PeterDavid.net

Yeah, but under the Endangered Species Act you will get yourself in big trouble for even touching one of those toads.

So here's what you do: go to a rain forest, go in as deep as you can--I suggest stopping when you start seeing monkey carcasses that have died from some hemorrhagic virus unless you want to get something named after you ("Historians credit smallpox with the deaths of over 1.5 billion humans, second only to David's Disease.")--and start turning over rocks until you find some beetles.

Bring the beetles back across the border. You're on your own here, pal.

Then you scatter them about you lawn and call an entomologist. Chances are, this is a BRAND NEW SPECIES, so you not only get protected land but they can't nail you for touching a bug previously unknown to science. Yay you!

Of course, make damn sure you weren't planning on building any additions to the house and you might want keep some in your house in a terrarium to replace those who die during the winter. Unless it turns out that they thrive in their new environment and wreck havoc on the Eastern Seaboard, possibly even serving as the vector for David's Disease.

According to Wikipedia:

As Deputy Solicitor General
(arguing for the results sought by his client, the President of the United States)

Abortion. Roberts is listed as a coauthor on a brief before the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), defending the validity of a Department of Health and Human Services regulation that prohibited recipients of funding under the Public Health Service Act from not only providing abortions, but also counselling, advising, or promoting the idea that a woman seek an abortion:
We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution. [27]

The brief in question lists the following authors: Michael J. Astrue, General Counsel; Joel Mangel, Deputy Chief Counsel; Carol C. Conrad, Attorney, Department of Health and Human Services; Kenneth W. Starr, Solicitor General; Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General; John G. Roberts, Jr., Deputy Solicitor General; Jeffrey P. Minear, Assistant to the Solicitor General; Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Lowell v. Sturgill, Jr., Attorneys.

For further discussion of Roberts's views on Roe, see his comments at the Judiciary Committee hearings under "Views."

Well, there goes Roe v.Wade if he gets through.

For what it's worth, several states are now "looking at" the use of emminent domain (or as I like to call it, "let's take those pretty decent houses over there, and build some even better houses on top of 'em") and seeing if they want to try and restrict it. The Surpeme Court coming out and essentially saying that a government has the power to force a sale of private land if the government has some way to "better use", i.e., receive higher tax revenue ins some way, that land. It used to be pretty clear that in cases of things like highways, airports, universities, all things that really do provide a somewhat direct and broad benefit for all, emminent domain was ana accepted burden to impose on private land owners. Now, your local mayor can decide that building a Target over your subdivision, with all the money Target pays to the municipality, is a "better use" of the land your house sits on. And while it may very well be true that having a Target, or a strip mall, or whatever, could generate some jobs, the direct benefit goes to a select few....mainly the government, Target, and those few that get jobs. There's a difference in scale between a highway and a shopping mall, and most individuals feel that the line between accepted and unaccepted uses of emminent domain should be somewhere between the two.

And this was with a somewhat divided, though right-leaning, court. Imagine what other private rights are going to be curtailed with another conservative justice.

Oh, and the endangered species thing might just save you. But make sure you get a Safe Harbour agreement for yourself with the Fish and Wildlife Service. It'll allow you to take (kill) so many of them a year...so you don't have to worry about the Feds busting down your door every time you mow your lawn.

I just can't understand how people are letting things go to hell like this. The rest of the world (and any American with half a brain) watches this country regress farther and farther from the progress made in the last half century and wonders what the fuck is wrong with us... yet most American's don't even seem to notice.

The only bright side to all this that I can possibly see is that the more we backslide into the backwards mentalities of the past, the bigger the cultural revolution will be next time it comes around... Of course as big business and gonvernment become more powerful and more the same every day, controling and manipulating the population through the media... there may be less and less of a chance for another "60s" (or to a lesser extent 90s) type cultural revolt by the youth to spark change and undo all the damage currently being done...

Well, think of it this way. At least if the government comes stomping up to your door and kicks you out to build a Wal-Mart, you'll get some money out of the deal and have a chance to relocate.

Now, if you're one of those toads and the government comes stomping up to your door and wants to build a Wal-Mart, they'll run you over with bulldozer while whistling Dixie and drinking Dr. Pepper.

I think you'd be slightly better off than the toad.

I could be wrong, but I can't see Roe v. Wade being overturned. Two reasons;

1) If Roe v. Wade is overturned, that's political firebomb for the Republicans, and will provoke liberals to go to the polls.

2)If it's overturned, Republicans lose one of their biggest campaign issues. It doesn't have the same immediacy and effect to say "If the liberals get back in power, they'll change it back" as to say "Thousands of innocent, unborn children are being murdered every year, and we have to stop it! Vote Republican!" We can see this from the other side too; the right to abortion was a much more passionate issue for liberals when it was denied to women, than now that it is legal. When an interest group wins, they become complacent.

So it's far better for the Republicans to simply give lip service to the issue, so they can continue to exploit it for political gain in perpetuity.

I also doubt you'll see Roe overturned outright, simply because if the court were clearly in favor of overturning it, pro-choice groups would avoid letting any possible test-case make it to the SCOTUS. This means they would probably stop suing in lower courts over state-level restrictions on access, IDX laws, etc. This would have the effect of eroding abortion rights, but not lead to an outright reversal. And remember, even if Roe were overturned, it would not mean abortion would be illegal, just that the individual states would be free to make it so.

Prior to OConnor's retirement, the number on the court who supported overturning Roe v Wade was 3.

Roberts has made two contradicting statements, but one of those two statements (quoted above) was not his own. He was the Deputy Solictor General for Bush Sr. He had to argue what the administration wanted hiim to argue. It was his job.

Two years ago (he hasn't been a judge for long), the Senate asked him what he felt about Roe v Wade, and he said it was the settled law of the land.

Of course, as a lower court judge, he doesn't have the power to outright overturn past supreme court decisions. So that response makes sense in that context. However, it doesn't say anything about how he would vote on the Supreme Court if the issue came up.

But even if he were to vote to overturn, it would still be 5-4 to keep it. Some of the related decisions may be reversed -- partial birth, parental notifications, etc, etc. But Roe v Wade itself would still be safe.

On the other hand....little has been said about this....but it is likely Religious/State issues will start going the other way. Put Roberts on the court a few months ago, and it is likely the Kentucky(?) 10 Commandments case would have gone the other way. The Lee v Weissman School-Prayer ruling will likely be overturned. And a few others as well.

I think that is going TOO far. The only endangered species is those of us with common sense. Well, and good driving skills. So yes, Pete, you ARE an endangered species. Stop thinking so rationally, it puts you (and me) in a HUGE minority.

Actually, I was thinking about this a couple weeks ago, and came up with what I think is a good way around the new eminent domain law. Just let the right have their new flag desecration law. Then, paint up one whole wall (or other sizeable portion of your house) into an authentic enough American flag that it qualifies for protection as a "representation" of the flag. Voila, they can't legally bulldoze your house.

-Rex Hondo-

The ESA just took a beating on Penn & Teller's Showtime show. I don't know that they always cover all angles of an issue, but they did point out a number of ways in which the ESA--as currently written--is often a tool of big business, to control what land can and can't be developed. Sometimes less government really is a good thing...

"And this was with a somewhat divided, though right-leaning, court. Imagine what other private rights are going to be curtailed with another conservative justice."

Er...you do know that it was the liberals on the court who voted for expanding emminent domain, right? O'Conner, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas all dissented.

Since it was a 5 to 4 vote the addition of Roberts will, sadly, not be enough to overturn this travesty.

C'mon, PAD, cut the toad some slack. Its not easy being green.

To echo what was already written, it was liberal judges who voted to take away private property rights to give it to another private business, not for true public use. Many conservatives (myself included) and at least some liberals have a problem with this.

And Roberts also made a point (not included in your post) that the commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with a toad that only lives in California. The very basis of the ruling was absurd in the first place. (As was the ruling about Roe v. Wade, but that is for another time and post.)

Your faithful conservative, X-Factor and Hulk loving poster,

Iowa Jim

Seems to me, I remember an American Government class in high school and we talked about the balance of power between the three branches of government. Now, call me an alarmist, but if Roberts (as sort of an aside, does it bug anybody else that he's been a judge for like, five minutes? Sorry, four and a half?) Anyway, if he gets in, does it seem to anyone else that he'll basically be the Muppet Judge with Bush's voice coming out? And they already have the spots calling for his up or down vote. Oh, for the days when government arguements were about Monica Lewinsky....

Don't worry about the land-grab. We had a similar case down here in Maryland a few years ago and the citizenry knocked that one right out of the park. As for Endangered Species, I'll have to find a link but I do believe that species are dying out on a regular basis due to natural changes more than what we invaise humans do...now, guess who thinks Roe vs Wade is wrong? C'mon, take a guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey

Then again, she did convert to (GASP!! HORROR OF HORRORS!!!) Christianity.

I post somewhat corrected. Darn those "liberal" justices, making we wipe egg off my face.

While my facts may not have supported me, in that I alluded to a conservative Court eroding the rights of private citizens, my fear remains, although this was not an example that feeds my fear. My general fear is that a court including a highly Bush-oriented justice will lean away from decisions that I think are just. And I realize what a loaded statement that is, given the somewhat left-seeming stance I often take (although I think I'm more centrist, and only seem leftist in a conservative/right environment).

The erosion of private property rights is just an example. Roberts' position on the ESA is another example. Simply because a species is found only in a single state is not really a relevant fact in determining that Federal Commerce Power does not extend jurisdiction. Or rather, it's not a dterminitive fact in the way Roberts seems to be implying, i.e., that because the species is found only in one state, it must ONLY be a State issue.

