Attempts to solve personal problems with political solutions may make legislators feel good, but it rarely does anything to eradicate the trouble.

Oregon Senator Gordon Smith offered heartfelt testimony on the Senate floor yesterday regarding the loss of his son to suicide. Several other senators weighed in too, offering that their fathers had taken their own lives. They deserve our sympathy. They don’t deserve sixty-million dollars.

That’s the amount of money they want to launch a federal anti-suicide program. Judging from the morally indignant tone of some of the senators supporting the bill, opposing their scheme is viewed as tantamount to handing a revolver to someone on suicide watch. “I don’t know who you are yet,” Senator Pete Domenici said of the bill’s opponents, “but I’ll find out.”

The implication is clear: there is something base about opposing this bill. In fact, the opposite is true: there is something base about supporting such a bill. The federal government has no mandate, authority, or even means to directly influence the number of suicides in this country. But because suicide is a problem, lawmakers hubristically think they can solve it—just like they “cured” poverty through welfare and inner-city violence through gun control. In fact, Congress won’t help matters at all. They’ll just gain the appearance of taking action against a social ill that almost all voters oppose.

This bill encompasses almost everything that’s wrong with politics: lawmakers relying on emotion rather than logic, considering intentions instead of results, looking to government for solutions, and prescribing political cures for every random societal ill.

Senator Domenici wants to "find out" who the proposed legislation's opponents are. I do too--I'd like to shake their hands.

I'm in favor of this bill, as long as there's some sort of disclaimer for Japanese-Americans who still want to perform ritualistic suicide. We don't want to offend anyone here, this is an important cultural institution.

Seriously, if any Japs don't bring home the Gold in the Olympics this year, we should expect a public apology on all the major networks, followed by a knife to stomach. We need to respect the culture.

This post reminds me of the "Not Yours To Give" pamphlet written by David Crockett - I get a copy every time I visit Ron Paul's office to say "thank you Ron." (for those who have not read it google it and read it- it's short)

It also reminds me of a quote from a Jonah Goldberg article; "why is it so hard for some to understand that a good law can be unconstitutional?"

Rob, the Davy Crocket pamphlet is exactly what I thought of too. I was tempted to reference it in the post, but alas, didn't. Great minds think alike?

As someone who copes with major illness and pain every day, I understand why people would want physician assisted suicide. That being said, suicide is a MORAL choice. The states have no right to decide morals for individuals.

The federal government? Hmmm, someone should show them the TENTH amendment again. Unless it is granted by the Constitution, the federal government can't do anything. Yet here they are, blackmailing states with highway funds to make us all wear seatbelts. Seatbelts may be a good idea, but the Constitution does NOT give 536 people in Washington the right to tell me I have to wear one.

James Madison, WE NEED YOU AGAIN!

Ever thought of restarting the Federalist party, Dan?

I like my money like you like your money -- It's mine, I wnat to keep it.

Say what you will that is p/c, some of us homosapiens just aren't cut out to make the team here on earth -- society. Give what sympathies you must, sometimes you just have to admit a greater comfort in that there is one less kook out there able to go postal and take out your loved ones with him.

I have a great book. Man the Unknown, written by Alexis Carrel (circa 1935-before p/c).

"Human beings are not a pure breed, the characteristics of the products of a given marriage cannot be predicted. Each individual must rise or sink to the level for which it is fitted by the qulaity of his tisuues and his soul. The free practice of eugenics -- suicide-- could not only lead to the development of stronger individuals, but also strains endowed with more intelligence and courage. Voluntary eugenics may exercise great influence upon the destiny of the civilized races."

Hard to argue with non-p/c common sense, like this.

Decision making by people today is so emotionally poisoned, we need to counteract it by even withdrawing even our sympathies. That we haven't is why "feel-sorry-for-me" justice has run rampant.

Warrior, tell us how you really feel!

