Iowahawk Guest Commentary
by Judge Sonia Sotamayor
Nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court
There has been a great deal written in recent weeks about an old extemporaneous quote of mine in which I stated that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." One needn't read the prophetic entrails of my culture's colorful Santeria chicken sacrifice ceremonies to realize this out-of-context quote has caused some public concern and confusion. I would like to take this opportunity to clear up any lingering questions, and reassure the American public I will bring to the Supreme Court a jurisprudence borne of the intellect of Louis Brandeis, along with the spicy salsa rhythms of Tito Puente and Celia Cruz. ¡Azucar! ¡Arriba!
First, let me say that in no way did I mean to disparage the legal abilities of white males or others of non-Latina persuasion. Nature endows each of us -- male or female, white or black, Latina or Latino, Caribbean Mestizo or Aleut, Micronesian or Southwest coastal Scandinavian, Tutsi or Hutu -- with the rich, innate, culturally-specific legal DNA and genetic tribal empathy chromosomes that reflect a diverse ethnic rainbow of justice. I was not suggesting that one is somehow better than another; only that they are beautifully, beautifully different.
Indeed, it is only through these differences that America can forge a better, more diverse tradition of legal justice. As you know, the Latina women of my culture are passionate and fiery, and if we learn our famously hot blooded men have been cheating with some raven-haired puta at the cantina, there will be hell to pay. As a Justicia on the Tribunal Supremo I will be naturally vigilant for any colleague who strays from the law, and will not hesitate to clobber them with the rodillo of established legal precedence. Afterwards, when we have reached consensus, there will be hot makeup majority opinions.
This is exactly the kind of wise, precedent-faithful Latina legal approach that I believe will be welcome by others on the Supreme Court bench, all of whom bring their own unique genetic legal wisdom and instinctual empathy. Justices Roberts and Souter for example, with their aloof, sexless, constipated, emotionally-stunted WASPy intellects and natural affinity for preppy white collar criminals. Justice Stevens has this as well, along with a keen grasp for the legal issues facing Americans with senile dementia. As an Irishman, Justice Kennedy enjoys a natural "gift of the gab" and poetically tragic alcoholism. Like you, I imagine that Justice Breyer can be kind of pushy and whiny, but we should also remember that as a Jew he is probably very skilled at cases that involve complicated numbers and math. To the casual observer, it probably seems absurd to have greasy Italian "goodfellas" like Justices Alito and Scalia working inside the legal system, but if we give them a chance they may eventually break the code of Omerta and finally turn state's evidence against their Cosa Nostra bosses. Yes, many have criticized Justice Thomas for being a self-hating "Oreo" and "Uncle Tom," but I like to think that deep inside him still lurks the the DNA of an angry Cadillac-driving streetwise Superfly, ready to show "The Man" that his pimp hand is strong.
And let us not forget the Justice I assume I have been nominate to replace, the great woman jurist Ruth Bader Ginsberg. With her retirement, America will be losing a towering legal Yenta who tackled some of the Court's toughest legal issues with her relentless nagging maternal Jewish guilt complex. Obviously, she will be irreplaceable, short of finding another Yiddishe bubbe from Boca Raton. But as the court's new designated woman I will do my best to emulate her through Latina culture's tradition of the wise old village bruja, ready to cast the Evil Eye spell on those who would subvert our Constitutional rights.
I believe jurisprudence, like cooking, requires many ingredients to make a satisfying meal. In Latina culture we love menudo, the delicious spicy sopa made from simple ingredients. Think of the Constitution as our base ingredient: a bland, tasteless broth of boiled white tripe. Doesn't sound so tempting, does it? Now here's where the fun comes in: all of the cooks gather in the cocina and bring their own special secret ingredients to the mix. Souter salts the pot and Roberts adds Wonder Bread and mayonnaise; Breyer the lox and cream cheese. Thomas drops in fried chicken, and Alito and Scalia spaghetti. Now here comes Kennedy with corned beef and potatoes. Stevens adds the Metamucil. Now we're cooking! Finally, I stir in my special picante blend of Latina legal spices. What started as a boring simple broth is now a delicious crazy justice stew -- that tastes different every time!