This demsontrates a fundamental lack of understanding of both the Commerce Power and the ESA, and how they intersect. If this species of toad is ONLY found in one place in the US, even if it's found in other places around the world, then that species becomes nationally imperiled. If US citizens want to observe/study this toad, there's only one place in the country they can go...that makes it a Federal issue, via the Commerce power. If it's the only place in the world ( for example, there's a butterfly at LAX that I'm reasonable certain is only found in the US), that species becomes globally imperiled, and it's protection becomes even more paramount. Roberts' position would make the preservation of that globally endangered species a matter of state purview.

Liberal or conservative, it matters not to me: a decision that erodes or misapplies power is a Very Bad Thing, and needs to be avoided. Just in the past few months, we've seen a huge erosion in the rights of private citizens (reduction of access to bankruptcy protection only for real people, not for corporations, and erosion of private property rights...both of which I'm aware had high liberal support/initiation). The Patriot Act likewise erodes the rights of private citizens, and currently looks to be in danger of losing the sunset provisions that made those erosions temporary. If we get a non-sunset reauthorization of the Patriot Act, we're going to be seeing Supreme Court challenges to it within the next 5-10 years...which Roberts could be presiding over.

Well, it looks like George W. finally realized he won't be 'President For Life' so he's going to appoint as many similar thinking whack-jobs to unelectable long-term positions so that they can continue to degrade the American way of life. Fantastic... I vote to secede from the Union...

To echo what was already written, it was liberal judges who voted to take away private property rights to give it to another private business, not for true public use.

You know, when you get right down to it, I thought the only thing that that ruling really did was say it's in the hands of local governments.

But, hey, either way, the big business wanting this crap is in the hands of Republicans, so nobody's innocent here.

Wasn't it the Liberals and Moderates on the court that ruled that expanded the right of goverment to sieze private property. The stalwort conseratives Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist were the dissenters along with Oconnor who wrote the dissenting position.

Wasn't it the Liberals and Moderates on the court that ruled that expanded the right of goverment to sieze private property.

John, meet Iowa Jim's post.

Iowa Jim's post, meet John.

Now play nice.

Actually, I think you're right, Craig. My understanding was that the decision simply said that local governments could make the taking of property for economic reasons legal, and that the majority opinion actually encouraged those local governments to review, update, and/or revise their emminent domain policies, ordinances, and laws accordingly. Consequently, I believe many states are already working on laws that prohibit the use of emminent domain for economic purposes, though some make exceptions for things like eliminating blight, etc. However, it does mean that a developer with the right connections and the ability to get local ordinances lifted, changed, or exempted can make a grab at pretty much any property they want.

The said truth is that even where overt economic development purposes are out-of-bounds for eminent domain, covert purposes are easily defined by local leaders as "public interest."

Is it in the public interest to grow the infrastructure for sprawl? It is according to the politicians who rely on developers' money in order to be elected.

Henry Broaddus

I am not sure where PAD is getting the legal intersection between the commerce clause/ESA case, eminent domain, and Roe?

The commerce clause says that Congress gets to regulate interstate commerce, and it limits the rights of states to set up protectionist policies and tariffs. At one point, its use was fairly restricted and federal laws were struck down with some regularity. Gradually it was expanded to allow Congress to regulate anything with a rational relation to commerce, such as child labor and racial discrimination in public accomodations.

In the 90's, however, a step in the other direction was taken when the court held Congress didn't have the authority to pass a law criminalizing the possession of guns within a certain distance from schools, finding it had no rational relationship to interstate commerce. Thus, you can see where the argument comes from that preventing endangered species isn't related to interstate commerce, either. (Not that I agree, but that's the argument.)

If one were to take a restrictive view of Congress's commerce clause power, then it could have the effect of preventing Congress from criminalizing certain types of abortion, for example, on the grounds that there is no intersection with interstate commerce.

Roe was decided on grounds that have nothing to do with interstate commerce, or federal power. So I don't think you can deduce from an opinion on the commerce clause what a judge's opinion might be on Roe. Some of the judges with the most expansive view of the commerce power also voted for Roe.

I agree with the previous poster that Roberts will not shift the balance on Roe -- Kennedy has voted to uphold it before, which means it's still a 5/4 split. If Rehnquist retires, that won't change anything either. One of the five judges who support Roe would have to retire, and even though Stevens is getting up there, he's hardly the oldest judge who's served.

I also agree that pro-choice groups will make fewer challenges, giving the court less of an opportunity to pass on the matter.

With regard to the eminent domain decision -- it is unfortunate how this has been characterized in the mainstream press. You'd really get the idea that some corporation can just walk up and hand you an eviction notice. Eminent domain is a long, involved process, governed at length by state law and requiring multiple phases of review and public hearing and notice. Market-value compensation is required, and states can limit the use of ED to public purposes. I really don't see this decision (which merely said that states have the power to use ED for private purposes, not that they are required to) as having much of a practical impact -- in most cases, it would simply be easier for a private company to make owners offers so attractive that they don't want to refuse. I'd be surprised if this decision came into play more than a few times a year, nationwide, assuming most states don't act to counter it outright, which I think most will.

Lynn, I don't think the emminent domain decision is going to have much legal impact...meaning you won't see a lot more ED actions all of a sudden. In fact, I think you'll see even fewer. Unless states pass more restrictive laws, you won't see ED actions, because homeowners will already know that they can't win that fight...it may take years, but by that point, the homeowner has spent a large percentage of his personal money, while the government entity has spent maybe just as much, but a considerabally smaller percentage. And the government will most likey win, especially given the supreme court's stance on this.

What you'll get more often is what happened 2 years ago where I live: the local city council decided that a certain strip of land could be better used (i.e., generate more tax revenue) if it were medium density townhouses instead of single family houses with yards. So they approached the owners of those houses, and made offers to buy. Fairly reasonable offers, I'm told, but behind those offers was the threat of an emminent domain taking action. Mind, this was the CITY offering to buy the land, with the publically stated intent to turn right around and sell the land to a private developer. They did this because the developer was not getting enough voluntary commitment from the homeowners fast enough. I'd wager that the threat of an emminent domain action at least encouraged many of those homeowners that had at first refused to sell to change their minds. So, while ED was never invoked, it certainly lead to the sale of privately held land to another private entity, brokered by the government. We all should certainly be nervous about this, because it basically says that you can own land, only until someone else comes along and declares the the government that they have a "better" use for it.

Amazing how the process of picking a Supreme Court justice has evolved (devolved) into picking a candidate with the least amount of published opinions possible, to avoid controversy.

I'm reminded of Transmetropolitan, where The Smiler picks a Vice-Presidential candidate that was grown in a vat two years previous. Thus, the candidate had no secrets in the closet (other than he was, well, two years old).

Cases like the one you mention, though, aren't affected by the recent Supreme Court decision anyway.

When I say "ED actions" I don't mean people contesting ED takings -- I mean government using ED in the first place. I think most states will pass laws limiting ED to public use (California already has one, for example) and I can't see many states extending ED this way -- the public reaction was just too negative.

I agree with you, to a degree. While the public reaction was negative, it's going to be a battle between state government looking to appease the public with laws that limit the use, and local governments wanting to continue to hold the power, or at least the threat of power. In the case I desribed, there wasn't any ED action...because once the government got involved, people knew that they'd either have to sell "voluntarily," or they'd be forced to sell after an ED action. Most people in that situation would prefer to take the decent settlemet offer at the beginning, rather than be forced to take a court-dictated offer after a lot of legal expenses later on. And even if states pass laws restricting ED use, there's still nothing preventing local governments from advocating this kind of forced transferrence of private land. Having a very public Supreme Court decision stating that states and local governments have very limited authority to invoke ED would have gone a long way to eliminating this kind of taking.

Not to put a fine point on it, and not to sound prejudicial, but haven't Jews always been an endangered species? Or maybe I've gotten the wrong impression from all those Woody Allen and Mel Brooks routines.

I see both of your arguments on ED (uh huh huh, I said "ED"), Lynn and Bobb. If the states enact stricter ED laws that more effectively limit the ability of local municipalities to take property, shouldn't that also reduce the implied threat by a city to use ED as well?

As for the impact of the decision, it's truly going to depend on where you live. Some states already had strong restrictions on ED use, some are implementing them now as a knee-jerk reaction (I'm sure those are all written very well, with no challengeable clauses...), and some states aren't going to do anything about it. If nothing else, it's going to be something else to consider when you're looking at places to move.

As for RvW, if the case is strong enough legally, shouldn't it be able to stand, regardless of the personal beliefs of the judges? If it's in that much danger of being overturned, maybe it needs to be, so a more clear-cut case, one in which a rock-solid legal case can be made one way or the other, can be decided by the court. Oh, but wait; if either side actually put such a case forward and won, they'd lose a key battleground in elections. I agree with the previous poster that neither side has a true political motivation to really end this debate...

Jason, your RvW comment is the main reason why SCT justice noms have become such an issue...it's a huge unknown. Even with a judge with a longer record, you just don't know how they're going to react once they take that seat on the court. For all the talk about "activist judges," not one single federal judge has been removed from office. Nor could they, not without some cause. And there's no way a SCT justice is going to be impeached for making a decision the current government doesn't favor.

Yet, everyone and their brother (including me) jumps up and down saying how horrible things are going to be. I/we (or at least a lot of us) did the same thing during the 2 past presidential elections, but at least there we had some idea based on facts and past events that we were justified in our rantings. With just about any SCT justice, we just don't have those same justifications to rant and rave. Although it is pretty fun to do so, anyway.

Not to put a fine point on it, and not to sound prejudicial, but haven't Jews always been an endangered species? Or maybe I've gotten the wrong impression from all those Woody Allen and Mel Brooks routines.