One maxim I believe is that it's wrong to take innocent life--this includes suicide. I don't think we're better off without these folks, particularly emotionally immature young people who through inexperience don't realize that the depression they're feeling isn't permanent. True, we may have lost some who would've gone postal; but we also may have lost some great thinkers, leaders, musicians, athletes, etc.

Whittaker Chambers, for instance, tried suicide and failed. Would we have been better off without him? I don't think so.

You desire to withdraw sympathy from suicide cases. I talk about giving sympathy to their families. In most cases, they bear no responsibility for the actions of their kin. Should we withdraw sympathy from them?

FlynnFiles is a neat place. Normally, I'd expect to be taken to task for "heartlessness" in arguing to block federal funds intended to prevent suicide. On FlynnFiles, readers are coming at this from entirely different, and unexpected, points of view.

Keep the comments flowing. Keep the debate going.

We almost lost this great man to suicide - http://jimnorton.blogspot.com/2004/06/1986-note-i-got-from-recent-ex.html

I know a great man who has lost his jeep liberty 3 weekends in a row. Call mom.

"Tell us how you really feel!" is just an expression. It's used to lighten the mood, which is very necessary in discussing a topic as dreary as this one.

Note in the original post that I say the families of the suicide cases deserve our sympathy. You shift this idea onto those who've committed suicide, which I don't say anywhere in my post (but if you all must know, I think they deserve our sympathy as well). Don't the families, who've in most cases loved and cared for their fallen kin deserve our sympathy? They didn't commit the act, after all.

Note also, the original post is about the futility of government tackling the suicide issue. I think if you look at it line by line, you'll probably find very little that you disagree with. Am I wrong?

Anyhow, your story about Kerry von Erich is a powerful one. You're right. Suicide is a choice--a bad one. Not one imposed externally, but one embraced internally. As I say in one of the preceding posts, individuals, not societies, must own their own sins.

What should you tell your children? They're your children, tell them anything you want. What will I tell my children? Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Nice debate you two, and no one resorted to flinging dung (that is my "area" of expertise).

I once attempted suicide, I am very glad I failed. I feel that suicide is the most selfish act imaginable. Those that do it have no clue waht it does to their loved ones, nor do they care.

What would it have done to my children had I finished what I started? I was a chicken-sh_t for even contemplating this losers last resort.

Now, one must understand that according to the quack doctor I had then, I was terminal. (Not making an excuse for my stupidity, though) I am glad he was wrong too. Now I think if someone were told by enough doctors that they ahd nothing but a miserable fate ahead of them, and a brief one filled with pain, they ahve the right to end it with dignity.

But my original position is this, suicide is a moral issue and not the domninion of the FEDERAL government. But, if Congress insists on fighting suicide, they should make suicide an "A" felony punishable by the death penalty.

Be well,

Dwain "Sponge Daddy" Koch

I know what you meant -- mood aside (mood is governed by emotion). The problem is we are living in times where there is no distinquishment. In all ways of teaching young minds, we supplant feel for think. It matters that we do, big time.

You and I first came to know one another out of a press kit I sent to you. Let me cut and paste something that was in there, in that letter that I was using to reach out and inform others about what I wanted to do as a speaker, how I wanted to contribute to the conservative cause:

"If we go back to the definition of education included at the beginning of this letter: “The act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing powers of reasoning and judgment, preparing oneself intellectually for mature life” and we go a step further and break down into definitions the words: knowledge, reasoning, judgment -- the key attainments of getting [an] education -- we would find all these words without having to supplement the list: know, reason, intellect, intellectual, intelligence, learn, cognition, cognizance, rational, objective, facts, evidence, certainty, exist, reality, real, proof, true, truth, think, sensible, sane, sound. We also find as part of the definition(s) these: “rather than emotions or feelings,” “as distinguished from that by which one feels,” “as contrasted with emotional processes,” and “not false.”

You go to the dictionary in "who owns your sins," and I understand what you meant by feel, but if we are going to, again, concerve conservatism, we need to do it right and follow through with all punches. Part time will not work.

