Awesomely Emerald

Nik weighs in on abortion. His first sentence sets the tone for the whole piece.

In my view, voluntary abortion is both the most neglected, as well as attended to, subjects by our judicial system.

Aside from making no grammatical sense, it makes no logical sense. His follow-up sentence does nothing to explain how or why Nik holds this, apparently, contradictory view of the subject. He also wisely chooses to focus on "voluntary" abortion, because I think we can all agree enough has been written about involuntary abortion.

For those of you thinking that what the abortion debate really needs is for a college-aged libertarian to finally settle the matter once and for all, you're in luck.

In order to resolve this matter once and for all emotions must be set aside in order to allow for clear philosophical and constitutional reasoning to be applied.

Nik is going to get to the bottom of this much neglected and over-attended subject. With clear philosophy and constitutional reasoning.

I want to create clear legal boundaries concerning the rights of conceived but unborn human beings because current ambiguities in abortion laws are an embarrassment to a country of our intellect.

Not sure where the US ranks among other countries in terms of intellect, but I'm guessing it's pretty freakin' low. I am also guessing that Nik would probably rank the US pretty high. We are, after all the country that invented democracy, Jesus, cars, tv, and microwave popcorn, which goes great with tv.

Now that Nik has established the problem, we move on to paragraph three and the beginnings of a solution.

Any good argument begins with a stated position. Mine: unborn children have the same inalienable rights as a man on his dying bed the moment that child can survive independent of his mother.

If you're anything like me, and you know you are, you need to read that sentence again. I'll make it easy for you.

Any good argument begins with a stated position. Mine: unborn children have the same inalienable rights as a man on his dying bed the moment that child can survive independent of his mother.

Why is the man's bed dying? Nik leaves this question unanswered to press on. Also left unanswered are the questions: what does it mean to live independent of one's mother? Which inalienable rights? Why is this child male? When did it become singular?

Alright, Nik does answer, sort of, the question of what it means for a child to live independently of his or her mother. That he manages to do so without using the word "viable" is a breathtaking feat. Here's the heart of his argument.

Regardless, if a potential mother requests an abortion the medical doctor has a responsibility to determine if the child can be extracted by Cesarean section with a reasonable chance of survival.

"Medical doctor." God bless you Nick Antovich.

Nik now brings in the big gun. The thinking man's thinking man. The beginning and the end. The alpha and the omega. The way. The one. That's right, Aristotle. Ari-fucking-stotle.

As Aristotle said, newly born infants come into existence with the capacity to acquire concepts and dispositions, but in the beginning we suppose that their consciousness of the world is a "blooming, buzzing confusion."

I think this argument is over. Aristotle. Said. I think Nik agrees with me, just as Nik is sure that Aristotle would agree with him.

The capacity of a child to one day realize his rights is what makes human rights inalienable, as opposed to those of an animal, which has no such ability. In short, Aristotle would agree, as soon as a child has the physical and mental independent capability to develop and eventually exercise his God-given rights, then that child must not be denied the right to do so.

I'd like you to note that while you and I might have thoughts that our inalienable rights derived from God, Nik has advanced the startling notion that our rights actually derive their inalienable characteristic from our capacity to realize them. Which really sets up a chicken-and-egg nightmare. Lord, if only Aristotle had put his mind to that one, you know? Not that a chicken has rights, at least not inalienable ones. That's what separates you and me from the chickens. That and a trip to KFC.

Now that the philosophy has been clarified, Nik moves his mind to the constitution.


Induced abortion is not a state issue but a federal one. Most know of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, states have been given unconstitutional rights concerning issues of viability, parental notification when dealing with minors and informed consent. It is the federal government's responsibility, not the states, to protect who we as a country determine to be viably intellectual people. The survival of an unborn child should not be dependent on whether the mother lives in Oregon or Texas.

Nik sites absolutely no court cases, legal doctrine, or even the Constitution in declaring the idea of state-centered abortion law to be unconstitutional. I'd also like to note that Nik seems to be asserting that "we as a country" should be determining who are "viably intellectual people," not, as stated earlier, "medical doctors."

I do note that Nik has used a form of the word "viable," contrary to my earlier statement that he does not. But come on, "viably intellectual people"? I'm supposed to count that? I don't even know what it means. And it might just differ from country to country. What might be viably intellectual in, say, China, might not be up to snuff in a country of our intellect.

As for weighing the rights of the mother to privately seek and get whatever medical treatment available to her against the interests of the state in protecting the potential life of a "child," Nik has a simple answer.

A woman's right to privacy is superseded by that child's right to life.

