Author Archive
Ted’s Shorts
Written by Ted West
Thursday, 13 November 2008 19:46
5 Comments

Sarah Palin is the finest woman in American politics. Probably ever. But it took John McCain a week to get around to "defending" her from those republican elites who see her as a threat to their future in the party. And he did it with a patronizing, "I'm so proud of her and her family." Not a word of denunciation for her detractors. Your Republican wimps and cowards at work.

And speaking of cowards, the Republican Party is planning a lawsuit to overturn McCain-Feingold. Will it work? It's anybody's guess, but where were they when it was being debated and later signed by the president who ruined their party? Not a word about George Bush – again.

Last night, I heard some right-leaning talking face (sorry, they blend together) telling us what Obama needs to do when he gets into office to stem the financial crisis. It wasn't a partisan thing, he was only referring to what he felt needs to be done regardless of who had been elected. The problem: don't we have a president right now? Let me try to recall his name…. President Nero?

Do you love irony like I do? Because it turns out that McCain's campaign funds are going to be audited, but not Obama's. It's part of the requirement when you elect to take public financing, and it's going to cost McCain millions in audit fees. Meanwhile, they're going to ignore Obama because, as the story goes; he raised so much that it doesn't matter what an audit turns up.

Finally, T. Boone Pickens is shelving his windy plans, (though not his rhetoric) for now because the cost of oil is too low, he says. Thank Sky Guy for lower prices, but they mask the truth – that wind is not currently, nor will it be for a long time, a viable form of electricity on a large scale, and that doesn't even take into account the thousands of miles of eyesores it will create and to which even Ted Kennedy will attest.

Now I gotta go find some new shorts…

 
Abortion To Go?
Written by Ted West
Thursday, 11 September 2008 20:11
27 Comments

Camille Paglia is an enlightened liberal. She may or may not be the first rational member of her species, but if she's not, she may be as close as a liberal can get. In her latest column which begins with a vicious dismissal of John McCain's heroism, she then morphs into a tough assessment of Barack Obama as prelude to an extraordinarily effusive bit of praise for Sarah Palin. Paglia's take on America's Sister is pitch perfect. She loves her. Who wouldn't?

But it's where Paglia ends up that really grabbed my attention. She says that she regards abortion as murder, but demands a woman's unlimited right to make that choice. That's bold. What's even more amazing is that she makes sense. This is of particular interest to me because it was only yesterday that I was wondering how the abortion gap between liberals and conservatives could ever be bridged, and I was thinking that the only possibility is for liberals to admit that life begins at conception. Paglia does that.

And so we are immediately closer to compromise than I'd ever thought possible. But let's be clear, I'm talking about compromise between Camille and me, not liberals and conservatives, both of which are so entrenched in the extreme that unless both groups adapt the Camille Paglia-Ted West approach, this battle will go on ad infinitum. And both groups are wrong, though conservatives have principle on their side: being that if something is alive, it's wrong to kill it arbitrarily.

However, I don't consider abortion to be murder, at least not all abortions. Paglia does, by the way. That shocked me.

Here's how I see it. A fetus is as alive as you or I, but with notable differences: it's lacking awareness, and at least to some point, it likely feels no pain. Consequently, killing a fetus in the early stages of development is not the same as killing your ten-year-old (who probably deserves it more). And it's not the same as killing a fetus in the third trimester.

So where Paglia says it's murder and still demands that women should be allowed unlimited choice, I only say that it's killing, but that women should not be allowed unlimited choice.

Mistakes happen, and while it would certainly be better, or at least far more moral and ethical to bring that mistake to term, I'm not going demand that a woman do that… the first time. She's wrong to kill the fetus, but she's not a murderer in my eyes. One would hope that her conscience would allow her to experience all the ethical considerations leading to her decision, but if she can live with herself, I would accept her choice.