Your impression is correct, but the only time in recent history a decision went our way based on this was back in 1948. Sure, we got a country to call our own, but it was puny, and surrounded by some antagonistic neighbors.

There's an old joke that Moses was a stutterer, and when G-d asked him what land the Israelites wanted, Moses said "Can...Can...Can..." and G-d gave up waiting for him to stop stuttering, and gave the Israelites Canaan. Of course, Moses was trying to say Canada. Ahh, well...

So, if the ICC doesn't give the federal government the power protect a frog that lives only in California, why does it give the federal government the power to criminalize medical treatments, legal under state law, taking place only in California?

I'm still pretty unclear on why it required a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to criminalize alcohol, but the power to criminalize OTHER drugs (many of them LEGAL during Prohibition) is inherent in the ICC.

"I'm still pretty unclear on why it required a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to criminalize alcohol, but the power to criminalize OTHER drugs (many of them LEGAL during Prohibition) is inherent in the ICC."

Was it that the amendment was necessary or was it just that the temperance folk wanted the power and legitimacy of a constitutional amendment?

I don't know, just asking. And now I have my parents arguing about the answer so I'd better go make sure the steak knives are locked up.

Overturning Roe doesn't even illegalize abortion...

it just leaves it up to the individual state.

I really like that idea. That makes legislature suddenly relevent to the issue again.

Jack: "I'm still pretty unclear on why it required a constitutional amendment to give the federal government the power to criminalize alcohol, but the power to criminalize OTHER drugs (many of them LEGAL during Prohibition) is inherent in the ICC."

Bill: Was it that the amendment was necessary or was it just that the temperance folk wanted the power and legitimacy of a constitutional amendment?

The latter. If something is banned by Act of Congress, it can be unbanned by the next Congress. A constitutional amendment is harder to undo (although, as Prohibition itself demonstrated, it is possible). It's really a math problem. The 108th Congress had a 51-48 Republican majority in the Senate and a 227-205 Republican majority in the House; a 5% switch to the Democrats would have changed the majority in each house, and thus allow the repeal of any given law. By contrast, once a Constitutional Amendment has been passed, it requires a 50% switch in the control of the state legislatures to repeal, because amendments must be passed by 75% of the states, rather than the 50% + 1 majority needed to pass an ordinary law. Laws are repealed on a frequent basis; with this one exception, once an Amendment is passed, it stays passed.

And there's no way a SCT justice is going to be impeached for making a decision the current government doesn't favor.

I wouldn't be so sure. After all the political posturing in the Schiavo case, I wouldn't be surprised if someone in Congress doesn't try to impeach an SC Justice that cheezed off the administration.

There's an old joke that Moses was a stutterer, and when G-d asked him what land the Israelites wanted, Moses said "Can...Can...Can..." and G-d gave up waiting for him to stop stuttering, and gave the Israelites Canaan. Of course, Moses was trying to say Canada. Ahh, well...

That was hilarious and now I have a great joke to tell at family gatherings.

Den, while nothing about government surprises me anymore, I think if either "side" initiated an impeachment of a SCT justice overa ruling, it would start an impeachment bloodbath that would result in the removal of probably 20% of our current elected and appointed government. Which, come to think of it, might not be an all-bad thing.

But I think the whole "activist judges" and threats of impeachment was just a bunch of political grandstanding. Many of those same folks tossing around those threats have for more to lose, and probably better grounds on which to lose them. They don't really want to open those floodgates and start an impeachment war, when they would make some of the better targets.

I'm not as optimistic as you are, Bobb. Politics in America is becoming more and more a "Scorched Earth" game, where many involved would rather havea phyrric victory than one that involves compromise.

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, yes, it tosses it over to the states. But that's just going to be the opening gun for anti-choice activists. Overturning Roe v. Wade is merely the first step, not the final goal. Get ready for a state to state assault on a woman's right to choose.

My guess is that the first step will be a series of referendums on par with the anti-gay marriage acts. Also prepare for more assaults on women seeking abortions, more assaults on abortions clinics as anti-choice activists--having achieved their first "triumph"--will be emboldened and attempt to destroy a woman's right to choose in every state they can manage.

PAD

I think many of the pro-life politicians will find there's more to be gained politically in ralling against Roe. V. Wade than dealing with actually defeating it.

Once that occurs, every professed pro-life legislator on both the state and federal level will have two bullseyes on their back: One from the pro-choice community to oust them and one from the pro-life community to support legislation outlawing abortion or face their wrath.

Matt Adler,
"I could be wrong, but I can't see Roe v. Wade being overturned."

Well, you could be right. But I feel the two reasons you give are questionable.
First, while you are correct that the ruling would be a "firebomb", there is no way of knowing WHO it would affect more. Since many on both sides still will not believe it until they see it happen, and since it would be a ruling that would send a massive tectonic shock across the entire political spectrum, there is no way to say who it would affect more, and how.

Second, "If it's overturned, the Republicans lose one of their biggest campaign issues."

No, they don't. In fact, it's very possible they would gain one, at least in the short-term. BecAUSE i HAVE HEARD many, except the truest of "true believers" feel that after a while, if nothing was done, and considering that Roberts will be the eighth Justice (if confirmed) to be picked by Republican presidents out of the last ten - and he still would not be enough to overturn Roe - that eventually the issue would "lose steam" because they would be resigned to the fact that, despite the rhetoric, the status quo wasn't going to change. Ever.

But if that day comes, many of those social conservatives would be emboldened. They would see that their efforts had a concrete result, and that would jolt their side as well.
And how such a ruling would affect pro-abortion Republicans like Specter and anti-abortion Democrats like Reid is anybody's guess.

The thinking here is that such a ruling would have far greater effect on state legislatures, and that the issue would become even more charged than it is now or ever has been, which is saying something. How that would play out politically is anybody's guess and extremely difficult to predict. But with a new status quo and a state-by-state conversation on the issue, the parameters of the debate would certainly change.

PAD,

"When Roe v. Wade is overturned"

When? Not if? You're just assuming that it will happen? Heck, Peter, I didn't even take for granted that Bush would beat Dukakis on Election Night back in 1988. Why do you sound resigned to this? The future is not set in stone.

"When Roe v. Wade is overturned"

When? Not if? You're just assuming that it will happen?"

No, I believe it will happen. Just one of the many punishments being inflicted on the US for being dumb enough to elect Bush for the first time in 2004.

"Heck, Peter, I didn't even take for granted that Bush would beat Dukakis on Election Night back in 1988."

Well, that's weird. Just as I knew Kerry was toast when he failed to distinguish himself from Bush on Iraq, I knew Dukakis was toast the moment that he gave the bloodless answer about capital punishment if his wife was raped.

"Why do you sound resigned to this? The future is not set in stone."

And sometimes Judgment Day is inevitable. I'm not "resigned" to it, any more than boarding up one's house means that one is "resigned" to an oncoming hurricane. I'm saying that the sooner people get their heads out of their butts and realize that Roe v. Wade WILL be overturned, the sooner they'll prepare for damage control. Here's a nutty thought: How about if an activist position is taken on the assumption that women's rights will be curtailed, rather than blind confidence that they won't. How about, instead of a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning or gay marriage, we see a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman's right to choose? A nutty notion, I know: An amendment created to expand citizens' rights, not restrict them.

PAD

You know, I'm going to stir a huge pot here, but why would it be a bad thing to put the abortion issue to states versus the federal government? Why would it be a bad thing to put such the decision about an issue that revolves around personal beliefs closer to the people it's going to affect? Are you going to get some states that are going to outright ban it? Probably. Are you going to get some states that place very few, if any real, limits on it? Probably. But abortion's an issue that's mired in personal philosophies, religion, scientific rationales, and morality; I doubt it's even possible for our federal government in its current state to come up with a decision that satisfies anyone entirely, much less everyone in the country. I know the state of things before RvW wasn't great, but it was also over 30 years ago. Things have changed a lot, especially in terms of people's perceptions of personal rights. I think the horror stories about a grand right-wing conspiracy sweeping across the country leaves out the fact that overturning RvW would be the single biggest galvanizing moment for the Pro-Choice side, and they'd likely put up just as strong a fight across the country. Someone mentioned that overturning RvW would possibly lead to a new cultural revolution; I think it'd definitely lead to a stronger debate in this country, hopefully one based on something other than empty election rhetoric.

How about, instead of a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning or gay marriage, we see a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman's right to choose?

Frankly I think that would be a terrible idea--it would galvanize the pro-lifers to offer their own amendment and at this point I'd have to give them the edge in likely victory. Dean and Hillary are urging democrats to reach out to pro-lifers, the democrats are running Casey vs Santorum, and a CNN poll says 72 percent said that a nominee who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade shouldn't be disqualified.

Add in the reality that Blacks and Latinos, two groups that the Democrats absolutely MUST hold on to tend not to be as supportive of RvW as the party as a whole and you have a recipe for utter disaster. It would appear that the country seems to be drifting away from the pro-choice position and it would be smart to reverse that trend before starting a fight that will very possibly lead to disasterous defeat.

I think the main reason that no one has proposed an amendment to guarantee the right to an abortion is twofold: 1) Those that feel strongly about it believe that this right is already in the Constitution, as affirmed by RvW and 2) Keeping the fight in the courts allows many Catholic Democrats like Cuomo and Kerry to play both side by stating that they are personally against abortion but do not want to impose that belief on others. If they had to actually vote to ratify an amendment, that position would be a lot harder to justify.

Relax folks politics, economics and many other things are cyclic. I am not thrilled with the direction we are heading at the moment either. Just as the pendulum of politics is now swinging to conservitive it will swing towards liberal ideals again as well.