There you have it. Problem solved.

Timetables for when induced abortions should or should not be legal are irrelevant and irresponsible. A case-by-case basis to determine when the unborn child develops the faculties necessary to qualify as a potential intellectual is an obligation of ours to future generations.

As soon as we have a womb-based IQ test, we can make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. On a federal level. Actually, I am picturing a womb-based Vienna coffeehouse type situation where recognized intellectuals engage in discourse with the fetus to determine the exact moment the fetus shows some promise as an intellectual and becomes off-limits for abortion. Maybe Aristotle could be involved somehow. I'm not sure on the details here.

All-in-all a clear philosophical and constitutional essay. Aristotle was brought out on the philosophy end of it and, while the Constitution was not really cited, I think we can all see that Nik has his arguments really nailed down. Abortion a federal, not state, issue. Woman's right to privacy does not supersede the "child's" right to life.

Done and done.

I Got a Mention!

Published in full from the Emerald:

The Graduate Teaching Fellowship Federation, or GTFF, is feeling increasingly frustrated with the University as negotiations to update its contract have dragged on since November. But now the process is nearing its boiling point, with some GTFF members considering doing anything they can short of a strike to receive their requests.

The GTFF's lead negotiator, David Cecil, said the main disagreements between the two bargaining groups center on the issues of health care, University fees and salaries.

"The frustration level and stand-still level is increasing every time we meet," said Cecil.

The University, which is facing budget issues this year, hopes to reach an agreement that is both fair to the GTFs and affordable to the University, said Linda King, the University bargaining team's lead negotiator.

Cecil said the GTFF feels that the main area of contention between the two parties is the proposed modification to its health care plan. Currently, the plan limits the members' annual benefits to $100,000 per year, which the GTFF considers too low.

According to the GTFF newsletter, the GTFF requested that the annual cap be raised to $500,000 next year and $1 million the year after.

The two parties are still in the bargaining process over this and other issues. King said the cost of health care increases each year without making any changes to the plan, and that the University has already proposed to cover that increase in the current plan. What they are negotiating now, she said, is to what extent the plan's benefits will be improved - one of the benefits being the GTFF's proposed cap increase.

Cecil said in the past two bargaining sessions, the University has said it cannot offer any additional money for health care, but money that has already been allocated can be moved around.

"We don't want to give up salaries and fees for health care because then our health is held hostage," said Cecil.

Both parties left the last meeting agreeing to work harder to come to a compromise, said Cecil.

If in the next bargaining session, on April 21, the University does not change its proposal to allow for an increase in the maximum annual health care benefits, Cecil said that the GTFF's next step will be to move "to take action on the street."

The GTFF has already begun discussing ways to amend its bylaws to make it easier to vote for a strike, though Cecil said it is not likely it will come to that.

Short of an actual strike, which cannot legally take place until September, there are other actions the GTFF can take to show the University both that it is serious about its proposals and that it is important to the University, said Cecil.

Possible actions include an A-strike, where the GTFs give every student an A, creating havoc among the adminisration; or a credit-strike, where the GTFs only register for the minimum nine credits required, losing the University a lot of money because they pay for the GTFs to take 16 credits.

Cecil said these are options that have been explored by other Universities, but that the GTFF has not formally discussed taking any of these actions yet.

"Monday is going to be a really big day," said Cecil, who also admits that the University feels that the GTFF is unwilling to compromise.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement, the GTFF's contract with the University, was written in the 1970s and is re-negotiated every two years, said Marian Friestad, the vice provost for graduate studies.

The next bargaining session will be held on April 21 at 11 a.m. in the EMU's Rogue Room.

Awesomely Emerald

Sports columnist Doug Bonham has a piece today in which he rails against Comcast cable for not allowing their Comcast Sports Net channel to be rebroadcast on DirectTV, his viewing platform of choice. He spends close to five hundred words describing not only his pain, but that of all Oregonians who either don't subscribe to Comcast or live outside of Comcast's reach, and therefore miss hot Blazers action on a regular basis. He goes so far as to call this situation a "crime."

So 500 words describing this horrible situation and then we get to this:

The sad thing is, this is all brought on by Comcast's greed. The only possible situation I can envision is Comcast overestimating their new channel's value, and the other television providers saying, "Screw that." It's not a "Comcast cable versus satellite" thing - I get Comcast Sports Net affiliates from Washington, D.C., Chicago and Boston here in Eugene - it's a "Comcast versus providers" thing.

And a "Comcast hates Trail Blazer fans" thing. All I want to do is watch my team, Comcast; stop screwing that up.