And after the menudo is finished, we will go out into the hot evening air of the Supreme Court plaza for drinks. Sangria and Irish whiskey, 2% milk and Colt 45 Malt Liquor. The night breeze is intoxicating, no? Now it is time for the music of justice! The instruments will be taken out, like the Buena Vista Social Club. Carribean drums and mazurkas, the blues guitarra and the bagpipes, creating the caliente salsa beat of la ley! Bailando en la calle, everybody! What's that Justicio Juan Roberto? You are too white and do not have the ritmo to do the dance? Let wise Latina Justicia Sonia show you the steps! Meringue, samba, macarena! ¡Andele! Yes, yes! Lose yourself in the rhythm, Perito Breyer! Together we make the beautiful Constitutional musica together!
In conclusion, the future of American jurisprudence requires wise jurists from every gender and genetic background -- including Latina. In fact, I seem to remember that my law school books were filled with Latin words. Let us recognize and celebrate those diverse, culturally-specific legal traditions. Together we can build a future where we will all be Livin' La Vida Loca!
#3
Um, was the error about which justice she's replacing intended to be a joke, or does Iowahawk really not know that Sotamayor's supposed to be replacing Souter, not Ginsberg?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/16/2009 12:52 Comments ||
Top||
China's secret construction of six aircraft-carriers is now out in the open and its aggressive expansion is scaring its neighbours. The only country that can theoretically contain it is the US, but under Obama and waning domestic support in the US for solitary military campaigns, especially against a powerful enemy, support is quickly fading so they cannot be expected to intervene.
The Austral-Asian region, therefore, needs to strengthen up in groups like IONS. It needs to leave behind its history, its differences and come up with creative solutions. One such suggestion is that the Quadrilateral (Quad) Initiative countries (Australia, Japan, India and the US) should band together and operate the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk that the US decommissioned in January 2009. If China's growth is really peaceful as it claims, then it should feel no threat because getting four diverse countries to agree on a particular course of action will be inherently difficult. Great pic of the KH in Sydney Harbour at link. One could give it to India for $1 plus the cost of re-commissioning. Australia can't afford it and Japan can't own a carrier. See the interview that follows the paragraphs at the link -- very interesting.
#2
HMMMM, HMMMM, so IOW OWG-NWO STARFLEET COMMAND'S FIRST "STARSHIP" twas actually a sea-going, former USN Aircraft Carrier, AND NOT THE USS ENTERPRISE???
That sound you're hearing are the loud cries of "HERESY, HERESY, WE SAY!" from Milyuhns and Zilyuhns and Rilyuhns of "STAR TREK" Series' Fans.
#3
This is a good idea in concept, but one little phrase makes it reeeeeally difficult in practice..."eight 1200-PSI boilers". The US Navy purged the 1200-PSI plant from the entire surface fleet almost a generation ago, for damn good reason. During my own naval service in the mid 1970's, my ship was often referred to as "Building 7" for its incapacitating propulsion-system casualties.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
07/16/2009 1:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Japan can't own a carrier.
Just paint it pink and rename it the Hello Kitty (groan). No one could ever accuse it of being a weapon of military aggression and keep a straight face.
#2
Just about every policy move to right the U.S. economy after the subprime sinking of the banking system has been a bust. We saved Bear Stearns. We let Lehman Brothers go. We forced Merrill Lynch, Wachovia and Washington Mutual into the hands of others....We guaranteed bank debt. We set up the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to buy toxic mortgage assets off bank balance sheets. But when banks refused to sell at fire sale prices, we just gave them the money instead. Dumb move. So we set up the Public-Private Investment Program to get private investors to buy these same toxic assets with government leverage, and still there are few sellers.
These moves were all orchestrated by Hank Paulsen and other honchos of Goldman Sachs, and lo and behold, while they did little for the economy, Goldman Sachs posted record profits and paid no income taxes!
The Balkan states of Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina are artificial constructs that are dependent on international organizations to function. Unlike in Iraq, there is no end in sight for this foreign rule and Europe seems to have little in the way of an exit strategy.
#3
Sounds rather like asserting that I have no exit strategy from my left leg. It's *part* of me, I don't exactly want to be shut of it.