Kick it back to the states where it belongs. It should never have been Federal to begin with.

I knew Dukakis was toast the moment that he gave the bloodless answer about capital punishment if his wife was raped.

Side issue here, but I've always thought Dukakis' response should've been something like:

"Of course I'd want to see him dead. I'd want to drag him out of the courtroom and strangle him myself. But our justice system is not about sanctioning personal vengeance -- not yours, not mine, not anyone's."

I was 18 when Dukakis ran. I walked Ithaca precincts for him. Election night? Not so fun.

TWL

"Of course I'd want to see him dead. I'd want to drag him out of the courtroom and strangle him myself. But our justice system is not about sanctioning personal vengeance -- not yours, not mine, not anyone's."

Yes, exactly. I likewise thought something along those lines was the right way to go. The problem was that candidates are programmed to get straight for their vetted, talking-points responses. The question posed required SOME sort of emotional, passionate reply, but his talking point response to the death penalty was canned and unemotional. Result: He came across as if he didn't give a damn if his wife was raped.

Journalists and questioners need to come up with more off-the-wall questions so that candidates will actually be required to think on their feet.

Personally, I always liked the capital punishment response on "West Wing," when Bartlett asked Charlie Young whether--if the killer of Charlie's cop mother was ever brought to justice--Charlie would want to see him executed. Charlie replied, "No, sir, I would not." He then paused half a heartbeat and added, "I'd want to do it myself."

PAD

Things have changed a lot, especially in terms of people's perceptions of personal rights.

And you're assume that things have changed for the better?

That perhaps I'm imaginging that 11 states passed laws this past election season banning gay marriage and Congress wants to amend our Constitution to do the same?

Doesn't sound like the mark of a country willing to continue to expand the personal rights of individuals.

"Doesn't sound like the mark of a country willing to continue to expand the personal rights of individuals."

Continue? You mean there was time when rights were expanded? I missed all the events of the 50s, 60s, and mostly missed everything from the 70s (I was more interested in learning how not to drool, to eat with a spoon, and other sundry things babies do). So my whole life, I've only ever seen personal liberty/rights constrained by government. Seeing some expansion would be nice.

Bush agrees:
JIM LEHRER: What about your own any of your own? Any of your own? Do you think for instance that you beat Dukakis because of anything having to do with the debates with him?

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Well, I think Dukakis got hurt by an answer he gave in the debate out at UCLA in California when Bernie Shaw asked him some question about if your wife was raped I think was the question... And, Mike Dukakis seemed flustered by it and, instead of saying I'd kill him if I could get my hands on him, there was some kind of politically correct answer. And I think that hurt him. I really think that, you know, I shouldn't be critical of him, cause I'm sure I make plenty of mistakes. But I think that particular answer stands out as one at least in my memory that might have been a so-called defining moment. I don't know whether it changed any polling numbers or anything like that.

I seem to recall another question, one wasked of Bush...Bernie asked something to the effect of "If you died in office could your vice president be trusted to take over?" It was obviously a careful way of saying "QUAYLE??? What the hell were you thinking???" but what was cool was that when Shaw asked it Bush gave a little mock hurt expression and said "Bernie..." like he was upset that Shaw would bring up such a sad prospect...it was cute.

I really think that, you know, I shouldn't be critical of him, cause I'm sure I make plenty of mistakes.

Wow. Now, if only his son wasn't suffering from the delusion of being infallible.

Ah, but see, I agree with you that a Constitutional amendment about marriage is silly and not the appropriate jurisdiction. However, I also feel it is likely never to pass, because, let's look at it here, if ONLY 11 states have anti-gay marriage statutes in place, that's not nearly enough to get a constitutional amendment passed, right? Do you really think at least 25% of the states couldn't be mustered to stop such an amendment? Me personally, I'd like to throw the whole concept on its ear, as I explained it on a thread a while ago, about separating FOR EVERYONE, straight or gay or purple or whatever, the civil aspects of marriage from the religious aspects, so anyone could get a civil union to cover the legal partnership and then choose whether they needed something else from a religious authority or whatever.

However, I do feel it's an appropriate state issue, because most marriage law is written at the state level already, isn't it? And I know, I know, that doesn't protect the minority very well when you vote for things like this. Pessimistically thinking, though, typically it takes the implementation of a bad law to make people see the need for a good law. I'm not justifying this as a means to an end at all, but maybe offering as consolation the thought that if a law or set of laws overtime becomes bad, it will be changed. Maybe think in terms of creative destructionism? You don't know how far you can go until you have nothing left to lose?

Ok, I've dug this bloody big hole around myself here and no one's reaching to take the shovel out of my hands...

Crap, got so caught up I forgot to address Craig's main point about personal freedoms.

Um, I guess what I was meaning was that people are much more aware of their personal rights, and whether they exercise it or not, that does include voting the way they want to. I think you can argue that the state of debate in this country is appallingly bad (as evidenced by my often clumsy attempts at it), but the basic personal rights protected by the Constitution are intact. Some states are pretty backwards, I can't argue otherwise, except to point out that no one is forcing anyone to live in a particular state. And I think we do a much better job of rooting out violations of our rights. I think people see things as worse than "the good old days" partially because we're only now finding out how sneaky certain individuals were back then. Sort of a "well, if Hoover got away with that kind of stuff back then, then they MUST be doing even worse now." kind of mentality. Call me an optimist, but I think we're too far along as a society to revert to some kind of serfdom-level of rights. Will there be stumbles back? Sure, but I think those stumbles are what alert us to our problems and force us to address them.

As a card carryin' lefty (and Pennsylvania state house candidate in 2004) I think Robert's nomination is great. Bush sowed the seeds of his own destruction — by putting Roe V. Wade at risk.

Do you guys have any idea how many Republican women will flee the party if Roe v. Wade gets overturned? We seriously might not see another Republican White House for a generation. Between the war, Plame, the economy disaster (that's the storm we face in a couple of years folks) — Roe v. Wade would be the cherry on top.

Let's face it, the Democrats have become to weak-willed to oppose the GOP, so the best plan is to let them self-destruct. As I've advocated previously, every liberal pol in the country should head for Cancun, and tell the people of the U.S. "you elected these clowns, now live with the consequences. When you get sick of it, call us and we'll come back and fix things. In the meantime, I'm headed to Senor Frogs."

"As I've advocated previously, every liberal pol in the country should head for Cancun, and tell the people of the U.S. "you elected these clowns, now live with the consequences. When you get sick of it, call us and we'll come back and fix things. In the meantime, I'm headed to Senor Frogs.""

I think the last party to try that was the Whigs. As of today, nobody ever called.

You can't convince people to trust you with their security if, when something as minor as few elections that fail to go your way happens, you pack up your marbles and leave. If all the liberal pols skip town (and I'm sure there are many who will be willing to help them pack) some other group, made, perhaps, of sterner stuff, will take their place and try to earn a chance at leadership.

Actually, come to think of it, your scenario is pretty much the ending of ATLAS SHRUGGED, isn't it? Just with liberals instead of capitalists. Just get yourself a hidden valley in Colorado and wait for the phone call from America...yep, any day now...(Ring) "HELLO? Hello? .....no, thank you, we really don't want to change our long distance carrier..." Yep. Any day now.

Dammit Bill, stop getting so damn literary. Makes my beer-sodden head get all woogy.

First, I am of no relation to Supreme Court nominee Roberts. That said; I am totally with (meaning aligned, viewpoint-wise) the guy who penned the thing that started this... the guy whose last name happens to be my first.

Protecting the environment is a great thing, but bashing Bush for (indirectly) doing so through Roberts is even greater genius. Supreme Court nominee Roberts, Bush and big business are so right for each other that it makes me sick. Isn't this too obvious? Shouldn't they be stopped? Grrrr!!

Big business does not deserve the breaks given by the conservative right wing, but neither do we (the people) deserve the returned tax money that Bush bankrupted our nation with by handing it out as if our government couldn't use it wisely, which apparently the couldn't.

Watch the Daily Show tonight; you'll see that Jews and/or liberals are indeed alive and well. Kudos!

DR

PAD said:

" we see a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman's right to choose? "

I'm a little slow on the uptake...right to choose what?

Whether or not to kill their fetus.

Thank God that the Court has had the guts to overturn past rulings. I'd hate to be living in a country that still allowed slavery. Of course I hate that my country allows women to murder innocent life.

What really scares me a lot isnt that Roberts may become a Supreme Court judge. The one that wakes me up at night is thinking that with Renhquist and Ruth Ginsberg both possibly Dieing on the bench of health problems Bush may get the chance to put 3 judges there.
If that happens I really want democrats to make it look hard to get roberts on then use political bank to slam dunk 2 people that represent American interests. Heck I wouldnt even complain about Bolton being our UN rep if Deomocrats got to pick 2 seats on the court.

After re-reading the RvW opinion yesterday, and thinking more about what folks here have said about the GOP not wanting to lose that fight as a political platform goal, I think they're on to something. The RvW opinion pretty clearly lays out the line where states may start to regulate abortion, and clearly sets out a limit. It takes the court a long time to get to that deliniation, but once it does, it's very clear: No regulation prior to the end of the first trimester, some regulation short of an absolute ban after that, with the closer to term you get, the more regulation allowed. But the court strongly suggests that all abortions other than those required for the preservation of the life and health of the mother can be regulated, including prohibited, after the start of the second trimester.

