Tom's Web Log

Introduction: I'm not doing a formal blog with the ability to have readers post comments and carry on conversations. Comments can be directed to my e-mail address.

September 11, 2004

I don't want to assign any significance to starting a web log today. It has been three years since the terrorist attacks, and we're still at war. I cannot necessarily say that I agree with everything President Bush has done, but compared to Senator Kerry and his wife, Mrs. John F. Kerry, voting for Bush in November is a no-brainer. I count myself as one of those so-called social conservatives. Instead of saying, values matter; I say as Tony Snow recently remarked on his radio show that virtues matter. I remember that monologue because as I was sitting there listening to Tony talk about how Senator Kerry frequently talked about values, I specifically recalled thinking that values are changeable, but virtues are not. Tony made the exact same point. I detest Senator Kerry's claims on abortion. I'll probably delve deeper into morality and law, and the fact that every law is based on some standard of morality whether it is a law that is truly moral or not. In any case, it does happen to be a coincidence that I'm starting this today.

In case anyone actually read this far, I wanted to cover two topics of which the first topic is why I started this on this day. The second topic is one that I hope will frequently come up in these web logs. We live in the Kansas City area where, of course, the Kansas City Star, is the dominant hometown paper. Obviously, in seeking balance, they syndicate and publish both liberal and conservative columnists in the Editorial/Opinion pages. Obviously, I like having Michelle Malkin to stir up things, but one local columnist particularly grates on me. Molly Ivins is one of those national columnists that even if President Bush found a cure to HIV she would complain that he did only to save some rich Republican. She is totally into needless class envy and is generally less than honest with the truth. It is more from amusement than actual intellectual curiosity that I even read her.

Anyway, to the local columnist, Lewis Diuguid. Once in a great while, Mr. Diuguid writes a totally nice column about his biking or jogging or spending time with his family. I actually enjoy those columns, but most of the time, it is a nonstop litany of complaints about President Bush or Republicans. He is a 49 year old journalist; so, obviously to a Gen-X like myself, he comes across as one of those liberal baby boomers who is probably sad to see the conservatism that is so much more prevalent in my generation than his. Anyway, a few months ago, Diuguid (can someone tell me how to pronounce his last name?), wrote a column on June 25, 2004 about the reaction his first column trashing the late President Reagan received from readers. As I was reading, it was normal Diuguid. Most of it was reaction from readers but with commentary. What got me riled was the fact that he didn't contradict writers who complained about how pro-life Reagan was. That flabbergasted me and got me to write my first letter to the editor of the Kansas City Star which appeared several days later:

Diuguid Inconsistency

What I found most disturbing in reading Lewis Diuguid's June 25 follow-up column on President Reagan is that someone like Diuguid does not condemn a reader's feedback about Reagan's "shameless attacks on women's reproductive rights." I have read Diuguid for several years and always felt that given his hard line stance against violence and his pacifist naivete that he would stand against the violence of abortion perpetuated on unborn children every day in America. Given that Diuguid specifically mentioned this criticism of the late President and did not disagree says more about Diuguid's lack of consistency than anything else that he has written. If he is unwilling to stand up for violence against the most defenseless ones in our society, his words and actions embracing peace are meaningless and hollow to the core.

I was actually somewhat surprised I didn't get any negative reaction or follow-up letters. Honestly, I have not been one to e-mail him directly (oh, why doesn't Molly Ivins have an e-mail address printed with her columns?). Instead, I imagine that I would do a critique of some of his columns from time to time. I want to start with his September 8 column on Alzheimer's and his mother.

Everyone should feel compassion and empathy for anyone who has to see their relatives and friends succumb to dementia. I barely got to know my own paternal grandfather as a child before Alzheimer's took hold. I spent most of my growing-up years seeing him decline further and further. I can empathize with Diuguid. Yet no matter how much empathy or sympathy that we have for Diuguid, we cannot forget that the ends do not justify the means. Let me be honest. My background is in computer science and I have been interested in technology and science for a large part of my life. Stripping off the politics, conception is the natural starting point of life. It is almost funny to see others who disagree with that fact try to pinpoint when life starts. The knowledge gained from knowledge about DNA makes it clearcut -- human and alive. There is definitely no inconsistency for someone who opposes abortion to oppose anything that deliberately destroys life at any stage after conception. That is why I find Senator Orrin Hatch's support for stem cell research baffling. In this column, Diugid complains that politics is delaying stem cell research. Oh, did I mention that Ron Reagan who is a total idiot? There is no ban on stem cell research. Anyway, Diuguid is totally missing the point. It is not politics that is delaying stem cell research. It is the fundamental belief that a life is destroyed as a result. All I can say is that even if embyro stem cell research was moral, using it to turn the clock back on Alzheimer's does not hold a lot of promise. The link is from a Washington Post news story which is hardly a conservative or tradionalist biased newspaper. I have seen several of these articles from the secular press which discount benefits for Alzheimer's patients. Anyway, I would suggest not relying on Diuguid for his opinion on stem cell research. It also hearkens back to my earlier letter to the editor posted above -- Diuguid who is the ultimate "pacifist" is hardly that when it comes to the most innocent and defenseless life. Anyone want to read the details of a partial birth abortion?
tg

tom@grelinger.org

Last Modified: 11 September 2004.