Embryos Ruled Only Potential Life in Britain
Cancer patient Natallie Evans lost her final appeal to have embryos fertilized by her former partner implanted in her womb. Now, while it's all very sad that she lost her only chance to have a child of her own flesh and blood (she was rendered infertile by her cancer treatment), the European Court made the right decision by upholding British law, which states that both parents must give their consent for fertilized embryos to be used. Her former partner, Howard Johnston, had changed his mind about using the embryos in the wake of their split-up and the courts rightly decided that this wasn't a right-to-life issue as only the potential for life existed in the fertilized embryos, not life itself. And before we dump on Mr Johnstone for being selfish, consider: Why can a woman change her mind, but not a man? For whatever reason, he no longer desired children, and no-one has the right to say that he should have offspring against his will! Secondly, Ms Evans should now turn her attention to adoption if she wants children so badly. Insisting on children of your own is a selfish act — understandable, perhaps, but intrinsically selfish nonetheless. Time to move on, Ms Evans. There are plenty of children out there in need of a home. Give one a chance if you're that set on motherhood and move on.
Blair Tells Unpleasant Truth on Black Crime
Tony Blair has blamed the recent spate of violent murders in the London black community on the black community itself. He also blamed society in general by noting that political correctness demands that people act as if the black community is not responsible for the lion's share of violent crime. "We won't stop this [the killings]," Blair said, "by pretending it isn't young black kids doing it." He also called on the black community to sort out their own issues, such as absentee fathers, rampant truancy, drug abuse and dealing and the violently narcissistic culture of "respect," where any diss, no matter how minor, is cause for a stabbing or shooting. Tony Blair may be a pathetic Prime Minister on too many levels to even consider counting, but when the man's right, he's right. Brave words from Mr. Blair indeed — but perfectly true.
However — and where Blair is considered there always seems to be a "however" in the equation — as The Daily Express editorialized yesterday: "But isn't he culpable in the betrayal of inner-city teenagers? He has allowed the notion of 'institutional racism' to be used by Left-wingers to prevent schools and the police from nipping bad behaviour in the bud. As a result many youngsters who could have been set straight have been lost to the nihilistic gang culture which disfigures our major cities." Indeed. Mr. Blair, perhaps if you and your government hadn't been so phenomenally and outrageously poor at tackling crime and hadn't crippled the police forces across the country with this very political correctness that you now chide, things would never have become that bad. This latest failure at social liberalism is down to you and your Labour Party, Mr. Blair. No, not entirely. But enough for you to shoulder a lot of the blame yourself.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Some refreshing honesty from beyond the big pond, Mark.
I wish we had some leaders here in the US who would stand up and say what Blair is saying, and go further and point out that it is the US left which maintains institutional racism to protect their power base.
Dave
2 - Arch Conservative
"it is the US left which maintains institutional racism to protect their power base."
Truer words have never been spoken!
3 - Mark Edward Manning
Dave (and AC): The real tragedy is that Tony Blair is a highly intelligent man and has so many right ideas, but he has failed Britain in so many ways: on crime, on education, on pensions, etc. I guess you would have to live here in the U.K., as I do, to truly know the extent of it. As I stated, it is his own Labour government that crippled law enforcement and schools in the first place with political correctness, which is why his anti-PC statements of late come as such a shock. But, give him credit for finally seeing the light. Maybe now something will be done about it, though the black community has predictably responded with anger and disbelief at his recent comments.
4 - Dave Nalle
Well, he's now the British equivalent of a lame duck, and having no need to get reelected he can actually tell the truth, thumb his nose at the public and ride off into the sunset.
dave
5 - Christopher Rose
Not as easy as that Dave, he's still trying to make sure the Labour party gets re-elected. He became a busted flush for most people when he took on the role of Bush's lapdog.
6 - Dave Nalle
Goes to show you our different perspectives, Chris. I thought Blair was utterly useless and then when he backed Bush after 9/11 I saw that he had a spine for the first time, and when he stuck with Bush through thick and thin I began to think he might actually have some character.
Dave
7 - Christopher Rose
Naah, he used to build consensus and broad coalitions of agreement, then made a big mistake and was too stubborn to admit it or do anything about it.
The USA has so far invaded two countries, absolutely made a mess of the post-conquest situation, spent hundreds of billions of dollars and achieved nothing except increase global tension whilst entirely failing to find or do anything about Osama bin Laden.
Blair has just let Bush stick his metaphorical hand up his ass and use him like a puppet.
8 - Mark Edward Manning
We screwed this one up big-time, Christopher, you're not entirely wrong about that one. Even I can see that now. BUT, are you saying NATO's invasion of Afghanistan was wrong? We had the smoking gun we needed to go in there ... and even Canada, France and Germany of all countries joined us in that venture, which should tell you something about its "legitimacy." We may have created a diversion with Iraq, but Afghanistan was a valid invasion. You can say our post-war planning in both countries was shit, because it was, but don't say the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong, because that was a totally justified act.
9 - Christopher Rose
Remind me again of why that was, Mark; we invaded a country because we thought bin Laden was there is the way I seem to remember it. At best he was in them mountains that border Afghanistan and Pakistan...