This was back in the early 1970s'. We've had nearly 30 years pass since then, and states have not passed laws that can stand up to this clear test. And since there have undoubtedly been Republican controlled state governments in that time, it seems to me that the only logical explanations for this total lack of laws compliant with the SCT ruling regulating what the GOP rather vocally uses as a stumping point are 1) total incompetence on behalf of GOP lawmakers (which, while I often disagree with their views, I don't think they are morons, so this can't be the case, or 2) they quite willfully avoid passing such laws, because doing so lessons the impact of their rhetoric.

"We need to stop murdering babies" comes across much better than "we need to stop killing babies before they reach the second trimester, and thus are protected by laws we've already passed..." If the main concern of the GOP really was protecting unborn potential humans, they'd be taking every legal step the can in order to protect them. Instead, I see the political coin they can garner from using "pro-life" as a rallying cry taking precedence over actually protecting anyone.

In the end, who's worse? Those that say they abhor the practice, but don't feel that they have the right/authority to impose that belief on others, or those that abhor the practice, declare they have the right and the authority to prevent it to a large degree, and then fail to take those actions they can that would prevent it?

Bobb,

You should review the Casey ruling, it puts much more clearer standards on how states can regulate abortion after the 1st trimester.

Either on this thread or another one, does anyone remember who said something along the lines of "Abortion should be legal, safe, and very rare."? I'm thinking it was a Supreme Court Justice, but I'm not for certain.

Bobb, that's the decision moving forward, but since you reread it yesterday, what about the legal underpinnings the justices used to get there? I've heard different opinions about the strength of the legal rationales involved; I'd be interested to know your opinion.

Jason,

I don't know who first came up with the "safe, legal, and rare" line but both Bill and Hillary Clinton have used it often.

Den, do you mean the 2004 Judge Casey ruling that declared the most recent attempt to ban PBA procedures? My quick google search only turned up that discussion. I couldn't get the .pdf file to load with the actual opinion, but the discussion I saw about that case seems that Judge Casey limited his decision to the fact that the PBA ban had no allowance for consideration of the health of the mother. He expanded on the SCT ruling, in that he stated that there needed to be a medical consensus, or some similar language, that the procedure would never be required for the protection of the mother, and that since there was credible medical opinion that such a procedure could be called for in certain circumstances, a medical allowance needed to be included in any regulation of the procedure.

Jason, I set out re-reading the opinion yesterday because I was going to make the somewhat popular statement that it was the "right result, wrong reasoning." I don't know that I'd use those words, but I do think that if the issue could be examined anew by an impartial court today, the opinion could be much better written.

As for the strength of the rationale, I think it's only as strong as your belief that the Constitution has "penumbras" of rights that can be inferred from such things as the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The opinion rests strongly on this interpretation. It provides a decent (and I'm assuming accurate) historical presentation of various societies' views on abortion throughout history, which is good to note that this isn't a new issue that we're dealing with, and that it pretty much has always been highly controversial. Some of the big weaknesses I think the opinion contains is the allusion that a woman's health can include things like the quality of life she has, which implies that "burdening" a woman with an unwanted child might infringe on her chosen quality of life. One big statement the court makes is that the Constitution does not apply to unborn humans. They do allow that as a fetus approaches viability, that distinction begins to blur, but prior to technologically achievable viability, the express provisions of the Constitution may not apply. Despite that, the court goes on to find that the State has a vested interest in protecting the potentiality of human life...again, the farther away from viability, the less the State's interest. And it's the competition between the State's interest in potential life and the woman's right of privacy, not so much to do as she will, but be free from State intervention, that lies at the heart of the RvW decision.

But when it comes down to it, the first trimester line seems to be arbitrarily drawn. There's historical precedent as to when the fetus "quickens," but we know today that the growing fetus gains independant brain function long before the end of the first trimester. But, in RvW, first-trimester abortion must be unregulated, potentially meaning the state can't even pass licensing requirements over the procedure.

The strongest part of the opinion is the maintenance of a health exception for any regulations. This seems to be clearly supportive of the idea that, at every level, the woman retains some right over her body, and the State cannot proscribe a practice that may be required to preserve her health/life. Although, as I mentioned before, the Court leaves open the door that things like mental health, or personal well being, could be considered when it comes to determining whether a procedure is required to preserve the health of the woman.

Overall, I wish it were better, but it seems to be a really good compromise. It all but hands those wanting to limit the practice a road map of how they can do so. And it does set some very clear limits to that kind of regulation. The first trimester boundary is very weak, and I see the reasoning behind it pushing that boundary to earlier and earlier moments in the pregnancy, to where we'll eventually be able to justify some form of regulation to the point of first conception, and even earlier.

No, actually I was referring the Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The SC used this case to establish what limits a state can put on abortion that do not impose and "undo burden" on her rights.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/306/

As far as I know, no one has ever tried to take Roe the extreme of banning even licensing in order to perform the procedure. In fact, I've seen numerous articles about the shortage of doctors willing to perform abortions, so my guess is that most states require a licensed physician to perform one. I know that's the rule in Pennsylvania.

Not knowing anything about prenatal care and stages of the fetus in terms of viability, is it possible that the first trimester boundary represented the border for fetus viability when the decision was written 30+ years ago? Because if the decision focused on viability of the fetus as a baby as some kind of standard, then could the inception of brain activity versus the point where a fetus is viable outside the womb be two different things?

My wife's 27 weeks pregnant, so I know a lot more than I ever thought I would about fetal development. Viability is the term used when the fetus can survive, albeit with assistance, outside the mother's body. It's hard to determine from the court's opinion, but they seem to be going with the traditional "quickening" rationale, which usually occurs around the transition between the first and second trimesters, which is when the mother can first feel the fetus moving.

My wife tells me that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, or as late as 26 weeks. Survival rates vary, but I think around 25 weeks there's an 50-80% chance that baby will survive. Even as early as 22 weeks, there's a very small chance (0-10%) that the fetus will survive. Although many such preemies do have some complications to deal with.

So, I doubt the Court used viability to determine the first trimester line, but rather the historical quickening. The reason why I see that line getting pushed back is because the reason why quickening is used, according to some sources I've read, is that it was the first uncotrovertible evidence that the woman was carrying a successful fetus. And once you get past the first trimester, the chances of miscarraige drop significantly.

But as our technological prowess increases, we learn more. Viability if pushed back every year, and we know more and more about fetal development. For instance, because my wife and I were getting medical assistance to concieve, we received an ultrasound within 6 weeks of conception (most couples won't get an ultrasound until week 20). At this point, the heart had just started beating. It acually alarmed us, because the rate was a little slow, but our tech told us that was probably because it had literally just started beating within the past 24 hours or so.

As our medical technology increases, the point of viability is going to be pushed back farther and farther. And under RvW, that's going to push back the time when the state can regulate abortion farther and farther.

Thanks, Den.

Here's the quote from the Abstract from the Casey opinion.

Undue burden =
"substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."

Which is a very specific expansion/refinement of the RvW ruling. The Court upheld most of the state regulation in that case, except for a husband notification requirement. It upheld the requirement for parental notification for minors (which also provided a judicial end-around for that requirement).

Fetal viability is an interesting question. In 1973, it was a lot easier to picture it in terms of three trimesters, but increases in medical technology are making that point moot. What will happen when the day comes that technology can support an embryo from the moment of fertilization until birth? When artificial wombs support our preborn? Would abortion even be an issue anymore?

I'll go one step beyond that: what happens when cloning success rates increase, and we don't even need traditional biological reproduction anymore? This is the biggest problem I have with the "life begins at conception" train of thought, because, with enough advancements in cloning, you don't even need fertilization anymore. At that point, nearly every living cell has the potential to become a new human, albeit a clone of an already existing human.

But, stepping back from the extreme for the moment, yes, I think the logical place RvW takes you, based on viability, is the eventual abolition of abortion, except in cases of protectiong the mother.

Huh... So, in light of technological advances, the irony may be that if the parties keep the debate going long enough as a battleground issue, the decision itself might become something that perhaps neither party wants, or more ironically, the parties might flip-flop and the pro-choice side fights to overturn RvW while the pro-life side fights to keep it.

Yes, Jason, my rambling line of thought pretty much came to that exact conclusion: If you take RvW's reasoning out far enough, you actually see it bringing an end to so called "pro-choice," because as developing potential humans become more and more viable through technology, the State's interest expands to protect them. Which would result in a flip of the political ideologies on the opinion.

"PAD said:

" we see a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman's right to choose? "

I'm a little slow on the uptake...right to choose what?

Posted by Ken at July 27, 2005 12:38 AM
Whether or not to kill their fetus."

Oh! Well...when you put it like that, no wonder they never finish their sentences!

However, I also feel it is likely never to pass, because, let's look at it here, if ONLY 11 states have anti-gay marriage statutes in place, that's not nearly enough to get a constitutional amendment passed, right?

But it's not just 11 states - it's 11 states in one year that passed such laws. There are others that have such laws already, and other states that will, particularly if, like last year, can get Republicans to vote (and thus get them to vote for Republican candidates for office).

Oh! Well...when you put it like that, no wonder they never finish their sentences!

And anti-choice people (because I do not deign to call them pro-life) love to throw such phrases out there, because it makes them feel better about the situation.

I mean, 'pro-life' is quite the oxymoron when many of these same people don't mind executions by the state and carpet bombing of foreign nations.

Yet they won't admit what they are: anti-choice.

Hmm... reminds me of Esquire's interview with Dan Rather about what he's learned (and for those of you who know me, I can't believe I'm quoting Dan Rather either). He mentioned that 100 years ago, the president could take several days, perhaps even weeks, to consider courses of action about a topic. By JFK, he only had a week or so to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now, the president gets a phone call at 2:30 a.m. and he's gotta decide before 7 a.m. what's going to be said in the press conference. As reproductive technology advances, and the fetus becomes viable earlier and earlier, it's going to definitely cut down on the time a woman has to consider her options. Seems like such decisions shouldn't be rushed to me, but then again, who has time for anything anymore, huh?

