Powered by TypePad

« Longbowmen Of The Blogosphere | Main | Kerry's Form 180 - Signed, Sealed, Not Delivered »

May 23, 2005

Comments

ed

Hmmm.

Slippery slope arguments work because they're true. They were true when used in gun control. They are true with stem cells. They are true with cloning. They are true with the creation of Chimeras.

Here's a question: show me a slippery slope argument that hasn't come true.

dsquared

[Hmm - did he really say "hoovering"? En francaise?]

"Passer l'aspirateur", for those who care.

TM

They were true when used in gun control...

Well, it was the case that many of the the advocates for the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban viewed those bills as starting points. However, as they found out, the AWB was more of an ending point.

And the Dems oppose any and every attempt to regulate abortion with the argument that it is a first step towards a repeal of Roe v. Wade, rather than debate such things as a partial birth ban on its own merits. That has worked well for Reps (and it is true that some folks do have full repeal as their goal), but my guess is that Dems would do better if they were a bit more compromising and inclined to trust the courts and the voters.

creepy dude

TM-so what's your take on the deal?

Powerline thinks it's terrible-Polipundit thinks it's a complete Repub victory- and Hugh Hewitt is awaiting further instructions. The left is equally all over the map.

Faulty political analysis truly transcends party lines.

Paul Zrimsek

Whether or not the deal was a good one depends on how a trial of strength in the full Senate would have turned out. We may never know that.

One thing we can say for sure is that the distribution of trust among the 14 "moderates" is strikingly asymmetrical. The message of the Democratic 7 to the Republican 7 is: "We need to reserve the ability to filibuster in 'extraordinary circumstances' because you so-called GOP moderates are partisan hacks who will follow the party line no matter how bad the nominee is. You can trust us to use this right only when we have to."

Cecil Turner

"TM-so what's your take on the deal?"

It seems to me in concept at least somewhat fair. Casual filibustering of nominees is no longer an accepted practice, and the earlier demands for a return to the "blue-slip" system were dropped. As it legitimizes the supermajority requirement for nominees, I'd say it slightly favors the Dems . . . while it holds. But it seems to me unlikely to endure.

At some point, another filibuster will be attempted. If they want to avoid cloture, at least 41 senators will then have to vote against it, and (most?) of the seven Dem signers will have to claim it's an "extraordinary circumstance." That obviously won't work very many times before the Rep signers feel cheated, and abrogate the agreement (and it only takes 2). If the Dems have the discipline to hold their fire for a critical juncture, it might be a big winner for them. But I doubt it'll work out that way.

Mike Veeshir

I'm against creating embryos to destroy them.
I'm for legal abortion so it's not an anti-abortion thing, it's a slippery slope thing.
I don't like the idea of experimenting on people. I understand they're just embryos, but they're potential people.
Besides, what's wrong with umbilical and adult stem cells? They are definitely showing progress.

Slippery slope arguments can be just scared people, but they also can be true. Gun control is one case where it's true. Abortion is another. I think gay marriage is another. When marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman a system like that in the Heinlein book, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, where anybody can marry any number of people, is the next step. After all, why shouldn't people who love each other be able to get married? I mean, we 50 people really, really, really love each other.(I'm against the gov't deciding who gets to marry whom so I don't see that as a bad thing).

I see the creation of (potential) life to experiment on it as being not all that different from allowing the embryo to be born and then experimenting on it.
But then I'm for legal abortion on pragmatic not ideological grounds.

Geek, Esq.

Hey Tom!

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/05/24/kerry_signs_form_180.html

Geek, Esq.

Here's the story from the Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/24/the_caveat_emperor/

Cecil Turner

This part was hilarious:

The problem is -- in all too familiar Kerry fashion -- he hasn't actually sent it to the Navy yet. A spokesman said the form will be sent "in the next few days."
Tough crowd.

Forbes

Would anyone else--besides Kerry--sign a government form, for whatever purpose, and then announce it'll be sent in the next few days? What, is he out of stamps? Can't find the post office? It's like issuing a press release to announce the impending issuance of a new press release. I guess it answers the whole "electability" issue.

pg

I can understand your reluctance on the "slippery slope" but do keep in mind you are talking about science here. New science builds off old science. Today's embryonic stem cell cloning will open up new doors for more advanced procedures, not all desireable. Science is all about slippery slopes. It's a feature.

Also keep in mind that, if successful, there will be a group of scientists who have gotten quite used to experimenting on human clones at this point. Some of them will want to take it to the next level. And some will be beyond the civilized world's ability to control.

Hmm, this is starting to sound like a science fiction movie. But science fiction can be useful (sans Jar Jar).

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame