The wailing! The gnashing! The rending of garments! If the conservative reaction to Harriet Miers is any indication, George W. Bush has no chance of winning a third term.
The decision to appoint a relative unknown -- or, given her proximity to the Bush inner circle, an unknown relative -- has caused many on the right to open a vein and let the despair flow out into the warm bath of misery, disappointment and overextended metaphors. Why didn't Bush clone Antonin Scalia in a dish and appoint him? Here, use some stem cells if you have to. Anyone but another David Souter!
That's the great fear on the right: Souterism. A mild-mannered cipher appointed by a Bush who dons the black robe and promptly starts to eat babies. Souter! How many times have you opened the door at Halloween and seen his face on a child's mask? How many times have you waited in the doctor's office, clammy with dread, waiting for him to slap the X-rays up on the wall and point to a grayish Souter-shaped mass?
Miers could turn out to be the conservative's worst nightmare. She could regard the Constitution as a living document, still in its first trimester. She could, at this very moment, be in the attic assembling the shortwave she got while a member of the Resistance in Texas, dialing in Steinem One to report total success, repeat total success.
Or not.
Keep one thing in mind: Souter was nominated by Bush 41, who stood for genial, ideologically indifferent governance by the Establishment. Bush 43, we're constantly told by his opponents, is so besotted by neocon ideology that he cannot blow his nose without calling Paul Wolfowitz and asking if it's OK to touch his left nostril. He would nominate a squishy cipher? Maybe. Let's look at the reasons:
1. E-Z no-sweat confirmation. Everyone's still resting up from those brutal Roberts hearings, right? There still must be a quart of Chuck Schumer's blood on the walls. Perhaps the administration feared a controversial nomination would trigger the nuclear option and force the GOP to act like it has the majority, something it regards as a dirty secret best not aired in public.
There will be attacks, but they'll be mild. Usually criticism of a professional woman would tar the critic as a gynophobic sexist, but in the case of conservative women you can attack all you like, because conservative women have to give up their uteruses to join the party. Totally true, dude. There's this big ritual in front of a giant owl and everything.
2. Because Bush was weakened by Katrina. By this logic, the failure of the administration to prevent nonexistent murders in the Superdome means he must nominate someone who's pro-choice. If the storm had veered 10 miles to the west, he would have been permitted to nominate someone pro-choice who disapproved of partial-birth abortion unless the life of the mother was endangered.
3. Because Bush isn't really conservative, his positions on immigration, spending and campaign-finance laws notwithstanding. Or perhaps Miers is not squishy. Perhaps Bush knows and trusts her to reflect his philosophy, and thinks this is the right choice despite what the headlines of the day happen to say. A wildly implausible idea! But it could be true.
It shouldn't bother anyone that she gave money to Al Gore's campaign. As Dianne Feinstein reminded us, compassion and pity are just the qualities we want in a jurist.
And it shouldn't bother the administration that hard-core conservative pundits aren't happy. They're never happy nowadays.
These were the people who caught a whiff of Souterism in John Roberts' nomination, and wouldn't be happy unless a nominee announced his intention to back Souter into a corner in the cloakroom and give him a turbo-wedgie every day. Yes, the base would be happier if the Republicans acted like a party that had won all the elections, and pursued its agenda as unapologetically and brazenly as some accuse them of doing. But what does one expect? The operative word in that sentence is "Republicans," the party that dares not speak its own name.
If it's pronounced Conservative, that is.
Oct. 5, 2005
Posted by: Steve ||
10/06/2005 09:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What gets me is the hyperbole on the left concerning the âparty base is unhappy.â I am not so sure, I am the party base (I think) and I am happy that Bush picked someone that A) looks and feels Conservative, B) Makes a difficult target for the LLL, and C) Injects some realism and common sense into the Supreme Court. Letâs face it, after the Kelo decision who can argue that the court has not run amok? I could care less if she went to Harvard, Yale, or any other big school, that just tells me she might have normal prospective when it come to interpretation of the Constitution. Any Judge that looks at Kelo and canât remember the Fifth Amendment really should not be sitting on the court. Yes I would relish a fight with Brown or any other of what were considered the âfront runnersâ but the pick was made so lets get on with it.
