News of the Weird, a.k.a. "It's Only Murder When We Don't Get Paid"

Chuck Shepherd's News of the Weird
WEEK OF JUNE 26, 2005

Gerardo Flores, 19, was convicted of murder in June in Lufkin, Texas, in the death of the 5-month-old fetus of his girlfriend, Erica Basoria. Flores admitted that he had stood on Basoria's stomach several times at her request to induce a miscarriage, but Basoria had told authorities that she had also punched herself in the stomach several times. Under Texas law, killing a fetus is a capital offense, and so Flores automatically received a life sentence, but Basoria could not be charged because of her constitutional right to abortion. [Washington Post-AP, 6-6-05]

My sister sent this to me today. I'd seen it elsewhere already on Lucianne and such, but it's still just staggeringly, galactically ridiculous.

Here's my question: Why are abortion doctors allowed to do this with taxpayer money--in other words, doing it with government endorsement--while poor confused Gerardo Flores gets the book thrown at him for doing the same thing? Could it be because liberals don't want people to be able to do it without giving the government money?

At last! The Democrats' elan vital.

This was from today's Political Diary as featured in place of today's Best of the Web at Opinion Journal.com, emphasis mine:

He also believes that when it comes to a vote, as many as 30 or 40 Democrats will likely jump onboard for two reasons. One, this bill is going to be rolled into a larger package to include pension and other reforms aimed at helping older Americans. And secondly, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have put a "gag order" on their party, preventing members from saying anything positive about Republican reform proposals. "But you can't stay silent on a vote," he said.

There's our "new tone" in Washington. If this is true, then Democrats are gagged!! by their leadership from agreeing with anything Republicans say. I always suspected that, but there it is in black and white. And to think we'd been racking our brains trying to make sense of what they were saying. What they say doesn't have to make sense as long as it is contrary to Republican policy--never mind what's best for the country, or even their constituents!

I haven't been able to find any support for this assertion in the news, after roughly 2 minutes of searching on the Web. But it sure does explain their behavior.

I've always held liberal Democrats in contempt, but, you know, there was always a voice of discretion in the back of my head: Maybe s/he's just confused, doesn't have all the facts, is misguided and sad .. At this point, any such benefit-of-the-doubt is swept clear. The Democrat party is about power, at any cost. Even the cost of our citizens' lives, even the cost of the lives of our soldiers in a time of war.

Sick, and disgusting. If I were a Democrat and I'd read those words, I'd have no choice but to utterly renounce my party affiliation. I have friends who are Democrats, and for the life of me I'll never understand how they can be proud of their party.

Nope, no bias here.

Headline: "U.S. Tortures, Denies Access, U.N. Reports."

Nice use of "reports". Whenever the U.N. or any government or organization (coughAmnesty Internationalcough) makes a claim against America or American interests, it's "reports" or some other non-confrontational word. If anyone makes a claim supporting our President, our nation or our general well-being, it's "claims" or "alleges" or "insists" or "believes" or anything that makes sure the reader knows that this is just a claim, not necessarily the truth.

But when the U.N. attacks the United States, it's just reporting the plain ol' facts, no reason to doubt them, oh no. The United Nations is too august and dignified a body to spew reckless nonsense.

On Democrats

As quoted by a poster on Lucianne:

"The jihadists have sworn to kill us all. People who think America is invulnerable, that America can just leave the field of this battle, do not begin to understand the world we confront. Or if they understand it, they have tilted their allegiance to the other side." -- David Horowitz

"[President Bush] sees the war on terror as a struggle requiring enormous will, particularly when the default mode of fashionable transnationalism apropos anything difficult is to wait till it's too late and then issue a statement of concern (see Sudan)." -- Mark Steyn

Like being racist? Join the Democrats

Howard Dean, DNC Chairman: "[Republicans are] a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."

Many liberals don't see any reason why this comment is stirring up so much controversy. After all, they say, "how can it be an insult if it's true?"

My response is, change the words "white" and "Christian" then see how it sounds. "They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a black, Muslim party."

Oh ho ho, could you imagine the screeching that would come from the left if Rush Limbaugh or Bill Frist said that?

On Gentlemen

Yesterday, the Prince of Wales came out against what he called "fashionable teaching," claiming it was destroying English culture. I'll do him one better. I think "fashionable teaching" is destroying culture, end of statement.

One of the things that it is almost impossible to find taught anywhere is the Way of the Gentleman. I do believe there is such a thing as a gentleman, and I do not use the word casually. Being a true gentleman means acting appropriately in all situations, with honor, dignity and grace.

A long time ago I came across an article in a magazine, that I copied and saved. The article was about what it means to be a gentleman. It quoted from a handbook of the Virginia Military Institute. It is a code that does not recognize the change in women (i.e. "women's lib") that's occured over the last forty years .. which in my eyes makes it all the more credible and correct. I will now retype this code word for word, in the hopes that someone, somewhere, someday, will take something away from this, and remember it when in doubt about how they should act. Here goes.

"Without a strict observance of a fundamental code of honor, no man, no matter how 'polished', can be considered a gentleman. The honor of a gentleman demands the inviolability of his word and the incorruptibility of his principles. He is the descendant of the knight, the crusader, he is the defender of the defenseless and the champion of justice--or he is not a gentleman.

"A gentleman does not discuss his family affairs in public or with acquaintances;

"Does not speak more than casually about his wife or girlfriend;

"Does not go to a lady's house if he is affected by alcohol. He is temperate in the use of alcohol;

"Does not lose his temper nor exhibit anger, fear, hate, embarrassment, ardor or hilarity in public;

"Does not hail a lady from a club window;

"Never discusses the merits or demerits of a lady;

"Does not mention names, exactly as he avoids the mention of what things cost;

"Does not borrow money from a friend, except in dire need. Money borrowed is a debt of honor and must be repaid as soon as possible. Any debt incurred by a deceased parent, brother, sister or grown child are assumed by an honorable man as a debt of honor;

"Does not display his wealth, money or possessions;

"Does not put his manners on and off, whether in the club or in a ballroom. He treats people with courtesy, no matter what their social positions may be;

"Does not slap strangers on the back nor so much as lay a finger on a lady;

"Does not "lick the boots of those above him" nor "kick the face of those below him" on the social ladder;

"Does not take advantage of another's helplessness or ignorance and assumes that no gentleman will take advantage of him;

"A gentleman respects the reserves of others but demands that others respect those that are his;

"A gentleman can become what he wills to be."

A worthy code for any man, born in any age.