and nobody else could make it for him. He never did get back to abortion, but the Pendragon assumes that he meant that the decision to abort can only be made by the mother and father, and not by the government or the church or anyone else. This answer no doubt cheers the pseudo-conservative libertarian movement, but his own answer undermines his statement. For what is abortion but one human being making the choice for another human being over the very basic question, Shall I live? If Mr. Massa were confronted with this suggestion, no doubt he would answer, in the strain of John Stuart Mill, the epitome of liberalism, that a child, particularly an unborn child cannot make decisions for itself and so the parents must make such a call for them, based on their own decisions in life. But this answer is simply not good enough--life is an inalienable right, and where is the cutoff date to be? If children are not allowed to make decisions in regards to life, why may not the parent of a five-year-old decide it's in her best interest not to live and pull the plug? It is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of what kind of nation we want to be? A nation cannot call itself just when one section of the population holds the power of live and death over another. Humans were not meant to exercise this kind of control. Parents, according even to the great liberal John Locke, are given control in order to nurture and raise their children to adulthood. They fail by this standard if they opt for abortion. The Pendragon sighs and signs off. He is still supporting Randy Kuhl.

What I saw among the Anglo-Americans leads me to believe that democratic institutions of this nature, if prudently introduced into society in such a way that people could become accustomed to them little by little and gradually absorb them into their opinions, could survive in places other than America.

Ann Coulter should stick to politics and legal issues...here she has a definite expertise. When she ventures into history, at least lately, she gets a little cloudy. In an interview with David Yeagley, an American Indian, on baldeagle.com, Coulter lashed out at any form of Democrat, claiming that Indians would do better in the Republican Party, and that Andrew Jackson was "a racist scumbag" who broke treaties, evicted the Cherokees, and oh by the way, was a Democrat. No attention is given to the fact that Andrew Jackson had an Indian son, and in fact, resembled conservative Republicans of today far more than any Democrat. It is true that Republicans have generally been fair to Indians--Lincoln, for example, commuted a number of unfair death sentences handed out to Indian warriors in the Minnesota Uprising during the Civil War--but you can't extrapolate the current party system back into American History. It simply is not there. Her interview in general is fairly accurate, but the anger and bitterness towards labeling anyone who was a Democrat in the past as the equiavelent of today's Left, which dates not from Jackson but from LBJ is misplaced. Her point that Federalists had a certain admiration in for Indians is not a great help...the Federalists were the Party from the Northeast where Indians had a certain distance to them. The Democrats were those who were right on the frontier interacting with them. The actual parallel might be how the bluebloods in New England, today mostly Democrats, champion sentimental Indian "rights" without ever having to deal with them. History can cut both ways and Coulter would be wise to tone it down a bit.

Julia Wilson is only the latest proof that American high schoolers are bloody idiots. The 14-year-old posted a photo of the President to MySpace with "Kill Bush" and a picture of a dagger scrawled across it. When Secret Service agents took her out of school and questioned her, Wilson whined that they were "unnecessarily mean" and they should have recognized that she was no threat, because she was "a peace-loving person" with a heart on her backpack. Well, of course, the instant messages and emails of Congressman Foley are fair game for inspection, but the MySpace rants of an idiot teenager are off-limits, even when breathing out death threats. Would Wilson have carried through and killed the President? Of course not. She's a little pansy trying to impress her peers with how into current events she is. But it is time the youth of this nation realize that while they are free to say whatever they want, they are also free to suffer the consequences, even if that is the humiliation of questioning by the Secret Service from school.