You say "As I say in one of the preceding posts, individuals, not societies, must own their own sins." Why not then judge individuals using objectivity that is entire? Your want to infuse sympathy -- we all naturally do -- has you shifting judgment. Sympathy and emotion allowed in that, it's no big wonder our gov reps feel they can "cure" individual behavior with the state. And here you are samrt guy...

All I am saying is, when it comes to how we govern the whole, leave the damn tears at home. But, I still think, you take offense, even minor, because I sever sympathy so blatantly. You probably have a liitle p/c in your blood living there in DC, so I forgive you.

As to how you end, couple of things.

You say: Not one imposed externally, but one embraced internally. Well, there you go again. Addressing matters as if what is external doesn't depend on what is internal. What, all that happens outside of us just drops from the sky without any influence from us -- how we think? What we believe? What we like or dislike? How do you think -- or feel if you like -- Smith et al came to the conclusion that society can fix suicide? Society doesn't exist without individuals who make it up. Problem is, these guys (and too most others) have dysfunction between how they process ideas internally and how they mis-believe they would work externally. How? They let their hearts rule instead of their heads. A little sympathy and emotion goes a hell of a long way to brutally poisoning objectivity.

Then you end by dragging in religion. How about that dictionary, can we use it now? (see sins post of yours) Our Creator gave us the ability to judge. We are the only beings here able to do that. So much have we gone overboard loving the sinner, we can't find (rightful and justified) hate for the sins. I ask people who have kids if they want the best for their kids. When I ask, I don't mean the best ice cream. I mean the best world to grow up in and all that entails. They always say yes. What parent wouldn't. Sadly, these same human beings on a day after day basis don't pass judgments or draw their moral lines like they really mean it. Your kids and grandkids, if we continue the path we are on today, will be fighting a fight fit for barbarians. You are smarter than I am, you know your history better. You tell me, how I am wrong about this. Until you do straighten me out, give me cause not to have concern about it, I'm going to keep sympathies to myself, judge people harshly (including myself) by what they do, including their weaknesses. I'm not sorry, my benefit of the doubt goes to those who hold their life act together, not those who choose to waste it.

I said to see your sin post for more about definitions. I meant your Book News post.

My post is clearly about not allowing emotions drive policy questions. It is a warning against "hearts" governing rather than "heads" when it comes to policy question.

There is a proper sphere for emotion. Emotions are not inherently evil. I don't think emotions are PC. if they were, everyone would be PC.

When it comes to the suicide of friends, loved ones, family, etc., there should be enough room for an emotional response. To supress this is to supress human nature. People who committed no crime, no sin, who are left in the destructive wake of a suicide, do deserve our sympathy--as I said in the original post. They just don't deserve $60 million in taxpayer funds to sponsor a pet project that won't work.

Dan, thanks for the exchange.

One final comment before I go.

Lest anyone misunderstand, including you Dan -- I have huge emotions. They are processed through my mind before they flow from my heart; that they are makes them even more powerful and passionate. Emotions are not disconnected from the head; they are simply a register of the quality -- effective or ineffective -- thinking and acting a person does. I don't buy mind-body dichotomy...

Philosophy precedes and influences policy -- always, even if the individual doesn't know it.

And it is heartstrung philosophy absent headstrong thought that even opened the door for this very issue we've discussed. We will never fix what ills our government (nor even work toward it), if we afford sympathy and sense the same status at the fixing table. We are living in times too far beyond rational sensible times like that. Good luck juggling the two, and then getting others to drop one (sympathy) and pick up the other (sense) to follow and practice.

Finally, I don't practice Conservatism piecemeal.

Why has no one pointed out what a bigot Bob sounds like?

...um...because I'm obviously joking you f**ktard.

Seriously, though, f**k the japs, they suck.

I'm sorry, that was uncalled for.

I should have said that YOU suck. I hate retards.

Bob was partially right about it basically being there cultore though. Ken seems to be offended to easy got to love this PC world we live in. Cant open your mouth with out some one talking down about you cause you didnt use the proper title.