Craig: How many states have gay marriage laws? Apparently there's nothing prohibiting states from enacting some kind of anti-gay marriage law, right? So if we're in danger of a constitutional amendment, wouldn't that imply that at leat 75% of the states have or are in the process of proposing, such laws? Even if half, 25 of the 50, states have such laws, that's still 13 short of what's needed to pass a constitutional amendment. We need, what, only 13 states to say "no, we don't need the federal government to tell us how to handle our marriage laws" to stop such an amendment? There's lots of reasons to argue against such an amendment that don't even involve religion or personal beliefs. It's a states-rights issue, it's a separation of church and state issue, etc. This kind of stuff won't play on the news, but with certain state governments I bet you'd get farther than you think.

sigh... you know you need to get back to work when you say there are reasons not involving religion, like, you know, church and state... Better people than me can come up with other reasons, but I do think the states-rights angle is an important one.

This is the biggest problem I have with the "life begins at conception" train of thought, because, with enough advancements in cloning, you don't even need fertilization anymore. At that point, nearly every living cell has the potential to become a new human, albeit a clone of an already existing human.

I've gotten into pointless discussions about this before (and obviously learned nothing from the experience) but the real problem with the "life begins at _______" idea is that life does not begin at any point--it is a continuation. Two living cells merge to become one living cell, which divides to become many living cells. There was no beginning in this process, except that of the very first living organism, ancestor to us all.

None of which has any pertinence to the abortion question.

I mean, 'pro-life' is quite the oxymoron when many of these same people don't mind executions by the state and carpet bombing of foreign nations.

Yeah, and some of the "pro-choice" folks IO have known are also the ones most likely to want to limit your ability to read Playboy magazine. But again, such hypocrisies do not have much relevance to the issue at hand.

Craig J. Ries-

No disrespect, but your rant against my post was misplaced. My only concern was in trying to figure out why a guy who's a writer (Peter David) doesn't finish his sentences ("...woman's right to choose. period.)

It's an odd choice he (and many others) makes when they don't finish sentences.

Well...not all sentences- just certain sentences. Strikes me as kinda wimpy and evasive is all...

Choose what? Good God if he means the time it takes my girlfriend to pick what movie we're gonna see, I say abolish that particular "right to choose" immediately and with extrene prejudice! It's a freakin' nightmare! Who's with me on that one, fellas?!?!?!?

Ok, this is admittedly a low blow, but I'm sorta biased at the moment...

Would you say Bush was trying to be an "old school" president the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when he pretty much sat on his ass while terrorists were flying around in hijacked American jetliners?

And I say I'm biased at the moment because I'm reading a book called The New Pearl Harbor, which examines whether the current administration had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. As far as conspiracy theories go, they have a lot of ammunition to feed on. I don't know that I buy it, but there either was something fishy going on, or a whole bunch of people screwed up that morning.

I was just making a point about the time available these days to make decisions and how it seems to be diminishing, regardless of the topic. I don't believe I espoused any particular judgement on what various people had done or do with that time.

As for my thoughts on 9/11, I don't think that's going to contribute to the conversation at hand.

Bobb,
Haven't read it, but it's not like it's anything we had a lot of experience with. Hindsight can be a cruel bias.

And, please: Pro-Life refers to innocent babies, not to those who are granted the right of choice and choose murder (not a reference to mothers who kill their unborn, but to people who kill others with pre-meditated intent). I'm not even for the death penalty, and I can see the difference.
No one likes war, either, but NOT fighting a war when your enemy does is called unconditional surrender. Fighting half-heartedly is called conditional, very-slow, surrender.

We've been watching M*A*S*H on DVD and while it's funny as all get out, peace under occupation isn't peace.

James Tichy:Thank God that the Court has had the guts to overturn past rulings. I'd hate to be living in a country that still allowed slavery. Of course I hate that my country allows women to murder innocent life.

Um, the Court didn't overturn slavery. The XIII Amendment did that. Hopefully you're being facetious on that issue.

CJR: And anti-choice people (because I do not deign to call them pro-life) love to throw such phrases out there, because it makes them feel better about the situation. I mean, 'pro-life' is quite the oxymoron when many of these same people don't mind executions by the state and carpet bombing of foreign nations. Yet they won't admit what they are: anti-choice

Since we're apparently now claiming the right to rename well-established movements, I hereby deign to rechristen the faction in favor of abortion rights (which, incidentally, includes me up to a point) "anti-life." The anti-life people tend to overlook the fact that fetal development is a continuum-- that the 8 month old fetus that virtually nobody will endorse aborting is the same entity that it was 6 months earlier, and that the definition of one period of time as an appropriate time for abortion is largely an exercise in line-drawing. Hopefully the line is drawn on some principled ground-- I'm not sure viability is a convincing one, but at least it's a starting point for the discussion-- but it's not inherently irrational or despotic for the "anti-choice" people to object to the arbitrariness of the exercise. It is absurd to pretend that the anti-abortion faction is somehow motivated by animosity toward women, rather than an often-principled stand in support of things that they truly and sincerely believe to be helpless human beings. Underestimating the integrity of your opponents is a devastatingly stupid error, one that the Democrats tend to make with regard to red-state conservatives, and one that will continue costing the Democrats elections unless and until the Democratic national party starts confronting social conservatives on their own terms.

In addition to renaming the abortion-rights people "anti-life," I also deign to rename all activists "monomaniacs." I feel quite happy about expressing myself in this way, because I've found that almost all activists are insane, even activists whose causes I ultimately support.

And I support the death penalty, neoconservative foreign policy, and legalized abortion, so at least I'm consistently anti-life.

Jason, sorry, I meant that as a rhetorical question, not one aimed at you.

Robbnn, I've barely begun the book, so I'm sure I haven't even gotten to the really good/crazy stuff. But the book claims there were established protocals in place for dealing with hijacked planes, and it suggests that, had those procedures been followed, there's a good chance that the first, if not the second, WTC planes would have been intercepted. At the very least, the plane that struck the Pentagon should have been intercepted. I can't imagine that an order to not respond as protocal demands could go uncovered, but the fact that highly trained professionals failed to do the job they train for in three consequtive escalating events suggests an incompetence that we don't like to associate with our country.

The protocol for dealing with hijacked planes at the time was to string the kidnappers along until either all the hostages are released, or a SWAT team can safely access the plane. The protocols never envisioned a fully-laden plane being used as a massive kamikaze - to the best of my knowledge, the only people who had ever planned for that were the designers of nuclear power plants, and they were often ridiculed by other safety experts for planning for such a bizarre contingency.

Don't look so silly now, do they?

In other news today, the Bush administration officially retired the phrase "Global War Against Terrorism."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26strategy.html?ex=1123214400&en=44a1e10bf887024d&ei=5070

I'm just going to lie here in the fetal position until 2008.

Even if half, 25 of the 50, states have such laws, that's still 13 short of what's needed to pass a constitutional amendment.

Half right now already have legislative statues stating as much, according to Wikipedia. Seventeen have constitutional amendments.

I'd say the fact that 11 alone passed such amendments this past election indicates that we're heading in the wrong direction, and that such a federal constitutional amendment is very likely, should it get to the states.

Meanwhile, progressive countries (ie, 'evil' to some) such as Canada and Spain are allowing gays to marry. Nor has civilization collapsed in Belgium or the Netherlands.

Jonathon, that doesn't match what is in the book. I've not checked the sources they site, so I can't vouch for it's accuracy. Your account sounds as though it's either the official statement made about the events, or your opinion based on your observations.

According to the book, the protocal in place was something like this: When a jetliner stops responding to traffic control, and then deviates from it's pre-filed, FAA approved course, traffic control is to immediately assume a hijacking situation has occurred. FAA procedure, according to the book, is to then notify NORAD that a hijacking has occurred, and NORAD (I may have the wrong military contact, but it's basically the Air Force), according to protocals in place on 9/11, is to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked aircraft. According to people interviewed for the book, the alert fighters can be airborn and at cruising altitude in 2.5 minutes.

The book also looks at the timeline for the 3 WTC attacks and the attack on the Pentagon. If the book's accounts of the protocals in place at the time are accurate, there should have been fighters in the air and on an intercept course to the first aircraft at least 10 minutes before the first impact, and given the locations of bases with ready aircraft, and their speed, should have had more than 5 minutes to intercept, attempt to deter, and destroy the jetliner before impact.

So, yes, if all that is true, they look far worse than silly. They look like morons, totally incompetent, and inept. And while I know there are people like that around, it's hard to imagine that a whole bunch of them were working at different stations all across the government that morning.

With regards to 9/11, I remember something about the hijackers falsely communicating with various airports about malfunctions and needing to return to their departure airport. If this is true, and I honestly don't know, could that explain the lag time as the towers altered their flight plans and thought they were dealing with an emergency landing situation as opposed to a hijacking?

Craig: As for gay marriage, I'll give you Canada, though it's not exactly going over smooth up there, from my understanding. However, while it's always nifty to bring up all these enlightened European countries, people often fail to note that Spain's about, what, half the size of Texas, and Belgium and the Netherlands are way smaller than that. It's always easy to come to a conclusion when you're dealing with a much smaller and more homogenous (but not totally, I know) population. I'd be curious if anyone knows how many countries besides us have laws against gay marriage, or at least haven't explicitly allowed it? I still say it's a state's rights issue and the smart way to defeat a constitutional amendment is on those or similar grounds, as trying to argue it on the personal politics will put the VAST majority in a position to run rough shod over a small minority. I think if you want widespread acceptance, you've got to start on a small scale, like your Belgium or Netherlands example, here in one or two states and show that allowing gay marriage (civil unions at first, if you're smart) will not end AMERICAN civilization as we know it. I'm usually not one to underestimate our citizenry, but I don't think they will take the time nor care to learn about the bouyant success of gay rights in a country few could probably point out on a map and is most well-known here mainly for waffles...