#2
The wailing! The gnashing! The rending of garments! If the conservative reaction to Harriet Miers is any indication, George W. Bush has no chance of winning a third term.
As if he can run. When idiocy like this is in the first sentence does anyone need to read the rest of it
#8
Seemed more like a nice friendly Rantburg discussion than a Turkey Shoot. EB, however has made a claim that is utterly unsupportable from everything I know, and been called on it. Crickets?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/06/2005 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Besides the big publicity Constitutional questions about abortion, gun control, etc, the court spends a heck of a lot of time on corporate issues. How many of the current justices have significant experience in corporate law? Seems if you're defining qualifications, you'd better look at the actual case load and have people who've actual worked in those areas.
She's a corporate hack who undoubtably loves KELO
as the man says, prove it. Too many are projecting their fears and anger. Almost sounds so Paleo in nature.
#13
"she's all for aborting puppies - from conservative dogs"!
Gah!
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/06/2005 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#14
My my, pudding and pie, her long experience as a shill for Microsoft and Disney puts her right in that category. The love that Bush has for KELO is documented right here:
http://www.reason.com/rauch/072902.shtml
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Oh, well that's definitive, EB. And author Jonathan Rausch's latest book is "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America", so he's certainly a objective centrist.
If I was a LLL, you'd have a point. I'd advise you to educate yourself before you open up. It is true that the conservatives nobly opposed KELO. I fail to see how a defender-described corporate hack would fail to side with the lefties on the subject, especially after taking the money of the two biggest corporations that love to parasitize the work of others.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#17
So what? That's his -opinion.- He can be right on eminent domain and wrong on gay marriage, they aren't mutually exclusive positions.
It doesn't change the historical -fact- that Bush employed KELO style tactics to rob people of their property for private gain. Stop acting like a LLL and face FACTS.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#18
You say that's his "opinion" that you cited for me to face as facts. LOL
#19
We knew that about Bush long ago. But you wrote She's a corporate hack who undoubtably loves KELO. How does that prove anything about her?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/06/2005 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#20
You all-emcompassing "logic" would reject pretty much anybody Bush nominated, just because Bush had a part in a stadium deal. Fine. Who would you nominate that has absolutely no association with Bush, professional sports, or corporate America? Al Gore?
#21
Geez, Darrell, the statement "Gay marriage would be good for the country" is an OPINION.
The statement "George Bush used eminent domain to grab private property for his own private ends" is a statement of FACT.
When did Rantburg get infected by the DU anti-reasoning virus?
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
#22
No, it rejects Miers for being a corporatist hack. She's manifestly unqualified to be an appellate judge. I'm fine with Roberts, or anyone else like him who has QUALIFICATIONS.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
#23
The statement "George Bush used eminent domain to grab private property for his own private ends" is a statement of FOOLISHNESS. The City of Arlington, Texas used eminent domain, just as many cities before it. George Bush didn't invent urban renewal.
#24
"In Her Time In The Administration, Ms. Miers Has Addressed Numerous Legal And Policy Questions At The Highest Levels Of Decisionmaking, Most Recently Serving As The Counsel To The President Of The United States."
"In 1985, Ms. Miers Was Selected As The First Woman To Become President Of The Dallas Bar Association."
" In 1992, She Became The First Woman Elected President Of The State Bar Of Texas. Ms. Miers Served As The President Of The State Bar Of Texas From 1992 To 1993."
"The Women And The Law Section Of The State Bar Of Texas Has Awarded Its 1993 Sarah T. Hughes Women Lawyers Of Achievement Award To Louise Raggio And State Bar President Harriet Miers."
"In March 1996, Her Colleagues Elected Her The First Female President Of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, At That Time A Firm Of About 200 Lawyers. She Was The First Woman To Lead A Texas Firm Of That Size."
"Harriet Miers, President Of Dallas' Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, Was One Of 20 Other Women Nominated For The [1996 Texas Trailblazer Award]."
"[In 1997] She Was Named To The [National Law Journal's] List Of 100 Most Powerful Attorneys."