For that matter, I'd argue that both Belgium and Liechtenstein are artificial constructs that are dependent on international organizations to function, Belgium possibly more than Liechtenstein.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/16/2009 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You know, I have talked with (supposedly educated) people who have been badly shocked to learn that we have troops in the Balkans. I suspect that they think I was lying for some purpose.
Of course I would also be willing to bet next month's mortgage money that they could not find the Balkans on a map.
Posted by: Kelly ||
07/16/2009 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
It has been nearly one year since President Barack Obama spoke in Berlin as the presumptive Democratic nominee. There, he described himself as not merely a citizen of the United States, but as a "fellow citizen of the world." What was originally a rhetorical flourish has become a particularly revealing indicator of the president's sentiments on national sovereignty.
Look no further than Monday's seemingly unnoticed report from the American Petroleum Institute that oil and natural gas drilling activities in the U.S. fell nearly 46 percent in the second quarter from a year ago. Drilling now stands at the lowest level since 2003. A small portion of this change is attributable to the drop in the price of oil, but the elephant in the room is Obama-Waxman-Markey, the cap-and-trade anti-global warming energy bill that recently passed the House and is now pending in the Senate. Energy companies know that legislation is aimed directly at them and are reducing drilling operations accordingly.
And for what? This is a sacrifice that will force American consumers to pay much higher energy bills. Yet cap-and-trade proponents seem startlingly comfortable with the fact that no such sacrifice is ahead for the rest of the world. Al Gore happily announced that cap and trade would drive change through "global governance and global agreements." But these global agreements don't exist. In sworn congressional testimony, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency concedes that "U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels."
Unilateral U.S. actions, however, will affect U.S. competitiveness, sacrificing jobs, growth, opportunity and prosperity, quite possibly for generations to come. In other words, Obama has not hesitated to surrender U.S. sovereignty piecemeal to suit the global governance crowd. Yet this relish for global governance stops at the water's edge. The president hasn't demanded similar action from India and China. And nobody seriously expects him to do so, ever.
It should also be noted that Ken Salazar, Obama's interior secretary, has effectively slow-walked the bidding process for oil and natural gas exploration on the outer continental shelf along the U.S. coastline, and on federal lands in the West, to a near-halt. The U.S. has more than sufficient untapped oil, coal and natural gas resources to achieve Obama's endlessly repeated goal of energy independence. The problem is, his actions are putting U.S. energy producers and consumers in a straitjacket, while rivals like Russia, China and India watch in rapt -- and enthusiastic -- amazement.
Global governance must not take precedent over American sovereignty. Obama should be reminded that his first, sworn duty is to defend American sovereignty as established in the Constitution, rather than relegate authority to countries that have their own interests in mind.
=Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."
What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs. With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
07/16/2009 12:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Doncha know that no one is supposed to read this bill, just pass it and submit.
Yep, the same "ethicist" who thinks that parents should be allowed to kill a disabled child up to the age of one year, because IHHO their lives aren't worth living.
#2
There is a serious underlying problem here, the breakdown of medical ethics, or what can be called The Frankenstein Syndrome.
That is, in his time, the character of Dr. Frankenstein was an outcast because he terribly violated medical ethics. But today, Frankenstein would be a medical hero. That his monster was a soulless, murderous and insane thing would be unimportant.
In fact, the concern of scientists and doctors today is not, "Will this violate ethical standards?", but "Is there standards I can break?", the active pursuit of ethical violation.
Far worse is that this is not just at the experimental level, with GM, animal experiments and theory, but the desire to immediately apply it to human beings.
Some charming individual even went so far as to speculate that "near-humans" could be bred that would be genetically just far enough away from humans so that they could be experimented on like lab animals, with no consideration other than what lab animals are given.
His consideration was not that they would be intelligent, but that they look different enough from humans so that most people would assume that they are animals.
Such inhumanity finds rationing health care easy. Gods and unethical scientists and physicians are indifferent to the suffering of mere mortals.
#3
the same "ethicist" who thinks that parents "should be allowed to kill a disabled child up to the age of one year, because IHHO their lives aren't worth living."
-sounds like Pete's parents didn't heed their own son's advice.
#4
Singer is free to say whatever the hell he wants, but the fact that he draws a cheque for this service is evidence of a moral breakdown somewhere in the academic system. He *should* be scrounging through dumpsters behind fast food joints for his daily bread.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/16/2009 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
From Wikipedia bio of Singer:
Published in 1975, (Singers) Animal Liberation[15] has been cited as a formative influence on leaders of the modern animal liberation movement.
"killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."
Singer stated that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals
Yeah, I definitely want this guy making decisions about my health care.
#6
In a recent New York Times Magazine essay, he argued that the affluent in developed countries are killing people by not giving away to the poor all of their wealth in excess of their needs. How did he come to this conclusion? "If allowing someone to die is not intrinsically different from killing someone, it would seem that we are all murderers," he explains in Practical Ethics. He calculates that the average American household needs $30,000 per year; to avoid murder, anything over that should be given away to the poor. "So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000," he wrote in the Times.
Rigorous adherence to a single principle has a way of hoisting one by one's own petard. Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today.
Singer's proclamation about income has also come back to haunt him. To all appearances, he lives on far more than $30,000 a year. Aside from the Manhattan apartment-he asked me not to give the address or describe it as a condition of granting an interview-he and his wife Renata, to whom he has been married for some three decades, have a house in Princeton. The average salary of a full professor at Princeton runs around $100,000 per year; Singer also draws income from a trust fund that his father set up and from the sales of his books. He says he gives away 20 percent of his income to famine relief organizations, but he is certainly living on a sum far beyond $30,000. When asked about this, he forthrightly admitted that he was not living up to his own standards. He insisted that he was doing far more than most and hinted that he would increase his giving when everybody else started contributing similar amounts of their incomes.
There is some question as to how seriously one should take the dictates of a person who himself cannot live up to them. If he finds it impossible to follow his own rules, perhaps that means that he should reconsider his conclusions. Singer would no doubt respond that his personal failings hardly invalidate his ideas.
#7
Singer would no doubt respond that his personal failings hardly invalidate his ideas. Such a clever rhetorician should be able to talk his way out of his own grave. After he does that, I'll give him more attention.
#8
I have found that one should always respect their elders. It is tragic when they are struck with senility or dementia. I would suggest that one should humor him and allow him to bla, bla, bla till the pills take effect. Besides at his age the new health care will be of little value as he will be too old to be covered (a reduction in medical costs). I believe 50 would be about right.
Pakistan's Emerging Counterinsurgency Strategy by Haider Ali Hussein Mullick
Two months ago, the Taliban were 60 miles from the capital of nuclear-armed Pakistan. Four weeks later, the Pakistani military, using helicopter gunships, fighter jets, and special forces, destroyed Taliban strongholds, pushing them north -- and nearly three million refugees south -- out of the Swat Valley. Behind the operation's success lies a new hybrid counterinsurgency strategy that is emerging in Pakistan -- the strengths and weaknesses of which will be crucial for both Islamabad and Washington over the long term.
The good news is that the Taliban, like al-Qaeda before it, is its own worst enemy -- the more successful they are, the more they unite the opposition to fight them. When the Talibs were just blowing up stuff in the frontier and in Afghanistan, the Pak elites didn't care. When they stole a march from Swat towards the capital, the Pak army found the gumption to fight them. Now the Talibs are on the run.
The new approach emerged from dissatisfaction with the Pakistani army's previous half-hearted struggles against the Taliban. Up through the summer of 2008, officers had been relying on the military's typical strategy of "out-terrorizing the terrorist," but the model was flawed. The army would do an excellent job of clearing Taliban-held areas but was reluctant to maintain a presence in them afterward. Generally, it preferred to pull back to its bases and outsource post-conflict security to inept local police and politicians. But resident forces were typically unable to provide security, and the government would often negotiate with the local Taliban, granting them asylum and allowing them to return.
