Dismissing Thompson this easily isn't wise and you're vastly overestimating the American public. His campaign is indeed dangerous in these times that make H. L. Mencken a seer.

Take a cue from the GOP and their historical revisionists: remember Reagan. He was little more than smoke and mirrors as well and that's all it took.

As someone who all too clearly remembers the Reagan era and lives in the Great Red Heart of America, I'm getting a very bad feeling in regard to this upcoming presidential race. The way things are shaping up, Thompson will shred a mainstream media-anointed Democratic nominee and our nation will continue down this precipitous and self-destructive path.

In case this has not been posted, one has to wonder whether the cigar Thompson was smoking was one of his in-violation-of-the-Cuba-embargo Monte Christos, and, if so, when the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) will come after him.

***********************

[Fred] Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like--though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars--Montecristos from Havana.

The presence of the cigars and the absence of a press chaperone were clues that Thompson is taking a different approach to his potential candidacy. A campaign flack would have insisted on hiding the cigars.

“From the Courthouse to the White House: Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role”

by Stephen F. Hayes The Weekly Standard 04/23/2007

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13528&R=1136E33842

There is absolutely no one else that can frame the topic and rebuttal better. PS I am going to go buy some Triscuits and then write their marketing group that I saw it on Salon.com

With the first breath. Until then, it is merely "potential" Life. That breath really ought to be more prized by the religious and moral folks, since I should think it would represent the Spirit to them.

As for killing? One cannot kill something that is not yet alive, i.e., Breathing. If a pregnancy is terminated by miscarriage or abortion, what happens to that Spirit? Or the Soul? Most likely, it just goes on living, until the next time. [If you believe that sort of thing.]

I can think of no more utilitarian argument than the one that says a woman's right to determine her own destiny is dimished once there is a "potential" life within her uterus. What are we, then? Merely incubators?

On the other hand, to choose to bear a child, and all that such a decision entails is an entirely different matter. One that cannot in good conscience be forced upon another, since it is most often a "Til Death Do Us Part" relationship.

I blame John Stuart Mill for bringing utilitarianism into his argument for women's rights. Once turned loose, such an argument takes on a life of its own, and we've seen too much lately of Ends justifying Means.

Frankly, that such arguments are put forth by Libertarians-- who otherwise propose to remove government intrusions into their (mostly male) lives, only convinces me that they are really Conservatives in Liberals' clothing.

I saw Ron Paul's appearance on Bill Maher... and he was very entertaining, but I would never consider voting for him.

I'm not trying to be picky but there really isn't a reason to "H/T" Andrew Sullivan for simply pointing out that Mark Kleiman has a post up about the laughingly hypocritical Fred Thompson.

Sully simply states on HIS website/publicitysite (in his best whiny British voice) "Not the best moment for FRED"

That lazy blurb/link gets him a hat-tip for simply pointing to Kleiman's site?

PLEASE!

This goddamned hat-tip thing is getting out of hand.

Love,

JT

There is a difference between a biological definition identifying biologically active versus biologically inactive matter, and identifying a living organism.

(That's why viruses are kind of a thorny question.)

Skin cells are considered to be alive, unless they are dead. So are bone marrow cells. So are blood cells.

They do not reproduce, and are not considered independent organisms, but the living cells and tissue which comprise a human body are not considered dead, nor are they considered non-life.

Thus, an egg before fertilization is a living cell. A sperm before fertilization is a living cell. The zygote produced by their union is also a living cell, though it begins to have many of the properties of a separately living organism.

These facts are irrelevant to intelligent people in the abortion debate (the debate over whether or not the government possesses the authority to forcibly stop women from receiving or doctors from performing a medical procedure on living cells in a woman's body which are legally not defined as a person).

That's because the moral debate centers not on whether or not the fertilized egg or embryo is of human origin -- it would be quite surprising if a fertilized egg inside a woman's uterus would be found not to be of human origin.

The moral debate has to do with definitions of human relating to consciousness, which is also another significant property of human life, but which is far more difficult to tie down biologically.

Neither biologists nor any other scientist on the planet appears to have come up with a satisfactory definition of human consciousness nor a quick and easy checklist of when it exists and when it does not.

Thus a central definition of humanity, of personhood, is still largely a moral and philosophical debate, albeit informed by science.

Hence most people appear to both appreciate that there is something profoundly human and special about a human embryo, and yet most people do not agree that it instantly achieves the status of personhood. (And this, of course, is the law of the land: whatever laws or regulations have been passed regarding abortion, none have defined it as murder.)

And given most peoples' grasp of the existence of this hazy and largely moralistic and philosophical debate, they oppose granting the government the strange authority to prevent women and their doctors from making it themselves.

It is not surprising that almost no one views the abortion of an embryo at certain points in its development as "murder" -- the brayings of anti-abortion activists aside. However, many people do recognize it as potentially a great loss, both to the new organism and to the woman in whom it grows, so they do recognize it as a sensitive and moral issue.