"[Miers] Received A Distinguished Alumni Award From The SMU Law School In 1997."
In 1998, National Law Journal Named Harriet Miers One Of The Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers In America.
In 2000, National Law Journal Named Harriet Miers One Of The One Hundred Most Influential Lawyers In America.
"Miers Was Given The Women Of Excellence Award By Women's Enterprise Magazine In 1997 ..."
Miers Was Awarded The Sandra Day O'Connor Award For Professional Excellence By The Texas Center For Legal Ethics And Professionalism In 2005.
Fact: Numerous Senators Urged The President To Pick A Non-Judge For This Opening:
MSNBC's Bob Kur: "[I]t's Interesting To Note That The President Was Urged By Members Of The Senate Judiciary Committee, Some Of Them At Least, Not To Pick Someone Who Has Had A History As A Judge, Who Has Been In The Appellate Court System. That's Exactly What He Did. ... We Know The President Wasn't Offering Any Names From What We Were Told, So It Was A Name That Seemed Acceptable To At Least Some Of The Top Senate People That The President Consulted With." (MSNBC's "News Live," 10/3/05)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "I Said The Same Thing To President Reagan, To Former President Bush, To President Clinton, And Now To This President, That Think Of Going Outside The Judiciary Monastery." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 9/21/05)
*
Leahy: "[I] Remember Having A Conversation With President Reagan When He Was Asking Some Of Us What We Thought About The Supreme Court; A Similar One With President Clinton. In Both Cases, I Said, 'Consider Somebody Outside The Judicial Monastery.'" (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 7/12/05)
Leahy: "You Know, Not All The People Most Qualified To Be On The Supreme Court Are In The Judiciary; Think Of Going Outside The Judicial Monastery. There Are A Lot Of Very, Very Well Qualified People. It's Happened In The Past." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 9/21/05)
*
Leahy: "Some Of Our Finest Justices Are People Who Came From Outside And Then Proved Themselves On The Court. And Having That Diversity Of Thought Would Not Hurt The Court At All." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 9/21/05)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "[I] Had At The Table - There Were Four Of The Supreme Court Justices There - They Said That They Thought What Would Be A Good Idea Is To Start Calling People From Outside The Judicial System. I Think That's Something That We Should Listen To." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, 6/28/05)
Fact: Numerous Supreme Court Judges Have Had No Judicial Experience:
"Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice William O. Douglas, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Felix Frankfurter, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, Justice Louis Brandeis, And Even Chief Justice John Marshall All Were Appointed To The United States Supreme Court Without Prior Judicial Experience."
"In All, Thirty-Eight Previous Justices Had Never Been A Judge At Any Level Before Their Appointment To The Court."
#25
Very well, Mrs. Davis, it was an inference based on known facts.
We know that Bush picked her because he gets along well with her and they allegedly see eye to eye on most things legal. We also know that Bush loves KELO. We also know that Miers herself has fought for the expansion of corporate influence and power for years, it was literally her bread and butter. I am therefore justifed in concluding that she does not find KELO offensive in the least and most probably loves the decision, as it expands the economic and political power of the corporations that she has served all her life.
Put shortly, I doubt very much that she is a dogmatic libertarian/strict constructionist on the issue AT ALL.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#26
At whose behest, Darrell?
Yep, I thought so.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
#27
About all I can accept of that is "We know that Bush picked her because he gets along well with her and they allegedly see eye to eye on most things legal." And that's good enough for me. All the rest is raving.
#28
Darrell, Warren was a disaster, Rehnquist had an illustrious career in the DOJ and the others were mostly noted legal reasoners famous for their writings. (save for Marshall, who came from a time when the judiciary was much smaller than it is now)
If Miers was a man and not a friend of the President's, she would never have been considered for the post.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 15:22 Comments ||
Top||
#29
And, like your logic, your saturninretrograde.blogspot.com cannot be found.
#30
Darrell, what part of KELO would he be offended by, especially since he joined with his fellow Rangers owners to demand KELO-style takings from Arlington?