This usually ignited a vicious cycle of blow up, patch up, and blow up. The worst part of the cyclical violence, according to a senior army official, was "the corrosion of troop morale," especially when officers were referred to as "America's mercenaries." Junior officers were suffering from battle fatigue, unwilling to continue fighting an unpopular war against their own people with no conclusive victory.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under: TTP
Matthew Degn worked as a civilian interrogator attached to the U.S. Army in Iraq before working as a Senior Policy/Intelligence Adviser to Deputy General Kamal and other top intelligence officials with the Iraq's Ministry of Interior. Degn continues to argue against those that feel there was no link between terrorism and Saddam Hussein's regime based on his involvement with hundreds of interrogations in Iraq and his involvement with many of the Iraqi Intelligence officials with the Ministry of Interior. Degn says that much of the public perception about Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorism are incorrect.
When asked about recent media reports citing Saddam Hussein's denial to the FBI about links to al Qaeda Degn viewed these reports as part of an ongoing attempt to rewrite history saying these reports stand in stark contrast to what he saw and heard firsthand in Iraq. In fact, Degn said that to many of the detainees links between Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorist groups including al Qaeda was not even a point of contention but freely acknowledged. Many of the high value detainees took it as a given that their captors were aware of Iraq - al Qaeda links. Some even bragged about those links.
When pressed for specifics Degn said that Hussein's regime, like many other Middle Eastern groups, used the "Hawala" system to secretly move money to al Qaeda and made it nearly impossible to "prove" in a legal system that the transfers took place. The "Hawala" system uses multiple layers of middle men couriers to transfer money and leaves no paper trail, making tracing such transactions virtually impossible. Degn said that Iraqi assistance given to al Qaeda also included safehaven. Degn said al Qaeda used that safehaven for at least two training camps in Western Iraq and the Anbar province. Degn argued that Saddam Hussein's government was certainly aware that the provision of safehaven was being used for these camps.
Degn said he had heard reports that indicated that al Qaeda affiliates had multiple, possibly competing, cells in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's Iraq. One cell was affiliated with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who had not yet "officially" sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. Another al Qaeda cell, linked to Ayman al Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad, was reportedly simultaneously operating in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This detail appears to match up with that of former CIA Director George Tenet's and Major General William Caldwell on the topic. He cited this as an example of the ability of al Qaeda's cells to operate independently, a theme he heard more than once during his interactions. Degn said that from what he saw it was true that many al Qaeda operatives got directives and money from al Qaeda's core closest to Osama bin Laden but many were capable of making independent decisions and relationships.
Degn said that while Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda did have mixed feelings for one another, at best, Hussein praised nearly all of al Qaeda's attacks as well as anti-Western attacks committed by other terror groups. Degn argued that if he didn't have some kind of hand in these attacks that he certainly wanted to as he definitely considered the U.S. an enemy (as well as Iran) and thus supported a number of Sunni groups.
Degn says that at least some of the U.S. intelligence community likely knew of the support for regional anti-Western Sunni groups all along.
#1
The jaw-dropping delusion and dishonesty and failures of logic and common sense on this issue make it a good representative of the collapse of seriousness on the foreign policy side (we daily add to the domestic examples).
I don't believe the authenticity of the captured memo detailing the visit and meetings with Iraqi intelligence that was (incredibly) published in the NYT was ever challenged. It read like it may have been Zawahiri himself. The Iraqi WMD work with the Sudanese regime then hip-deep involved with the then-resident AQ (incl. OBL his own 'sef) in the 90s. Didn't the (so far incomplete) document exploitation taking place in Qatar already verify a long-standing and serious connection between Iraqi intel and EIJ, which was the major partner in the friendly merger that resulted in the AQ we know and love today?
The stupidity and illogic and dishonesty are too widespread and too constantly manifested to trace or cite. But is there anything more absurd than this dance around the Iraqi Ba'ath regime's involvement with terror outfits of every (useful) strip and flavor?
How do such ridiculous ideas/arguments, such as that pretending that there's some doubt about Iraqi involvement with global terrorism, even survive a day in the public square? Rhetorical question, I know. Just look at the nonsense and insanity (whether on economics, rule of law, the constitution, etc) that crowd that square today.
How do the wrong, the mediocre, the clueless, the dishonorable prevail and prosper?
#2
How do the wrong, the mediocre, the clueless, the dishonorable prevail and prosper? I think George Orwell said something about the corruption of language being a prerequisite for that.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
