A week ago or so I posted on the ruling by the New York Transit Authority that "transgendered" men had a right to use the Women's Restrooms. At that time, I commented on this ruling in terms of our evolving definition of the individual, including our relation to our bodies.
Today I want to revisit this ruling in terms of Rights.
The NTA ruling makes sense if one considers the "rights" of the autonomous individual to be absolute, surpassing all other considerations, and ordered toward "freedom;" "freedom" being understood as the complete liberation of the individual from any and all sorts of constraint; the individual defined almost exclusively in terms of will.
One could be tempted to reply to this ruling in terms of the same understanding of rights, arguing that the women in the restroom have a right to perform private bodily functions away from biological men, if they choose. But, I want to move to a deeper level, to consider the notion of rights. (continued below)
Today I want to revisit this ruling in terms of Rights.
The NTA ruling makes sense if one considers the "rights" of the autonomous individual to be absolute, surpassing all other considerations, and ordered toward "freedom;" "freedom" being understood as the complete liberation of the individual from any and all sorts of constraint; the individual defined almost exclusively in terms of will.
One could be tempted to reply to this ruling in terms of the same understanding of rights, arguing that the women in the restroom have a right to perform private bodily functions away from biological men, if they choose. But, I want to move to a deeper level, to consider the notion of rights. (continued below)
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Frank Warner observes the eighth anniversary of the Iraq Liberation Act. Here. Hat tip Instapundit.
This is one piece of Clinton adminstration legislation that Democrat candidates will not be talking much about today. Here is a portion from Warner's post.
At the heart of the Iraq Liberation Act, it said:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.’
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait’s oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
Here is a link to the full-text of the law (pdf).
Boy would I love to see the MSM asking Dems about this Act today, but, it also would be interesting to see pigs flying.
This is one piece of Clinton adminstration legislation that Democrat candidates will not be talking much about today. Here is a portion from Warner's post.
At the heart of the Iraq Liberation Act, it said:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.’
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.
(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait’s oil wells ablaze upon retreat.
Here is a link to the full-text of the law (pdf).
Boy would I love to see the MSM asking Dems about this Act today, but, it also would be interesting to see pigs flying.
The stem-cell research debate continues to be disingenuous and a bit sleazy. If the candidates and party leaders who continue to push "stem cells" as a political wedge issue really cared about the afflicted in this nation, they would be more careful to tell the truth. Opportunistic politicians should not promise that the blind shall see and the lame shall walk, if we can just defeat the Republicans and move forward on stem-cell research. They know better.
Here is a review of some of my thoughts on the stem-cell dilemma from a while back:
There is no federal ban on stem-cell research in America. As a nation, we are engaged in an honest debate about when life begins. Until we come to a consensus, we are withholding our common federal money for a procedure that is highly offensive to a large segment of our community. In the meantime, research continues with large amounts of private and individual state funds (the previous post in its entirety).
How does this issue play politically?
Will the people of Missouri see the intervention of Michael J. Fox as a morally superior Hollywood outsider who knows better than the simpletons of the show-me state? Or is Fox a sympathetic and beloved figure who serves as a powerful representation of friends and neighbors in pain? Too close to call.
The biggest problem with the anti-stem-cell-research position is in the complexity and distance of the argument. As I have said before, "life begins in the Petri dish" takes some getting used to. The tragedy of butchering embryos is infinitely more theoretical than a loved one in pain.
The Child in the Well
The fourth-century BC Chinese philosopher, Mencius, argued that man was innately good. As proof, he noted that all of us would react automatically to prevent a child from falling into a well. We would attempt to save a child in danger, not for personal gain (sometimes at personal risk), out of an instinctual desire to save the child.
Regardless of whether the example proves the ancient assertion concerning the nature of man, the scenario is instructive. Proponents of abortion rights must tread lightly on our emotions and sensibilities when defending the right of one person's choice to end the life of another human entity. For we can sympathize with a human fetus living inside one of us. We are disturbed by the taking of these unborn lives; we wince at pictures of destroyed fetuses. Our hearts instinctually react to the plight of these living beings.
An aside: a few years ago, without any prompting from his parents, my son began praying for his cousin who was still in the womb. It was logical for him to acknowledge the personhood of this unborn family member.
The problem with the stem-cell debate is the detachment most of us feel for embryos created outside of the natural process via in vitro fertilization. Most of us do not feel a similar sense of loss when we hear about the destruction of embryos manufactured for the purpose of implanting at some subsequent point. Generally, our hearts do not cry out for the embryonic child in the well.