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Darrell,
Try pasting in http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com
For some reason, Rantburg tries to combine its URL with mine.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 15:27 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Those of you who aren't willfully idiotic might enjoy my friend Bill's take on the Roberts hearings:
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#33
I think the thing that irritates you the most is that Bush made the pick. Tough cookies. We knew about Arlington long before we elected him. The President makes the pick -- he doesn't have to take a poll first, and he doesn't have to pick a judge, and he doesn't have to pick a lawyer who has never been a corporate lawyer. Hopefully she will be confirmed and the Bush-bashers can wail and gnash over it for at least another 20 years.
Are you out of your head? Roberts was a fine pick, which is why Miers is such a disappointment.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Not only that, but I resent the insinuation that I'm some LLL Gomer simply because Janice Rogers Brown would have been my preference for the SC.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 15:40 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Don't confuse a lawyer with the clients he or she represents. If you are the lawyer for the executive, you will OF COURSE argue in favor of positions favoring your client. If you didn't, you'd be a pretty lousy attorney, and pretty soon you'd be fired. In my experience, citations or references to an attorney's representation of private clients reflects on or informs an individual IN ANY WAY regarding the personal beliefs of the attorney. We might bemoan that fact, but it is upheld in my experience.
Posted by: Mark E ||
10/06/2005 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Fair enough -- I resent "At whose behest, Darrell?"
Posted by: Mark E ||
10/06/2005 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#39
Suck rocks!
Bush picked Harriet and there is nothing you can do about it. She will be confirmed, probably with more favorable votes than Roberts. The world goes on....
The Repub "brains" are all in a leather over not getting their favorite flame thrower nominated. Personally, I had two very conservative names on my short list.
So she doesn't have the Haarvard and Yale jd, so what? We voted for W and she is a Bush in drag. I don't see her going coo-coo like Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, and Kennedy, who have turned the Constitution over to the renderings of East Egypt.
I am really tired of this bull shit about lack of experience. Did W have experience as president in 2000?
I will take a pit bull in size 6 shoes to a tea drinker from Harvard or Yale any day.
Posted by: Captain America ||
10/06/2005 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
#40
I don't see her as a threat and her non-jurist, outside-the-beltway experience could be a real plus to the court. Of course I wanted Janice Rogers Brown because I wanted to see the Dems demonize a successful black woman who is the daughter of sharecroppers. If fought well by the Repubs (a dream I know) it could have been a telling exhibition of how the Dems hold the black electorate in disdain.
I have heartburn with Bush's spending habits. That is where he and all the Republicans in Congress are failing mightily.
Yes, I know, that's the argument they used to "prove" that Roberts didn't really believe all those horrid Reaganite and Federalist things he wrote about. The folks at the Corner have already pointed out that the justification for Miers is the exact opposite.
I ordinarily would take Voltaire's excellent advice and "cultivate my garden," but it was lost in a KELO taking...
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
10/06/2005 23:30 Comments ||
Top||
Even before we knew who Oklahoma University's suicide bomber was â we knew he "acted alone" and "did not pose a threat to anyone else." Hmmm ... I thought the facts came first, and after we had them in hand, then we drew our conclusions. But on the other hand, that hasn't happened in higher education since Lawrence Summers still had his male anatomy intact at Harvard, has it?
It was only later that we learned the bomber was Joel Henry Hinrichs III, an engineering student at the Norman, Okla., campus. His father assured us that his son had no political agenda. No word if the same is true of the two Pakistani students with whom he shared an apartment, which the police bomb squad cleared of surplus explosives in several trips.
Of course, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Lots of people commit suicide by strapping explosives around their waists and blowing themselves to bits outside crowded athletic stadiums during packed games at our nation's universities, right? And these same people always try to buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer, as Dustin Ellison, general manager of Ellison Feed & Seed on Porter Avenue, in Norman, says that Mr. Hinrichs did this past Tuesday. (When Hinrichs was unable to explain why he needed the fertilizer, Ellison declined to sell it to him.)
So Mr. Hinrichs had to content himself with using TATP (triacetone triperoxide), a homemade explosive of dubious stability that was also employed by Richard Reid, the failed "airplane shoe bomber," as well as the recent London bombers. TATP, as we learned after the follow on London bombing, sometimes explodes early.
