Just when you thought Slate's book, George W. Bushisms, couldn't possibly sell any more copies, the President has done it again. According to the Washington Post, a vacationing Bush was surprised on Tuesday when asked by reporters about the plans of Panos Zavos, a Kentucky scientist, and Severino Antinori, an Italian fertility doctor, to clone a human being.
Bush decided to answer on the topic of stem cells instead. Then, he offered this promise: "I'll be making a statement about my views on how life and science should interface when I'm ready."
It's fascinating to imagine the hand gestures that might have accompanied this declaration. Personally, I like to picture Bush trying in vain to fit together two invisible, poorly matched Legos. And in the same session, Bush also managed this more minor flub on the Middle East, observing: "Our administration is in contact with the Israelis and the Palestinians on a regular basis. We will continue to do so."
As Bush continues to tackle these profound and divisive questions with the best phrasing he's able to muster, life and science -- and Israelis and Palestinians -- will undoubtedly persist in their deep embrace.
Those Poor Deluded Greens. Also on Tuesday, August 7th, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a story detailing how Republican activists in Washington State have been helping out the Green party candidate in a close state House race (a New York Times article by Sam Howe Verhovek later expanded the coverage). On July 7th, Stan Shore, a "veteran political campaign consultant for Washington State Republicans," helped organize a Green Party nominating convention; while his wife, Leslie Donovan, was working for a Green candidate for King County Council. There's probably never been more explicit proof that, at least in our current political system, a Green vote is frequently tantamount to a vote for the GOP.
What's remarkable about this story is the naiveté of the youthful Green candidate for the statehouse who was being helped out by Republicans. "It was a revealing introduction to politics for Young Han, 18, the Greens' 21st District House candidate, an idealistic newcomer who graduated from Mountlake Terrace High School two months ago," writes the Post-Intelligencer's Neil Modie. Modie then quotes Han: "I can't believe this is happening. It's just horrid that this stuff goes on in our political system."
Han, who is achingly young -- no pun intended -- told the Times that he'd learned something from the experience. But what's Ralph Nader's excuse?
Don Feder on Democracy. In the latest issue of The American Prospect, American University constitutional law professor Jamin B. Raskin has a fascinating article on why Americans lack a constitutional right to vote (and he's talking about all Americans, not just the most obvious group of disenfranchised citizens, residents of the District of Columbia and U.S. territories like Puerto Rico).
"The nation's tolerance for disenfranchisement in the twenty-first century is quite exceptional," notes Raskin. In fact, some seem not only to tolerate disenfranchisement; they actively celebrate the disengagement of some Americans privileged with the vote. For a glimpse of the awful truth, check out this op-ed by the righter than right wing Boston Herald columnist Don Feder. In the article, titled -- God help us -- "Non-voters advance democracy," Feder writes (and this is a long selection):
Most of the people who don't vote, shouldn't.The Census Bureau determined that in 1996, 74 percent of individuals inhouseholds with incomes in excess of $75,000 a year voted, compared to 32percent of those with annual incomes of less than $10,000. The former are nettaxpayers -- the latter, principal consumers of government services.
Non-voters are less likely to be educated, involved or aware of candidates and issues. How much of a tragedy is it if someone who thinks a "drug-freeAmerica" means he's entitled to free drugs doesn't vote?
These folks tend to fall hard for Democratic moonshine. They think taxcuts are bad because government needs our money more than we do. Theybelieve in Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, the Social Security trust fund.
They are convinced that Kennedys love the poor, Hillary Rodham Clintoncares about our children and Bad Boy Bill was the greatest president sinceAbraham Lincoln.
That Democrats are eager to drag these innocents to the polls isunderstandable. That some Republicans share this passion is perplexing.
And there you have it. Only wealthy, highly educated Republicans should vote. In fact, according to Feder, such a state of affairs would be good for democracy. As long as these attitudes persist, the hope of passing a constitutional amendment granting each citizen an inalienable right to vote is nothing but, well, moonshine.