10 - Dave Nalle
Like I said, Christopher, different perspectives on the same thing. Maybe I mistook Bush's hand for a spine - still an improvement over the old rag doll Blair.
And BTW, bin Laden is largely irrelevant. He's more of a symbol than anything real.
Dave
11 - Christopher Rose
The head of Al Qaeda is irrelevant? Here we go through the looking glass, again..!
12 - Dave Nalle
Christopher, what matters is the neutralization of the threat of terrorism to the US and the other Western nations. If keeping bin Laden penned up in the mountains accomplishes that while we kill off the kingpins in his infrastructure around the world, the desired result is accomplished.
Conversely, JUST killing bin Laden would be of value solely on a symbolic basis, because someone else would emerge to take his place. An ineffective and marginalized bin Laden is far better than a live and effective al Qaeda leader who is not bin Laden.
Dave
13 - Christopher Rose
What makes you think that bin Laden is neutralized just because he's (probably) hiding up in the mountains?
Furthermore, I thought the idea was to put him on trial for the attack on New York?
14 - Dave Nalle
Can you imagine what kind of circus that trial would be and all the bitching and moaning and second guessing that would come with it?
My impression has always been that bin Laden would die in a dark hole somewhere and we'd claim victory and that would be that. Much neater and cleaner.
As for his effectiveness, his main role was always as a fundraiser and I doubt he's doing a lot of entertaining where he is. I'll browse some of the intelligence assessments on it, but I suspect that al Qaeda couldn't be doing what little it is still doing if almost all decisions weren't being made at a local level.
Dave
15 - STM
Blair is right to call a spade a spade - which, given the derogatory meaning of spade in London, is probably not the right choice of word, but anyway, on this he is calling it as it is ... and it's not a race issue, but a crime issue. And the crime issue, sadly, does revolve around young members of the black community in London.
Not all are disaffected or come from broken homes, either. But it's a culture that's grown in recent years and has been influenced by the gansta culture in the US, and I don't agree that's it's been allowed to flourish through any kind of PC, government-perpetuated social construct.
It is very similar to the middle-eastern gang culture in Australia, and is nothing more than an attempt by many young people to find a place to belong in a society where they feel they are marginalised at best. It's turned nasty because it's about gangs.
On the question of Blair having no balls: crap. He might look and sound wishy-washy and poncy, but he's stood up to the number crunchers and the warring factions in the Labour Party like no other Labour leader before him. The truth is, you don't get to the top of the Labour Party without having a tough, ruthless streak. I also see it as a given that he would support Bush in the wake of 9/11, even though I don't agree with everything that's been done (particularly the Guantanamo debacle).
That the conduct of the war on terror hasn't been that great isn't that relevent to the issue of Blair's involvement - the threat posed by these idiots is still real, and even after the attacks in London, Madrid and Bali (and the almost daily murders in Iraq), I can't believe people are still foolish enough to think there is no global terror network and that if we just stood there and handed out bunches of flowers they'd all go away.
Blair is one of the few western leaders to understand the reality and the gravity of the crisis we face, and to have the stomach to do something about it by committing his country to stopping it.
16 - Mark Edward Manning
"If keeping bin Laden penned up in the mountains accomplishes that while we kill off the kingpins in his infrastructure around the world, the desired result is accomplished. Conversely, JUST killing bin Laden would be of value solely on a symbolic basis, because someone else would emerge to take his place. An ineffective and marginalized bin Laden is far better than a live and effective al Qaeda leader who is not bin Laden."
I agree, Dave. Entirely. Well put.
Christopher, America, and most of the rest of NATO went into Afghanistan because it was a fucking WAKE-UP CALL to start being pro-active against these extremist psychos. Instead, YOU - Mr. "I Am Not A Liberal (Even Though It's Glaringly Obvious That I Am)" - would rather place the blame for militancy and extremism on the U.S. for leading the charge in the war against terror while the Middle East would have continued to erupt, no matter how interventionist or isolationist the U.S. was. Did the U.S. have anything at all to do with the bombings in Algeria this past week? No. Al-Qaeda did that of their own accord, just as they would have done even if the most hippy-dippy person on earth was sitting in the White House.
Chris, it's obvious to me that you are excusing the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and much more keen to shift blame on the U.S. and its allies who are keen to protect their way of life from these deranged lunatics. You want to life your life under sharia law, you go right ahead. Head east and keep going until you see nothing but mountains and sand - you will soon be taken care of in one way or the other!
I'm afraid it is you who has gone through the looking-glass again.
17 - Mark Edward Manning
Well, STM, if any government -- like Labour in the U.K. or the Democrats in the U.S. -- want to excuse bad behavior by minorities because it's politically incorrect to do otherwise, then that could be construed as helping the gangs, certainly not hindering them. Instead of laying down strict groundrules and using both the schools and police to rigorously enforce a responsible social contract, we reward bad behavior in the schools and turn these basically feral kids out to prey upon the public and each other because the police can't do anything about them because of all the PC red tape clogging up the works.
