More news on the US push to keep abortion from being a “reproductive services” and thus a “right” according to the UN. “US stance on abortion draws fire>” says that Europe, unsurprisingly, is not pleased. France in particular seems to be upset. Surprise, Surprise.

See Tuesday, 1st of March 2005 for another article on this.

In yet another example of scientists realizing that their models have left significant events out of the equation, “Sun’s Temper Blamed for Arctic Ozone Loss” talks about the unexpected nature of the Arctic ozone loss this year. Apparently we didn’t expect the Sun to play a role. Will they revise the Antarctic models because of this? Perhaps CFCs are not as significant as previously thought?

Michelle Malkin is incredibly critical of Newt Gingrich’s “Transform It, Don’t Reform It” in her post, “Gingrich’s Bold Medicaid Reform Proposal.” However, I cannot entirely agree. Gingrich’s proposal would substantially increase the bureaucracy involved in Medicaid, tripling it. But I think that if we are to have a Medicaid, that the goals he outlines are worthwhile. I have faced some of the problems he outlines in Medicaid’s treatment of the elderly, he’s right, it is anti-family. And that isn’t just. He is also correct in pointing out that a one sized fits all approach does not best serve the needs of the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. I’d still argue that the Federal Government has no place in this sort of charitable work, but, as I said, if we are stuck with having a Medicaid, then his sounds at worst more humane than the present.

Pat Buchanan has been off his rocker frequently of late, but his most recent column, “A republic, not a democracy,” has some good points in it in the second half or so. We are not a democracy, and are not one for a good reason. FIRE has been documenting and fighting the tyranny of the majority on college campuses for some time now. Lately, in the cases of the president of Harvard University and that Churchill idiot out in Denver, their work has overlapped the same sort of tyranny outside of campus life, due to the focus of the media on both cases. Both cases want to silence unpopular opinions, and while no one in their right mind would agree with Churchill, I think that FIRE is right in arguing that you cannot have a Summers (president of Harvard) without also protecting the right of a Churchill to speak. I have somewhat wandered astray here. The overriding point is that this is an excellent example of the will of the majority going wrong. It was with knowledge that the majority in many ways comes to resemble a mob, and that no one in their right mind wants mob rule, that our founding fathers put checks not just on each branch of government against the other, but also checks designed to limit the popular impact on governance. It was to check the mob that we have a president rather than a prime minister. We need to remember that, especially in these days where the senate has been undermined and is no longer accountable to the state, but to the people of that state.