But again, I'm talking about the first time. The second time, I would regard as serious misdemeanor, punishable by fine and/or jail time. not that it's more serious for her to disrupt a second life, but because at some point, if discipline and conscience fail her, the State has to step in and impose its values on the woman, which is the main reason for the State to exist in the first place.

Needless to say, a third time would then be a display of cold callousness that no society should accept, and thus the punishment should be stiff.

So If Ms. Paglia would accept this limit on choice, we can put this matter to rest. It should displease left and right equally, but I think it's realistic and fair. Not to a particular fetus necessarily, but to a whole lot more fetuses than receive fair and ethical treatment under the current situation.

The broad scale solution has to involve the admission by liberals that abortion is killing. The idea that we don't know when life begins is preposterous, but it's fair to argue when life as we know it begins, and that line of demarcation should be when the fetus is capable of existing outside the womb on its own. As I indicated, there are ugly choices all around, but neither side should expect to get exactly what it wants. That's not only unrealistic, it's not defensible.

I applaud Camille Paglia. I admire her bravery. But then I admire mine too.

Editor's Note: The image of Barack Obama in Freddy Kruger makeup is courtesy of MTW contributor, T.R. Oglodad.

 
Russert’s Passing – Will It mean Dropping Any Pretense Of Objectivity?
Written by Ted West
Monday, 16 June 2008 05:19
No Comments

Was Tim Russert the last of his breed?

I continue to be shocked by Tim Russert's ongoing death, and I didn't even like him either personally or as a journalist. As the latter, he was merely an intermittently objective liberal. As the former, I was dismayed that he didn't speak out when Don Imus was the victim of vile accusations because of a tasteless but insignificant remark. Of course, I don't know what transpired behind the scenes, but Russert and Imus had been friends, and I felt he was one person, perhaps the only one, who could have tempered the rabid herd.

Now that Mr. Russert is gone, most likely forever, I feel compelled to focus on the consequences of his passing, because based on the direction NBC has been going, it seems to me that Tim Russert was the lone remaining impediment. He was the most tactfully biased mainstream media man I knew. He could finesse a liberal perspective better than anyone to the point where his questions sounded absolutely reasonable until you realized that none of them ever came close to being posed from a conservative perspective.

That's what made Russert as great as he was though – he was Baby Bear's porridge, neither too hot or too cold. Conservatives and Republicans could sit down with him and have a reasonable chance of making a point. Can you think of anyone else at NBC, ABC, or CBS, forget about CNN and MSNBC, who could conduct an interview without any blatant bias and where reasonable argument gets a fair hearing? Or even a fair reception?

And now, it's not even whether Russert may have been one of a kind, it's about who would be willing, much less able, to find a replacement even close to Russert's caliber? Chris Wallace is similar in his approach, and he conceals his liberalism well enough, but he'd be miserably weak if past performance is an indication of future results. And from my admittedly limited perspective, there's no one else besides Wallace who can assume the mantle of liberally slanted impartiality.

Admit it, you wouldn't be surprised one bit if another Chris – Matthews were to become the new head of Meet The Press. And you wouldn't be even too surprised if the position were offered to Keith Olberman. It wouldn't be the first time that a smaller company took over a bigger one, but it would be the first time that, by implication, NBC management had tacitly, finally, declared that standards were now completely out the window – who needs standards anyway when you have control?

If you're wondering what I mean by that since seemingly nothing has really changed in MSMland, it's that Tim Russert may have been the one man standing between any semblance of objectivity and full-blown bias, and even if he wasn't, no one else has either his capabilities or discipline. Of course, it could be a good thing in the long run if the pretense of objectivity is eliminated from the network mix, but even if it is, the short run could be far more disgusting than things have been up to now, and I think that's really saying something.

Apart from that, Tim Russert's untimely death is a reminder that you don't have to be old to die suddenly, and that neither wealth nor standing can substitute for bad luck. I really don't know why I feel so badly about Tim Russert other than from the perspective that he died while Kennedy lives on, and I simply can't get over the idea that Russert's passing may be an omen for November and beyond…