Sunday, November 09, 2008

PJ O'Rourke: Funny, but Wrong

O'Rourke pins the tail on the (R) poobahs, justifiably.

But he erases credibility with this howling honker:

Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people.

Dear Mr. O'Rourke: Perhaps while you were still a yout', drunk and/or stoned back in '73, you missed this--but "the will of the people" had nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with Roe v. Wade.

That was Judicial Arrogance, which is to say, the Will of Blackmun. And Blackmun didn't even have a shire to call his own.

For your assignment, O'Rourke, you will be forced to replace an actual Conservative humorist while he replaces an actual Conservative. That's one week of semi-anonymous grinding in the trenches. Just don't grind any of my daughters, all of whom are armed.


The Committee.


Anonymous said...


Like the farmer's oldest boy, you might want to get to some readin' of your own. Roe predates the Bicentennial. And oh, by the way, mindin' your own business is a conservative bedrock. Turn a few pages and you'll get to that part.

Dad29 said...


Thanks for the correction!

As for your suggestion about 'minding one's own biz,' then I suppose that murders should be ignored unless they occur within one's own house, eh?

Try again.

Anonymous said...

DaddyZero, Roe v. Wade may have been decided by 7 old men, but rest assured that it is indeed the will of the people. Were it not will of the people, it would have been changed by now. Take a look at gam marriage, for example. It isn't the will of the people because almost every state has overturned it. Not true with abortion. You may not like to hear the truth, but that's the truth. If the people on your side of the equation were a little more rational (like permitting abortion in cases of rape and incest), you might have made some progress. Deal with it -- your position is the minority position because it has no heart.

Steve Burri said...

Yeah, Dad29, you have no heart because you argue against allowing the murder of human babies, either in the womb, partially born, or surviving botched abortions.


The votes against 'gam' marriage will probably be negated by 5 black robes after President Obama appoints some of his like minded justices. The will of the people, indeed.

Anonymous said...

Steverino, you miss the point -- Roe v. Wade IS the will of the people. If it wasn't, it would have been tossed just like gay marriage is being tossed. The no-abortion-under-ANY-circumstances position is decidedly the minority position.

Dad29 said...

You are truly a dumbass if you STILL don't know that Roe, having been wrongly-decided by SCOTUS, applies nationally.

Marriage law, OTOH, is decided on a state-by-state basis.

And Amendments to the Constitution require Congressional passage prior to state-by-state voting.

Will of the people, my ass.

Now go re-read Civics 101 and learn something.

Anonymous said...

DaddyZero, you're the "dumbass". Re-read what I typed. The Supreme Court decided, and 30+ years later you folks haven't been able to overturn it or limit it. If it were indeed contrary to the will of the people, the Constitution would have been amended because the people would have risen up to demand it.

The gay marriage issue proves my point. A couple Supreme Courts have created it and, within a few short years it has been overturned.

The federal Constitution could be amended to reverse Roe v. Wade, yet in 30+ years no such successful attempt has been made.

Why the different, gay marriage vs. abortion? In one case, gay marriage, there is a national consensus, at the moment, that it is wrong. In the case of abortion, no such consensus exists, and only a genuine "dumbass" can't see that.

Take a look at the nutty idea tossed up in Colorado last week -- treating the fertilized egg just like you or me. Do you know what percentage of the electorate in Colorado thought that a good idea? 27% or thereabouts!

Dad29 said...

Sorry, Nannymuss, but your take is seriously flawed.

Gene McCarthy didn't want the aborto-zealouts to infect the (D) Party, but he lost that battle AND the election, and the aborto-zealouts have ruled (D) politics ever since.

They also occupy a portion of the (R) bunch.

Anyhoo, it's never been possible to move that Amendment through both houses of Congress since 1973.

But that's not relevant, except for the dead babies...

What IS relevant is the issue of right/wrong. It makes no difference to me that some amorphous 'majority' of the US thinks killing some babies is fine and dandy--it's still wrong.

Same-o with the Co. amendment (although I don't know the details of the language, which is usually useful...)

You may screech all you like, and attempt to justify it with 'majoritarian' language. Queer "marriage" was only the first LeftoWacky idea to get hammered.

Abortion will be coming up soon.

Anonymous said...

Again, if a clear majority of Americans agreed with your extreme position, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned more than a generation ago. The will of the people cannot be denied, as was the case with gay marriage.

If you want to learn about the nutty proposal which lost in Colorado last week, you can go to Under the Colorado proposal (which garnered just 27% of the vote), IFF, emergency contraception, embryonic stem cell research, and all abortions would have been outlawed.

Dan said...

Anoynmous, you just don't know history. Several states have attempted to pass laws outlawing abortion but the Supreme Court has overruled it. South Dakota comes to mind. For the Supreme Court to overturn precedent is almost unheard of.
This should be a state's issue, not a federal issue.

J. Gravelle said...

Thanks for the plug, sir.

I wondered where all that traffic was coming from.

Both my regular readers don't usually click through THAT often...

The Guy Who Fills In For The Guy Who Fills In For The Guy Who Fills In For Rush Limbaugh

Dad29 said...

extreme position

Ah, the code words...

Frankly, "extremism" in defense of innocent life strikes me as a Constitutional mandate.

Anonymous said...

'Several states have attempted to pass laws outlawing abortion but the Supreme Court has overruled it."

You people are "Densa" candidates, apparently. Yes, it would take a federal constitutional amendment, which isn't easy, but if there was a "national consensus" that ALL abortions should be outlawed this would have happened DECADES ago. The truth is that yours is a minority position.

Again, look at gay marriage. Where there is consensus, mountains move. Where there is no consensus, you folks keep your delusional prattling.