Sunday Morning Coming Down

The front page story this morning across the country is of the foiled plot of destruction at New York's JFK airport. Actually, not every paper has it on the front page. The New York Times, the Paper of Record, which in case you couldn't determine from its name, is a New York newpaper, relegated the news to page 37. Anyway, as I finished the article in this morning's Detroit Free Press, I was left wondering one thing that the Free Press didn't address-to which religion, if any, do these aspiring terrorists belong? Hmm, I wonder.

Mrs. Zwicker and I finally watched the season finale of 24 last night. It was a microcosm of the season as a whole. It started strong but then devolved to a mixture of some good scenes and some unnecessary personal stories that were more appropriate for a soap opera. The last twenty minutes were rather fluffy with all the tying up of loose ends although the last few minutes were great. While the show has previously addressed Jack's tortured soul, the last image of the season being a close-up of his face as he contemplated what his life had become was powerful. The silent clock was very appropos.

Hejka Of A Guy

This morning's Detroit Free Press editorial pages are full of letters from readers on the upcoming elections. There is the usual slew of letters advocating for particular candidates or positions on issues. The one letter that caught my attention was from Thaddeus J. Hejka of Canton. After writing that he supports Governor Granholm because she is more liberal on social issues and that there is really no difference between her and Dick DeVos on the economy, Hejka writes the following:

Michigan's population of 10 million is far too large, and it would be preferable that people leave the state to seek work elsewhere. We need to protect what is left of Michigan's natural beauty and promote outdoor recreation and tourism.

It looks like this isn't the first such letter that Hejka has written to a local newspaper on the topic. Just last week, the Detroit News published the following letter from Hejka:

Three hundred million people in the U.S. and 6.5 billion people in the world is no cause for celebration ("300 million Americans worth celebrating," Oct. 18). It also means more pollution, more greenhouse gases and more competition for limited resources such as fresh water and oil.

After doing a little bit of research on some Internet tubes, I discovered that Hejka commutes from Canton to Ann Arbor every day. He might very well be using a fuel-efficient vehicle but he could certainly avoid pollution by not commuting in the first place. He also seems to live in a colonial style house. I assume that he is living in something larger than a one bedroom hut because he has children, something that he claims our state and country do not need. If he does not have children, then he is just wasting land that could be left in its natural state as well as all the utility power to keep it habitable. Lastly, Hejka's concern seems to only extend to Michigan. He wants some of our state's residents to leave and instead let some other state deal with the problem. That sure doesn't sound like much concern about the planet or its people, just Hejka's own little world.

Hejka's concerns about how we live our lives doesn't just extend to the environment. He also worries about our right to practice religion. This past February, the Detroit News published the following letter from Hejka:

The violent response from Muslims in countries throughout the world to the Danish political cartoons depicting Muhammad is frightening and appalling to all those who treasure the freedom of expression. While I agree that these cartoons were highly offensive to most Muslims, this does not justify all the violent protests and the call for the deaths of those who published them. I understand the comfort that religion may bring to people, but I increasingly feel that world peace will never be a reality unless all religions are banned. Of course, neither will ever happen.

I certainly appreciate Hejka's condemnation of Islamofascism. On the other hand, someone should inform him that the same constitutional amendment that offers us freedom of expression also guarantees the right to practice one's religion.

An Abortion Question

With the elections less than two weeks away, the Detroit Free Press has been running a series of profiles on various candidates for statewide office. The profiles include a brief Q & A on major issues. Today's candidate is United States Senator Debbie Stabenow, who is running for reelection against Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, whose profile will run tomorrow.

On a whole, Stabenow's profile was fairly neutral and the Q & A addressed some of the points that are most important to Michigan voters, like affirmative action, universal health care and illegal immigration. There were no questions on national security or the state economy, but I'll chalk that up to lack of print space. What I cannot excuse though is one question that the Free Press did ask: "Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and return abortion regulation to each state, effectively making abortion illegal in Michigan?" I don't take issue with a question about the candidate's view on abortion. It's a serious and important issue. Stabenow's answer, that she would oppose such a move, doesn't surprise me. After all, I cannot think of a Democrat with any legislative role that opposes the Roe decision.

I should digress for a second and briefly explain my stance on abortion. As a conservative who believes in smaller government, I certainly have problems with the state interfering with people's activities. I draw the line, however, where those activities harm other people, including the unborn. I also believe strongly in a thing called personal responsibility. I obviously therefore believe that abortion should be available to victims of incest or rape, either the in classic sense or where the perpetrator takes advantage of someone's diminished mental capacity or maturity, as well as in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's health.

Anyway, the problem with the Free Press question is its second half. The question doesn't just imply but outright asserts as fact something that may or may not be true. It assumes that Michigan's voters, either directly or through its elected officials, will outlaw abortion if it had a choice. There may be polls of Michigan voters on what they would do in a hypothetical scenario where they have a say in the matter but I would question their reliability. After all, polls on issues, rather than "will you vote for Candidate A or Candidate B?", are inherently subject to the bias of the people writing the question. For example, depending on my bias, I could write the question as "Do you agree that a woman should be free from government intrusion on issues regarding her body, including abortion?" or "Do you believe that a woman should have the unfettered right to kill her unborn baby?" The polls would also be unreliable since they ask about an imaginary event that might or might not happen in an unspecified time period. Lastly, as recent polls on various races across the country as well as the 2004 presidential exit polls illustrate, polls are far from perfect indicators.

Obviously, Michigan's state legislators could vote to outlaw abortion and keep the issue from the voter's hands. That ploy would only work for so long though. After all, each and every legislator would then be on record regarding abortion and have to face his or her constituents, who could then vote to retain that official or give the job to someone else who would vote differently on the issue. Therefore, whether the matter comes to a vote before the voters directly or the state legislature, the voters would have the ultimate say on the issue. Isn't that what democracy is all about?

That, at its heart, is what was and remains disturbing about the Roe decision 33 years after the Supreme Court rendered it. In 1973, abortion was not illegal across the board in every state. Some states were allowing abortion and some were not. Abortion was already an issue of much debate across the country. Every state had their own debates and were deciding among themselves to what degree, if any, abortion should be legal within its borders. Rather than allowing each state to render its own decision via the democratic process though, the Supreme Court mandated a sweeping rule via reasoning that even many liberals find dubious. It is for that reason, more than any other, that I support overturning Roe. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.