I imagine your own Labor party in Australia probably thinks, "oh, these poor Lebanese, they're so marginalized, perhaps we ought to give them things so they'll feel better!" This is like feeding the rot, encouraging it to fester.
I really hope Sarkozy wins the French presidency, because it seems like he's the sort of man who will seriously start cracking some heads, like those of the no-hope thugs who rioted recently at the Gare du Nord.
18 - STM
"I imagine your own Labor party in Australia probably thinks, "oh, these poor Lebanese, they're so marginalized, perhaps we ought to give them things so they'll feel better!"
Actually, no, they haven't. They've cracked down on them pretty hard. They have told the police to give them no quarter, and quite rightly - but in saying that, they are also quite rightly saying that it's a crime issue rather than a race issue but that it still needs to be addressed by the middle-eastern community.
Just like in England, these are gangs - and there are Pacific Island gangs, Vietnamese gangs, Chinese gangs, outlaw motorcycle gangs (mostly anglo, and who are obviously marginalised by choice), etc.
All are engaged in criminal activity. So while it kind of is about race, it's not just.
So in dealing with the gangs, they have simply allowed them to be called what they are - which is also what Blair is now doing by the sounds of it.
19 - Christopher Rose
Dave, it doesn't matter what goes on in the media circus around such a trial, just as it doesn't in any other case. Mind you, if he does get blown aaway in some future action, that's fine by me too.
Given the bombing in the Baghdad Green Zone and the destruction of a key bridge on the same day, it's clear that Al Qaeda and it's allies are still very much a force to be reckoned with locally. However, there is no substantial terrorist threat to any Western nation.
Saying that it is irrelevant to continue to hunt for and hopefully capture the figurehead leader of Al Qaeda just seems silly to me.
Mark, I'd appreciate if you'd maintain a more civil tone when discussing political issues, thank you. You may have persuaded yourself that Afhanistan was invaded as a wake up call but that's not what was being said at the time, is it?
The constant revisionism of the ideas and motives for what we do simply gives the impression that people are making it up as they go along.
If it were decided that the entire planet needed upgrading on a political level and the many gross abuses of people that are occurring every day all over the world were no longer going to be tolerated, I think that would be a good thing. However, on that basis, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq would have been at the top of the list.
You are so eager to chastise and categorise that you don't even appear to notice what I am saying anymore, Mark. I didn't say anything at all about the USA being to blame for militancy and extremism, I just said that the net result has been an increase in global tension whilst failing to get the job done.
Please don't lazily try to foist your own little pet obsessions on to what I said, for they are simply not even in the same ball park of concern. If you were actually paying attention to my point of view, you'd know that I don't have any time at all for any of these religious cults. Your assertions that I am a liberal and would prefer to live under sharia law are as lazy and unthinking as they are inaccurate.
20 - Mark Edward Manning
Chris, saying that Afghanistan AT THE TIME wasn't seen as the result of a wake-up call to Middle East extremism is what I would refer to as "revisionism."
But hey, whatever. Fifty years from now, we'll see what historians -- if they're honest -- will have to say about it. That is to say if we're still not fighting the W.o.T., which we probably will be, thanks to appeasers and those keen to stamp REVISIONISM over reality.
21 - MCH
"You want to life your life under sharia law, you go right ahead. Head east and keep going until you see nothing but mountains and sand - you will soon be taken care of in one way or the other!"
And what action have you taken to avoid sharia law, Manning, other than typing a bunch of phony rhetoric on the blogoshere?
22 - Clavos
Dammit, MCH! Will you please knock it off with the irrelevant ad hominems??
This has been a very interesting discussion conducted, for the most part, very civilly. You added nothing with that remark.
23 - Dave Nalle
YOU - Mr. "I Am Not A Liberal (Even Though It's Glaringly Obvious That I Am)"
Mark, Christopher is NOT a liberal. You're running into the problems created by the now-ubiquitous misuse of the term. Christopher is a soft socialist of the European variety. His beliefs are only vaguely what we in the US or England would consider liberal.
Dave
24 - Dave Nalle
Dave, it doesn't matter what goes on in the media circus around such a trial, just as it doesn't in any other case.
Perhaps, but I'm sceptical. Look what happened with the video of the Saddam execution. Way too much fodder for the media to turn nasty with.
Given the bombing in the Baghdad Green Zone and the destruction of a key bridge on the same day, it's clear that Al Qaeda and it's allies are still very much a force to be reckoned with locally. However, there is no substantial terrorist threat to any Western nation.
And that's what matters, right? The whole Iraq mess to some degree really IS fulfilling the improbable objective of keeping al Qaeda busy doing something other than attacking the west, much though some would like to deny it.
Dave
25 - Mark Edward Manning
Clavos to MCH: "You added nothing with that remark."
Clavos, you must understand that ad hominems are MCH's sole raison d'être for coming onto Blogcritics in the first place: Just to attack conservative bloggers like Dave Nalle and myself. It's all part and parcel of being a liberal -- swoop in, type something personal and emotional with not a shred of logic or any other meaningful substance behind it, and then disappear until the next time a conservative posts. It's what he/she's always done and will continue to do. Just ignore him/her. It's what I do.