The president of the University of Oklahoma is David Boren, a favorite son and resident of Norman. If the name sounds familiar, perhaps it is because you remember him as Sen. Boren, D-Okla., who â at the time he retired in 1994 â was chairman of the Senate Committee on Intelligence. Perhaps Mr. Boren still maintains his contacts, and some elbow twisting was applied in both directions to keep news of Mr. Hinrichs' early departure to claim his 72 virgins under wraps? Huuummmmmm.....
If Norman, Okla., sounds familiar, perhaps it's because Zacarias Moussaoui (I don't need to learn how to take off or land) lived there for six months around the time he was taking flight lessons. Or maybe it's because that's where the FBI was frantically seeking Middle Eastern men following the 1995 Murrah building bombing â and then frantically denying they were frantically seeking Middle Eastern men from the scene of the bombing. (All of which is well covered and documented by Jayna Davis in her book, "The Third Terrorist."
So go back to sleep, America. Suicide bombers in America are a different species. They want to kill only themselves. It's such a private, peaceful exit. It's only suicide bombers overseas who want to kill nightclubs full of innocent tourists, busloads of Jewish schoolchildren, barracks full of American Marines, and buildings full of stockbrokers. We're not really engaged in a war. Feel free to criticize and demoralize our troops in Iraq. We'd all be so much better off if the war was fought in American shopping malls and university athletic stadiums. World War IV is only a bad dream.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/06/2005 09:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Yes, it has: NORMAN, Okla. -- The Pakistani roommate of a man authorities said died when he detonated an explosive device outside a crowded football stadium was led in handcuffs from a party shortly after Saturday's explosion, the head of an Islamic student group said. Fazal M. Cheema, a finance major, shared a university-owned apartment with Joel Hinrichs III, 21, who died Saturday when a device attached to his body exploded as he sat on a bench outside George Lynn Cross Hall.
Cheema and three other Muslim students were led in handcuffs from a party by police after the blast, Ashraf Hussein, president of the Muslim Student Association, said Tuesday. They later were released. Cheema is "a really, really nice guy," Hussein said.
OU President David Boren said authorities continue to believe that Hinrichs did not try to get into the stadium and that he acted alone. He said Hinrichs' roommate, along with his acquaintances, were questioned by federal authorities. "All the people who lived in that building, all the people that lived in the building surrounding it, all the people who knew him well or were living in proximity to him ... have been questioned; none of those people have been held by law enforcement," Boren said.
The FBI said in a statement Tuesday that there is no current threat posed by additional explosive materials, that there is no known threat from anyone else related to the incident and that there is no known link between Hinrichs and any terrorist or extremist organization or activities.
Hinrichs' father, Joel Hinrichs Jr., said the FBI re-interviewed him Tuesday at his home in Colorado Springs, Colo. The father told investigators his son was skeptical of ideology.
"Joe would have become a Muslim fanatic when pigs fly," the father side.
Meanwhile, Norman feed store operator Dustin Ellison said Hinrichs attempted to purchase ammonium nitrate a few days before the explosion.
Ellison, whose family operates Ellison Feed and Seed, said the store no longer carries the product because of new federal guidelines regarding its sale. Ammonium nitrate can be used to build bombs and was a key ingredient in the 1995 attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Hinrichs' father said the FBI told him the bomb his son had was made of hydrogen peroxide. He said the FBI told him more high-density hydrogen peroxide was found in the apartment.
You would think his room mate might have noticed him mixing it up. But then, he is Pakistani.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/06/2005 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
Frontpage Interviewâs guest today is Radwan A. Masmoudi,
the Founder and President of the Center of the Study of Islam & Democracy
FP: Mr. Masmoudi, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Masmoudi: Thank you, Jamie. It is a pleasure to be with you.
FP: So first things first, what are the main goals and objectives of the Center of the Study of Islam & Democracy?
Masmoudi: The main objectives of CSID are to contribute to the promotion of democracy, good governance, freedom, and human rights in the Arab and Muslim world.