The RINO has finally gored the people who feed him. Senator John McCain declared this past week that the problems the US is currently facing in North Korea are the result of the failures (yes, that's right--failures) of the Clinton administration. That's right--the Agreed Framework by which we promised the North Koreans to be nice to them if they'd not make nuclear weapons, to the extent that we wouldn't even inspect them till 1999, was a flop. Democrats simply can't comprehend why "the Dear Leader", in reality a megalomaniac dictator, would lie to them. This is the approach they advised with Iraq, remember. If they had their way, Saddam Hussein could be sitting on a stockpile of nuclear weapons right now, taunting the world. Democrats only like nuclear weapons if there is a chance Americans get wiped out by them. Then they can use it for political points: send us to Congress because we know how to kiss butt, er, I mean, negotiate with mass murderers. It's really disgusting. Far and away, the Democrats' attitude about national security is far more perverted than anything Congressman Foley did, even in his dirtiest dreams. Notice what happened to Foley? He crawled off somewhere in disgrace and the Republicans have not wasted any time in defending him, they have gotten on with running the country and preparing for the election. Were Foley a Democrat, he would chew his underlip and scream about the vast, right-wing conspiracy that read his email and was out to destroy him. Heck, we're not allowed to tap the emails and phone lines of terrorists, yet suddenly the Democrats are all afire with holy passion to rid Washington of the scum bags. That will never happen while Teddy Kennedy remains in the city. If anyone like the Pendragon points this out, of course, we are accused of being hypocrites because "Republicans are supposed to be socially conservative." And? Because we don't support homosexuality and propositioning of minors, we're not allowed to have some rotten apples of our own? That does at least explain why the Democrats get off--they support all those things. But I highly doubt the American voter will be fooled--after all, they saw in 1998 that sexual deviance doesn't matter because "everyone's doing it." Good luck selling the morality talk...have you left no sense of decency, sir?

The Bull Moose is excessively optimistic. While it is true that certain corruptions are now obvious among the ruling Republican Party, and although the Pendragon is a big fan of give-and-take in a two-party system, the fact remains: while the Bull Moose continues to bury his antlers in the sand and hope that a Democratic takeover in November would lead to the success of a viable, left-of-center regime in Washington, we know what a Democrat-controlled government looks like. If it were simply that a Congress run by Democrats would experiment with a liberal ideal for America, the Pendragon would not be so nervous. But I can predict what will happen: following a Democratic victory, impeachment hearings will follow with partisan rancour reaching all-time highs. In the meantime, our troops in the field, unsure whether they are doing the right thing or not will be plunged into deep depression. And terrorists worldwide will be heartened to strike at an America that has gone back on its course, just like we did at the end of the Gulf War. This is what the turnover in November will bring.

It is amusing how many people sit in their comfy armchairs with all the time in the world and no pressure whatsoever and criticize President Bush with lofty claims about how he is "the worst ever" and an idiot. Yet when pressed, they can rarely give you any kind of coherent alternative with what they would do instead. The latest public figure to do this has even less to recommend him than Teddy Kennedy: it is Donald Trump, whose sole achievement in life is how far ahead of the mainstream voter he is in terms of cash-flow and how his ego could even surmount that of Narcissus. He recently told Newsmax's Ronald Kessler the following things he would do if elected president. I share them with my commentary.

I would invite to my first state dinner all of the people who are our friends and many of the people who are our enemies to see if we could work things out. Yeah, that worked so well with the Kennedys, let's try it on the Kims and the Mohommeds.

My first action would be to try to extricate ourselves from the mess we're in regarding Iraq. How?

No country would ever dare push the United States around because they would suffer our wrath. You mean, like Saddam Hussein did during that whole "mess" you just referred to?

I'd keep taxes low. How?

Our border situation would be cleared up through proper management and a good, strong, high wall. What entails good management?

I'd veto any bill Congress sends me that I wasn't in favor of. That's a good policy.

America's poor would appreciate what I'd do because I would bring them into the economic mainstream. How?

There would be fewer scandals in my administration because I don't tolerate scandal. I don't think you get to pick and choose.

I'd appoint no one from The Apprentice, because they are not experienced enough. Speaking of "not experienced enough," what political jobs have you done before?

My biggest construction project for America would be rebuilding the country. Say what?

Melania would be a fantastic first lady because she has wonderful style. If you say so.

My Secret Service code name would be "Get It Done." I can hear it now: "Get it done is headed for the door."

It's absolutely ridiculous. Being president is a political job, requiring some political know-how. If the president wants to appoint a businessperson to head up something dealing with actual business--say, the treasury, then great, let him do that. But being president of a country is not at all the same as running even a successful business, and success in one does not equal success in the other. Until the Bush-bashers have a alternative, workable program, they need to just be quiet.