Indeed, many Americans have no moral compunction against, in the name of procreation, creating many more of these embryos than they can possibly bring to human fruition. It follows logically that these excess embryos must be destroyed. Why are we not troubled by that process?
The anti-embryonic-stem-cell-research position asks for an almost superhuman level of empathy. I frankly admit that the position requires an intense intellectual stretch for me. I am inclined to make it--not because I can honestly say my heart cries out for these suffering embryos--but mainly because so many of the people I respect as ethical and moral ask me to. No matter where we stand on this dilemma, we should understand that this issue is very difficult for most of us.
As for the mundane, I make no prediction as to how this series of unseemly political acts will play out in Missouri and Maryland this election cycle. But it is incumbent on all parties to deal with this volatile issue with sensitivity and honesty.
Here is a review of some of my thoughts on the stem-cell dilemma from a while back:
There is no federal ban on stem-cell research in America. As a nation, we are engaged in an honest debate about when life begins. Until we come to a consensus, we are withholding our common federal money for a procedure that is highly offensive to a large segment of our community. In the meantime, research continues with large amounts of private and individual state funds (the previous post in its entirety).
How does this issue play politically?
Will the people of Missouri see the intervention of Michael J. Fox as a morally superior Hollywood outsider who knows better than the simpletons of the show-me state? Or is Fox a sympathetic and beloved figure who serves as a powerful representation of friends and neighbors in pain? Too close to call.
The biggest problem with the anti-stem-cell-research position is in the complexity and distance of the argument. As I have said before, "life begins in the Petri dish" takes some getting used to. The tragedy of butchering embryos is infinitely more theoretical than a loved one in pain.
The Child in the Well
The fourth-century BC Chinese philosopher, Mencius, argued that man was innately good. As proof, he noted that all of us would react automatically to prevent a child from falling into a well. We would attempt to save a child in danger, not for personal gain (sometimes at personal risk), out of an instinctual desire to save the child.
Regardless of whether the example proves the ancient assertion concerning the nature of man, the scenario is instructive. Proponents of abortion rights must tread lightly on our emotions and sensibilities when defending the right of one person's choice to end the life of another human entity. For we can sympathize with a human fetus living inside one of us. We are disturbed by the taking of these unborn lives; we wince at pictures of destroyed fetuses. Our hearts instinctually react to the plight of these living beings.
An aside: a few years ago, without any prompting from his parents, my son began praying for his cousin who was still in the womb. It was logical for him to acknowledge the personhood of this unborn family member.
The problem with the stem-cell debate is the detachment most of us feel for embryos created outside of the natural process via in vitro fertilization. Most of us do not feel a similar sense of loss when we hear about the destruction of embryos manufactured for the purpose of implanting at some subsequent point. Generally, our hearts do not cry out for the embryonic child in the well.
Indeed, many Americans have no moral compunction against, in the name of procreation, creating many more of these embryos than they can possibly bring to human fruition. It follows logically that these excess embryos must be destroyed. Why are we not troubled by that process?
The anti-embryonic-stem-cell-research position asks for an almost superhuman level of empathy. I frankly admit that the position requires an intense intellectual stretch for me. I am inclined to make it--not because I can honestly say my heart cries out for these suffering embryos--but mainly because so many of the people I respect as ethical and moral ask me to. No matter where we stand on this dilemma, we should understand that this issue is very difficult for most of us.
As for the mundane, I make no prediction as to how this series of unseemly political acts will play out in Missouri and Maryland this election cycle. But it is incumbent on all parties to deal with this volatile issue with sensitivity and honesty.
30/10: What Will Gene Taylor Do?
Many of you know that I spent a few years as a grad student at Tulane. During my New Orleans sojourn, my first congressman was William Jefferson (old money-in-the-freezer-Jefferson). When I moved out of Nola to Metairie, my congressman was Bob Livingston (in line for Speaker but had to fall on his sword because of a sex scandal). We then elected David Vitter (now Senator) in a special election to replace Livingston. Vitter bested a large field, which included David Duke, who placed third, failing to make the run off by a few thousand votes.
An aside: I once stood only yards away from David Duke during that campaign; a chilling experience for another post, perhaps.