As American Muslims we have been monitoring the situation in the Muslim world, and especially the Arab world (which represents about 20% of the Muslim world) with great frustration and concern. Despite enormous wealth, human capital and natural resources, Arab and Muslim countries rank at the bottom of the development scale. Poverty and corruption are rising, and unemployment is very high (between 20 and 40% depending on the country).
Furthermore, a majority of the 300 Million Arabs are under the age of 21, so these statistics are bound to get much worse in the next 5 to 10 years. Millions of young Arabs and Muslims are growing with a sense of loss and despair, with no hope for a better future. They are not allowed to criticize their government, and if they do want to become active or involved, they find that all avenues for peaceful activism are shut down. This is an environment that can only encourage violence and extremism, and unless we can turn things around, will lead necessarily to further worsening of the situation. This is a serious threat not only to the Arab and Muslim world, but also to the entire planet as Muslims represent 1.4 billion people on earth and are the majority in over 65 countries.
In my opinion, democracy is the only solution to this disastrous situation as it will put people in charge of their own destiny, and give them the means and the tools to improve their conditions and live a dignified life, the way our creator has intended for us all to live.
...
FP: So you believe Islam can be compatible with our notion of democracy? If so, why do we have no real democracies in the Islamic world?
Masmoudi: Yes, Islam is compatible with democracy and can be interpreted in a way that supports democratic values and principles. Unfortunately, Islam (like all other religions) can also be interpreted in a way that it becomes compatible and supportive of oppression and tyranny.
...
FP: Can Islam be secular? For instance, modernity and democracy can only exist in society if women are given full rights, equality and all forms of self-determination, including sexual self-determination. If women cannot have such rights then they cannot truly be free and society cannot truly be free in the Western notion of freedom. Comment?
...
FP: OK just a second, letâs narrow in on this issue. Overall, as you stated earlier, you believe that Sharia can be modernized and updated. How exactly does one âmodernizeâ stonings and amputations? Once you allow freedom and individualism and everything that must come with it (i.e. womenâs sexual self-determination) Sharia law must by necessity be totally negated, no?
... Full interview at link.
Posted by: ed ||
10/06/2005 17:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Captain America ||
10/06/2005 00:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This boggles me. I simply cannot wrap my mind around the concept that anyone would find it more important to protect sexual predators than the public. My detector just doesn't have that setting on it.
#2
ROE vs WADE has taught whole generations of legally minor females they are automat adults as soon as they get themselves pregnant - now that formerly excessive teenage birth rates are finally coming down, the HollyLeft start showing Reality Shows that tell them minors are truly "mature" but its the adults whom are in your way. IS AMERICA READY FOR LEGAL PRE-TEEN MARRIAGES AND PRE-TEEN, OR YOUNGER, LEGAL PORN STARS???
#6
This is a classic example of the fundamental and conflicting differences in attitudes towards Hate-Crimes and Human-Rights legislation. Treating Sex offenders as a protected class illustrates the âslippery slopeâ argument many have warned against for decades. Civil libertarians, such as the ACLU, believe these groups of people are at risk simply because they share common characteristics not held by the majority therefore must be protected from discrimination and harassment. However altruistic, these beliefs rarely strike a balance between individual rights and the common good. The Declaration of Independence does not guarantee happiness for every class of citizenry but the pursuit of happiness for all citizens. Sex offenders by their definition choose to ignore that basic principle and deny others of their unalienable rights. Therefore it is not unreasonable to demand that they are relinquished of certain rights.
#9
It's a violation of my copyright to reprint this entire piece without permission, especially without my byline. I am happy if you excerpt it and link to either the piece (free on Opinion Journal) or my blog -- www.cathyseipp.net -- which has more info on the topic, as well as a link to the piece. But the way you've done it is discourteous, illegal and unethical. This ticks me off, never a good idea.
You would also excuse him for taking the prime ministerâs oft-repeated rebuke entirely in his stride â a case of âin one ear and out the otherâ, perhaps. Because even after so many bomb blasts since that first scolding he got, and more crucially after so much blackening of the governmentâs image nationally and the countryâs internationally, he remains, even if ostensibly so, the man in charge of the home ministry.