Jason, I'd have to check the official report, but my memory is that the controllers fairly early on heard over the chatter "we have some planes"...although that may have been the aircraft that went down in PA.

However, the highjackers were trained enough to pilot the aircraft, but not to communicate with the tower appropriately. With even the first aircraft, there were enough deviations from standard protocal that there should have been an automatic reaction to interpret the situation as a highjacking. As I said, it's possible that a single even could have been accepted as controller error/slow response to an unusual situation. But controllers are highly trained professional, and they deal with unusual things all the time, and pretty much all according to procedure. I've spent some time observing the cab at O'Hare airport, watching the different stations. These people know what they are doing, and know that quick reactions are needed. The idea that the traffic control system failed so completely, by itself, should have been enough to warrant a deeper investigation. We never got that.

While the point of the book may be to ask questions about the official account of those events, I think the bigger point is to question why there wasn't a bigger effort to open the investigation about it. For instance, in each of the rubble piles for WTC 1,2, and 7, there were what the book refers to as molten hot spots, basically molten piles of steel. Given the fuel available for each fire, the temperatures of the fires would not have been sufficient to melt steel. Yet no investigation into what actually DID melt the steel was made. And the scrap recovered was shipped overseas for recycyling, so there's no evidence left to examine. Which leave the door wide open for every crackpot and their brother to say "the buildings were taken down by explosive demolition, not by the collision and fire." And with not a shred of evidence left over, there's no way to discredit that. It's no wonder it looks like the government was trying to hide something...why get rid of the evidence so fast, if there was nothing to hide?

As I said, there's nothing here that proves anything. But it sure smells funny.

"For instance, in each of the rubble piles for WTC 1,2, and 7, there were what the book refers to as molten hot spots, basically molten piles of steel. Given the fuel available for each fire, the temperatures of the fires would not have been sufficient to melt steel. Yet no investigation into what actually DID melt the steel was made."

I've read that as well but I'm dubious. It's a bit difficult to say exactly HOW hot a situation like this will get given that a situation like this hasn't happened before or since. (One of the things the conspiracy people keep asking is "Why has there never been a skyscraper that collapsed like the Twin Towers did?" I dunno...exactly how many skyscrapers have actually collapsed? I mean, what are we supposed to compare this to?)

As for the molten steel story, I've read some hearsay evidence of same but that's not worth much...furthermore, even if true, I don't know exactly if one can truly say WHAT will happen given the unique circumstances involved. Normally, fire doesn't occur underground but there were supposed to be fires still going on underground for weeks...I mean, wood burns at a certain temperature but if you blow on it, it gets hotter...

Problem is, if you ever go on any of the 9/11 "truth" sites and express the slightest doubt you will immediately get labeled as a CIA disinformation stooge. These are some seriously dogmatic folks. Reading the 9/11 conspiracy buffs stuff is an awful lot like reading creationist publications...and probably about as enlightening.

I read an interesting story about the WTC a while back. Just as they were building the towers in the early 70s, New York outlawed asbestos insulation. Because of this, the builders stopped using asbestos at the 64th floor. The architect of the towers allegedly complained that if there was ever a fire about the 64th floor, the towers would collapse.

I'm not sure if it's true, but it's something to think about.

One more thing (as Uncle would say): Fires certainly can burn underground. Just ask the residents of Centralia, Pennsylvania. That underground fire turned 40 this year.

Bill and Den, both your posts highlight the main issue, which, to me, really isn't whether the conspiracy nuts are on to something: it's that we don't know. No in depth investigation was performed, the NTSB didn't spend months putting the airliners back together piece by piece like they have in the past. Architects weren't called in to determine just why the towers collapsed, when there's a good deal of the architecture community saying that they shouldn't have collapsed. But instead of using this tragedy to learn some answers, all we get are questions. And here, I guess, is where it comes back to either incompetence or duplicity: was the evidence pusposfully destroyed to hide something, or was it done because the people at the top didn't recognize the potential lessons to be learned from this tragedy?

For example, just thinking out loud, I can imagine that all that steel, glass, concrete, etc. falling thousands of feet would generate a lot or pressure on the bottom-most steel supports...and that pressure would translate into heat, which could have melted the steel and started the underground fires. But I don't know...and I think we should have known.

Architects weren't called in to determine just why the towers collapsed, when there's a good deal of the architecture community saying that they shouldn't have collapsed.

I've heard people say that the towers shouldn't have collapsed, but I haven't seen much logic behind the statement.

I have watched a show about why the towers collapsed, and alot of it was based on the fact that, when the Twin Towers were built, there weren't 757's flying the skies carrying the amount of jet fuel that they do now.

"I have watched a show about why the towers collapsed, and alot of it was based on the fact that, when the Twin Towers were built, there weren't 757's flying the skies carrying the amount of jet fuel that they do now."

That's true...but there were 707s, 727s, and the 747 first flew in 1969, 2 years after the second tower opened. So jets of this size were on the board, and a collision with one the size of a 757 would not be unthinkable (the larger 707s were just as heavy as the 757, and the 747 was much larger).

It's just another example of a statement that seems to make sense, yet doesn't really stand up to any sort of even casual scrutiny. There are a lot of sources that today say the collision should not have cause a collapse, and even when you add in fire, it should not have resulted in the kind of collapse we saw. Granted, no one's testing these kinds of things...but neither is anyone checking the official account. Why is this important? Because it suggests that there was additional damage done to the towers in order to bring them down...and if it wasn't someone on *our* side, that means that the terrorists planted additional explosives on the buildings. Terrorists that likely did NOT die on the planes.

My feeling/hope is, the farther away from 9/11, and the Bush administration, we get, the more people will start to ask more questions like this. Not that I want to see Bush implicated...that's actually the last thing I want. But I want the facts and the truth known, because knowing the truth is only going to prepare us to prevent this from happening again.

"Because it suggests that there was additional damage done to the towers in order to bring them down...and if it wasn't someone on *our* side, that means that the terrorists planted additional explosives on the buildings. Terrorists that likely did NOT die on the planes."

It just totally strains my credibility to suggest that in addition to flying two airplanes into the towers they also managed to plant bombs on just the right floors to make it not obvious that there were bombs going off...

Similarly, the frames of film that show that just miliseconds prior to the plane hitting there was a flash--while one can certainly speculate that a missle was fired doesn't it make a hell of a lot more sense that it was just a flash of light? A reflection? Anything has to be more likely than the idea of a missle fired that close to the moment of collision.

And while I can appreciate Craig's statements about how it would be nice to know all the details, I can't expect them to waste too much time debunking the way out theories--any more than I expect every paleontologist to waste any time proving that the T. Rex fossil he found is NOT 6000 years old

Okay, here's an article from Scientific American that pretty well sums up the argument, then shoots it full of holes -

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

Don't know the tag style for inserting a link - sorry!

That's more or less the official line. And that seems to have been satisfactory enough for everyone else.

Me? I'd rather have had an exhastive NTSB-style investigation so we'd have more reliable facts, rather than a bunch of competing theories. because that's what the "weakened steel caused a pancake effect" is...just another theory.

From that article:

Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

If true, and I'd assume it probably is, that might explain the melted steel.

Um, the Court didn't overturn slavery. The XIII Amendment did that. Hopefully you're being facetious on that issue.

No, not facetious, just a little ignorant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the court uphold the rights of slave owners? They also allowed states to segregate schools, no? Could you imagine the Court making a ruling that favored slavery or racism today? I know I couldn't. Hopefuly in a few years we won't be able to imagine the court supporting the right to murder innocent life either.

"It just totally strains my credibility to suggest that in addition to flying two airplanes into the towers they also managed to plant bombs on just the right floors to make it not obvious that there were bombs going off..."

If I had told you, on September 10, 2001, that a terrorist organization had spent the better part of the past 5 years sneaking into the US at least 20 members, cased our airports, learned the basic skills needed to operate and navigate a jetliner from our own flight schools, and would successfully use cash to purchase several one-way tickets on at least 4 different jetliners, plant enough members on each plane to successfully hijack them, hold them for close to an hour, deviate them from their plotted course, and then fly them, unchallenged, not once, not twice, but three times into significant buildings on US soil, you'd call me crazy. Yet that extremely preposterous event happened. Why is it so hard to image that this same organization is incapable of doing the same with explosives? And they wouldn't necessarly need to do so before the planes struck. In the ensuing panic, it would have been relatively easy to have some other operatives disguised as fireman join the throngs of firemen racing into the buildings, with explosive devices disguised as oxygen tanks, plant those devices around the steel cores of the buildings, get out, and detonate them.

The thing is, again, there was no public investigation. TV programs stopped showing the footage, at the request of the government, because it might be "damaging" to the American psyche. By the time we all started coming out of our shock, the time when we could start analyzing the footage, it was gone.

"Similarly, the frames of film that show that just miliseconds prior to the plane hitting there was a flash"

The flash isn't really the bothersome thing about those images. If you can find them, go back and take a close look at the underside of the right wing of that plane. There's what can only be described as a "pod" of some kind that appears to be slung under the wing. It's too big to be a cargo or landing gear door, and the cargo bulge on those 757/767 aircraft is not that large. And that flash appears to come directly out of the pop. Now, I'll be the first to admit that it could be a clever use of digital editing/SFX. I've no idea, really. But it's something that needed to be investigated, and never was.