That's right, in a woeful misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand, Doug believes that Comcast must be overvaluing its product because Doug wants it so bad but can't have it. Unless he switches to Comcast. Or the satellite providers pony up more money.

Sweet jeebus, this is so stupid it has me defending both Comcast and greed.

Awesomely Emerald

Headline from the Emerald:

In memory of Heath Ledger: the greatest actor of our generation

Hello!

Headline from today's Emerald:

Senate VP resigns, citing 'backdoor politics'

Awesomely Emerald

It's been awhile since we visited with my favorite Emerald columnist, Nik "No C" Antovich. This week Nik asks a very important question, "Can Osama bin Laden and others sympathetic to him be blamed for fighting a war over culture?"

If you're stunned to find out the answer is "No, they cannot," you'll want to head on over to the Emerald and check out the powerhouse reasoning that has led Nik to sympathize with al-Qaida. As a bonus, you get my snarky comment. If you've got a spare moment, leave a comment of your own. I'm hoping we can goad Nik into a full-blown holy war.

Awesomely Emerald

I know you're wondering about the latest doings of our "conservative" columnist for the Daily Emerald. He turned in a doozie yesterday.

Nik takes on the subject of war. He's for it. Let's let him explain.

My intent is not to lobby for war as the foundation of our foreign policy. I do however believe that it is important to recognize that war has been inevitable in U.S. history, and in all cases America has responded with valor and bravery.

Nik used to be a "peace-lover." This was before he took a few history classes and learned some truths.

What happens when peace cannot be attained? It was not difficult to conclude that war has been the preferred and successful response countless times throughout American and world history. In fact, in United States history, war has provided an answer for gaining independence in the 18th century, slavery during the Civil War, imperialism and fascism in the 1940s, communism in the 1950s, and religious fanaticism today.

Yes, as Nik explains, there have been five wars in American history, all of them righteous, all of them successful, three of them "world-saving."

Briefly:
The British left us no choice but to rebel. "There was no alternative to war..."
The Civil War was necessary to end slavery and is "said to be the last gentleman's war."
The "mentally deficient dictator in Germany" and the "Kamikazes" (sic) were "bent on world domination."
"The spread of communism led to fears of foreign takeover, represented by the Korean and later Vietnam war."
And now we have the Islamic-Fascists who are even more frightening than the "Kamikazes."

This paragraph deserves to stand without comment, as anything I could say would only distract from the simple beauty that Nik lays out.

This past weekend I was in Santa Barbara attending a conference where I had the opportunity to hear former Attorney General John Ashcroft speak. He made an interesting point when he expressed that 40 million people died in World War II because nobody had the nerve to stop Hitler. History, in its infinite wisdom, shows that European countries were petrified. Some were petrified with fear, others with dismay, while still others recognized the decimation yet acquiesced. This is a clear instance in which war was necessary, a line of thinking that a drugged up Hitler had already subscribed to.

Awesomely Emerald

Nik "No C" Antovich sums up the Giuliani voter pretty well.

People don't expect much of anything from our government these days. At this point I am satisfied as long as we don't get attacked by the Islamic terrorists that we hear so much about.

This is said with no trace of irony/awareness.

Awesomely Emerald

Headline from Monday's sports section:

All eyes fixated on him, Jackson has big day

Awesomely Emerald

In a new, (and possibly short-lived) feature, I bring you the best of the Oregon Daily Emerald.

In the "Conservatively Speaking" column of September 25, young go-getter Nik "No C" Antovich informs us that a flat tax would solve all of our problems. He rings up all the usual Club for Growth talking points, including this gem, which I found especially charming given that it is buried in a very obscure college newspaper:

A single rate tax would take out countless monetary variables and leave the citizen. And what is stupefying about it all is that a flat tax would increase government stipends. Let me repeat this, because many D.C. elites don't hear well. A flat tax would lower taxes for everyone, and boost government revenue.

That's right DC elites, it is time to listen up because "No C" is dropping some wisdom on your collective asses. Of course, the DC elites may be too distracted by Nik's ill-placed comma in that last sentence to hear what he's saying, but that's not really the point. Nik makes it clear that he's really talking to the "people" with his final paragraph; a final paragraph that really licks the envelope, puts a stamp on it, and sends the argument home, with love:

A flat tax would end much of the corruption in Washington. Let's take away the tax loopholes that corporations use to avoid taxes and politicians use to reward some while punishing others. Those of you who have faith in God remember this: The Bible has convinced billions of the existence of eternal life after death in less than 800,000 words. Why does it take the government 11 times that to explain our taxes?

BOOM!