Prime minister Khaleda Ziaâs kid-glove handling of Babar is symptomatic of the lethargy and benign indulgence that pervade her style of discharging the duty of governance. But as the country has suffered a succession of Islamist terrorist attacks, and with it repeated loss of credibility in a world where the hunt for Islamists and their breeding grounds is topmost on the lone superpowerâs agenda, it is perhaps high time that more is demanded from her administration than simple lip service. For starters, it is time to demand of the prime minister an explanation for Babar, a man of little if any credentials to fill the job even before his glaring failure to deliver once given the reins of law enforcement is taken into account, still remaining the state minister for home.
Her empty words of admonition of Babar aside, Khaleda has done nothing of worth to prove wrong the widely held belief that her inability to âtouchâ Babar is because he enjoys the blessings of the BNPâs all-powerful kith-and-kin brigade who couldnât care less because easy money and the dream of inheriting power have become the end-all and do-all. Until the prime minister breaks out of her regal languor and throws her weight around, the public is left with no option but to believe as truth the innuendoes that the Young Turksâ grip on the apparatus of power that she presides over is strong enough for her to abdicate her obligation of governance so that kinfolk can scramble for the ruins that are left behind.
But, it would seem, it is not only the younglingsâ gluttony for all things material and monetary that Khaleda is held ransom by. The events of the last few weeks suggest that the prime minister is also held to ransom by her partyâs greed for power that is manifested in its machinations to ensure an immediate return to it. Hence her blind eye towards repeated intimation, most often by her governmentâs own intelligence bodies, that the spread of the Islamist militancy that threatens our democratic polity today was not without patronisation from not one but two of the BNPâs alliance partners, and some leaders of the BNP as well. None of them got the boot they deserved. Such is the power of notoriety.
In her first reference to the August 17 multiple blasts in a public speech â delivered in Jatiya Sangsad on September 8, 22 days too late â the prime minister claimed that the blasts were choreographed by quarters with a political agenda hidden behind the veil of Islamist terrorism. She couldnât have been more correct. But while Khaleda, as ever, was alluding to the Awami Leagueâs involvement in the blasts, news out of the Joint Interrogation Cell as well as magistratesâ courts recording confessions suggest that the political quarters linked to the Islamists were much closer to the BNPâs home.
Here, perhaps, is the scope for a further, more crucial demand: that the prime minister deal with Islamist terror not just militarily, as her administration is doing now, but also politically â a cleansing of elements with militant links within her alliance partners inclusive. Thus far, the prime minister has shown no signs that she is willing to confront either the Islamic Oikya Jote or the Jamaat-e-Islami for their alleged links with Islamist militancy. While there was always a question of terror-friendliness hanging over the former, emerging evidence increasingly suggests that the scale on which militants are operating in the country has been made possible by the latterâs patronage.
The Jamaat, of course, carries with it the legacy of both the killer regime of collaboration in 1971 and the decades-long murderous excesses of its student front that has only recently decided to take on a slightly more gentrified look. In fact, calculating as they have proven to be, it would not be a surprise to anyone if Jamaatâs own currently gentrified state proves a mere camouflage for getting a stake in state power. The suggestions of militant links could yet be manifestations of their true colours.
Whether Jamaat decides to shed the disguise any time soon or not, the question is if Khaleda Zia is ready to risk her alliance partner catapulting a so-called Islamic revolution while riding on her back. As it stands now, she seems either oblivious to the threat, or comfortable with the calculation that the vote bank the Jamaat pulls in for now far outweighs the threat it poses to the democratic polity in the long run. But she should be advised that the Jamaat threat is a matter that will weigh heavily on the minds of her electorate come election time, especially if terrorist acts continue at will from now till then.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/06/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
You would excuse the state minister for home affairs, Lutfozzaman Babar, for feeling a sense of déjà vu on his trip to the Prime Ministerâs Office on Monday. The dressing down he gets from the prime minister every time a bomb or two goes off in the country is getting to feature quite regularly in his schedule nowadays.