Bill,

The only problem I see with the "potential energy converted to KE" analysis you list above is that it looks like it's treating all the building's mass as being up at 1350 feet, which is wrong. Even so, though, the correction factor for that cuts the total energy in half (assuming an even mass distribution), so that's probably still enough to account for the melted steel.

I do agree with Bobb to the extent that it would've been nice to have a more extensive investigation, though -- why invite conspiracy theories when you don't have to?

TWL

The only thing that needs a more extensive investigation is your mom's fruitcake recipe.

You guys blame the lack of- in your mind- an "extensive investigation" for the abundance of conspiracy theories?

The reason there's so many conspiracy theories is due to a neat little confluence of events: a party in power many of you hate and think is evil, a president that those on your side think is stupid, a catastrophic and unprecedented event.

Many religious people ran to their churches and places of worship to seek refuge from that which they couldn't easily explain in their personal turmoil and fear. May I kindly suggest that much of the discourse in this thread is a similiar phenomenon? That it's your version of a "religious experience" ?

When I dig into moonbat discussions like these I can easily imagine the lot of you at your own personal altars, in some kind of spiritual epiphany. It's been addicitive, for sure. You lost a presidential election that could have been easily won because the most of you couldn't get off this kind of crank.

Come back down to reality guys. Occam's razor. Planes hit buildings. Steel melted. They fell. Lots of people died. The President/Republicans/The Jews aren't behind this. We have an enemy we have to unite to fight. Let's roll...shall we?

Tim, I agree with you on the need to leave conspiracy theories out. Which is why I'm not behind the "It was BUSH" witch-hunt that most of the authors of books like The New Pearl Harbor seem to belong to.

But that doesn't mean that the questions they raise are not important. I can watch the sun go overhead, day after day, and offer all kinds of interesting theories on why it does so, what it is. History is full of them. And until they were proven wrong, they were all valid theories. The official account of why the towers collapsed pretty much says "we don't know why, but here's our best guess based on very little examination of the evidence." And that best guess is pretty empty, in that it fails to account for a lot of unawswered questions. It's akin to sticking with the "sun orbits around the earth" theory, because that's all the time you want to spend thinking about the problem, even though you're ignoring all the evidence that indicates that maybe that's not the correct theory.

The thing that's been amazing to me over the past week hasn't been the so-called relavations of the conspiracy theorists...I'm more amazed at how much the general public just doesn't seem to care to know what really happened. Sure, close to 3000 people died on that tragic day...but close to 100 times that died last December, and 4 months later we had 10 different programs on Discovery showing how it happened, why it happened, and, heck, we even had footage of people being washed away by walls of water, to their deaths. The major difference? Despite the catastrophic death count from the tsunamis, we (meaning humans in general) use the information available to us to learn how to prevent such a tremendous death toll from future events like that. Compare that to the lack of lessons learned from 9/11. If steel buildings are really that susceptible to damage from collision and/or fire, shouldn't we try to learn why and how? And what we can do to prevent/lesson those impacts?

If not, from now on, every time there's a high-rise fire (there have been 2 significant high-rise fires here in Chicago over the past 2 or 3 years) is there going to be a concern/panic that the building will collapse?

The only thing that needs a more extensive investigation is your mom's fruitcake recipe.

Well, aren't WE just the little bundle of fun?

Fella, you haven't been around here particularly long if you think Bobb and I are conspiracy-minded nutcases. You want to believe otherwise, feel free -- but given past evidence, it does suggest that we're not the ones worshiping at the altar of moonbattishness.

And do have a nice day.

TWL

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to do some research on how the US caused the December tsunami through underwater nuclear detonations in an attempt to create a Godzilla-like creature that they could train to track and eliminate terrorist cells with it's atomic fire breath.

Bobb and Tim: I understand where you're coming from, and you're right, it's the responsibility of people to ask questions. But let me ask you a question: If the clean-up of the site was done too quickly to allow for what you would call a thorough inspection, does the reason have to be either incompetence or something more sinister? For one, I doubt the families of those who died really wanted to wait to dig through the rubble to find their loved ones while the NTSB conducted a thorough investigation that, most likely, would have said "well, these large planes filled with jet fuel and traveling really fast crashed into the upper floors of buildings that were designed to handle impacts from jetliners up to just about the same size."? At the time a lot of the talk about the clean-up centered on getting it done, getting the bodies out in a respectful time so people could mourn and move on. Are there questions? Yes, there's always going to be unanswered questions about 9/11, and they should be asked and answered where possible. But it's much more than a plane crash; the black boxes on the planes really won't tell us much about what happened in the buildings while they fell, will they? And disecting the site, piece by piece, would have taken years and years. I don't think the psyche of lower Manhattan could have handled a perpetually open wound with police tape around it. So you have to treat it like a disappearing crime scene; you get as much as you can in terms of pictures and key pieces of evidence before conditions and public standards require the scene be decontaminated and cleaned up. Is it possible we missed something? Yes, but we've learned a lot, and while I'm not saying future terrorist attacks aren't possible (hell, they're actually more likely), an attack using the same methods is highly unlikely in the U.S. I mean, who's going to sit back the next time a hijacker tries to tell you that if you behave, you'll survive?

Ok, I'm ranting... sorry... probably need to get back to work anyway.

Jason, I've worked with some of the people that handled the clean up. A significant number of the vitims' famlies want the site preserved as a gravesite...which would have meant leaving the rubble as is, where it was.

It's not the cleanup that gives me concern, it's the disposal. You're right, an investigation probably would take years. I thought the cleanup would take years, because we'd want to ID everything we took out of the pile. Instead, we hauled it all out to essentially a landfill, checked for remains, and if we didn't find any, the material was disposed of. Believe me, I understand the immense nature of the task I'm thinking of...the force of the collapse compacted floors (yes, multiple) worth of material into balls of matter the size of an easy chair. But while I fully understand the need to get the site cleaned, where was the extra need to quickly dispose of the evidence once it had been removed from the site?

And to be fair, I realize neither of you are conspiracy theorist nutbags or anything; I guess I'm just throwing an alternative view of why the site was cleaned up so quickly that I haven't seen or somehow missed being expressed here. I mean, I wrote my major research paper for my history degree on Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which is considered the book that birthed the theory of relativism in the last 50 years. Some people cite Kuhn as saying "we always seem to find out things that contradict what we assumed are the truth, so everything we know must be wrong," while what he was really saying is that we continually work to prove what we consider the paradigm of our time, and only when enough evidence suggests otherwise do we develop a new paradigm, i.e. you have to go with what you know until it's no longer feasible. Truth isn't relative; our ability to quantify it can be, however, in the context of our ability to do so. So I know we have to keep asking questions or we stop learning.

Um, so, lhiob? (I hope Tim and Bobb are Entourage fans...)

I think you answered your own question, though, Bobb; it's not really feasible to store two of the largest skyscrapers' worth of material for the years it would take to completely analyze everything like you're suggesting. And while I sympathize with the families that wanted to keep it a gravesite, aren't there a lot of family members that wanted a clean memorial like what they're proposing, too?

You're correct on the second, Jason, which is why we have a new building proposal with memorial included, rather than just a huge memorial site. Emotions can and will get people to make requests that more objective minded folk recognize as unacceptable.

Any storage site(s) would of course have to have been large...but not unheard of. There's a nuclear disposal site under a mountain out in the desert that's not being used...could have shipped everything out there. We build landfills all the time that would have enough acreage to contain the WTC investigation. It would have been expensive, sure, but not moreso than other government projects. So, I accept the need for speedy cleanup. But speedy disposal? That's another story.

the Scientific American article refers to this piece:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Jason,

But let me ask you a question: If the clean-up of the site was done too quickly to allow for what you would call a thorough inspection, does the reason have to be either incompetence or something more sinister?

No, of course not. I expressed regret, that's all. It's along the lines of "a slightly different approach might have taken slightly more time but knocked down more than half of the conspiracy theories, so it would've been nice if that had happened." Not really a huge deal.

I think Bobb's given whatever other response I might have come up with (with the benefit of more firsthand knowledge, too), so I'll leave it to him.

TWL

Ok, I think I'm arguing a one-sided fight at this point, since I agree that the need for speedy clean-up and disposal would not preclude additional investigation, if feasible (which, I'm deferring to Bobb on the logistics of that on the ground in New York), but I'm under the impression that the rubble was shipped directly to salvage or final resting places, mostly via ocean and water, which would be way more economical than shipping it overland across three-quarters of the country to a storage facility. Keep in mind that while the clean-up was commencing, the economy was collapsing in the wake of the attacks. Money was being throw hand over fist at the human fallout, but I doubt there was much thought on redirecting billions and billions of dollars to a physical investigation of what seemed a pretty clear case of big planes + tall skyscrapers = massive destruction. Sure, they spent money on investigating the events that led to all of this, but I imagine most felt at the time the results of those events didn't need further dwelling upon.

To be honest, I have no idea why I'm so taken with this issue; I guess I'm drawing cognitive parallels to a discussion I had with some family about the veracity of the Davinci Code. They were like "sure, some of it is fiction, but it makes you think about the Church," to which my reply was "no, it's a work of historical fiction, which uses a mixture of facts, commonly known but not (previously) seriously taken out-there theories, and outright fabrications to create what even the author admits is a mystery novel, no matter how compelling."

So:
1. Yes, further investigation would have dispelled some of these theories.
2. I would debate the physical and economic feasibility of doing more investigation that they attempted to do.
3. Tim and Bobb are good guys I love discussing things with, no matter if we agree or not.

I thi