Another congressman in my orbit back then was Gene Taylor, from Mississippi's Fourth District, which was just across the river down I-10. Taylor is an ultra-conservative Democrat. He has recently voted against his party and for a fence along the border, the military commissions compromise, warrantless wiretapping and much more. While he is not from the GOP tax-cutting mold, he was the only Democrat who voted for all four articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton in 1998.
Gene Taylor is a devout Roman Catholic representing a Southern-Baptist-dominated slice of Red-State America. He did not vote for Nancy Pelosi for majority leader. Last week, Michael Barone (in this post) raised this question: If the Democrats pick up exactly 15 seats (a possibility), which would give them, theoretically, a one-seat majority, What Will Gene Taylor Do?
More info: Voting record courtesy of the Washington Post and Gene Taylor's official House site.
An aside: I once stood only yards away from David Duke during that campaign; a chilling experience for another post, perhaps.
Another congressman in my orbit back then was Gene Taylor, from Mississippi's Fourth District, which was just across the river down I-10. Taylor is an ultra-conservative Democrat. He has recently voted against his party and for a fence along the border, the military commissions compromise, warrantless wiretapping and much more. While he is not from the GOP tax-cutting mold, he was the only Democrat who voted for all four articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton in 1998.
Gene Taylor is a devout Roman Catholic representing a Southern-Baptist-dominated slice of Red-State America. He did not vote for Nancy Pelosi for majority leader. Last week, Michael Barone (in this post) raised this question: If the Democrats pick up exactly 15 seats (a possibility), which would give them, theoretically, a one-seat majority, What Will Gene Taylor Do?
More info: Voting record courtesy of the Washington Post and Gene Taylor's official House site.
Most "scary movies" I dislike. They are what I think of as "shockers": the visual equivalent of jumping out of the dark and yelling BOO!, or worse, "gorefests" that shock in the same way the sight of a bad car wreck with its blood and death grabs the attention and causes the audrenaline to pump. To these movies I say, So what.
I do like "suspense" movies: the kind that induce sustained apprehension, like Jaws. And I like "weird" movies, that mess with my mind, challenge my thinking and perceptions, and disturb me at a deep level. Like The Exorcist. But mostly, I think the realm of The Weird is better done in literature.
So this Halloween, if you must watch a movie, I recommend The Exorcist, or the original 1925 Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney, or perhaps the 1922 Nosferatu, or maybe the 1932 The Mummy with Boris Karloff, or if you can find it the 1932 Freaks.
But, I recommend you read this Halloween. (more below)
I do like "suspense" movies: the kind that induce sustained apprehension, like Jaws. And I like "weird" movies, that mess with my mind, challenge my thinking and perceptions, and disturb me at a deep level. Like The Exorcist. But mostly, I think the realm of The Weird is better done in literature.
So this Halloween, if you must watch a movie, I recommend The Exorcist, or the original 1925 Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney, or perhaps the 1922 Nosferatu, or maybe the 1932 The Mummy with Boris Karloff, or if you can find it the 1932 Freaks.
But, I recommend you read this Halloween. (more below)
I went to the Wal-Mart on Friday night. For all of you who do not share my admiration for Wal-Mart as the ultimate place to meet America, we must continue to agree to disagree. It is often a happy place, as it was on this visit. It was approximately eight o'clock in the evening, and it was pay-day, and it was wall-to-wall families of every color with raptured expressions on their faces. The joy was contagious. Although I went in for something simple, I caught the fever (it was pay-day for me too). I walked out with "treats" for the whole family, cheap DVDs, a CD for the kids, a magazine for my wife and something for me: "Merle Haggard: 24 All-Time Greatest Hits."
I own quite a bit of Merle, but this one is special. This offering from "TeeVee Records" showcased "country's greatest singer/songwriter," claiming to feature all the "songs that made him a legend." There he was on the cover, perhaps early-to-mid-1970s Merle, hard-eyed and chiseled, bearded, hairline just beginning to recede--but still jet black.
Hey hey, the working man, the working man like me
I ain't never been on welfare, that's one place I won't be
Cause I'll be working long as my two hands are fit to use
I drink a little beer in a tavern
Sing a little bit of these working man blues
Once this election passes, I intend to consider the American electorate at a crossroads. Who we are. Where we want to go. How the Democratic Party lost us. Can they get us back? Why the GOP seemed to understand us but now seems incapable of sealing the deal. Part of the answer of who we are lies in country music (American music). Why the hicks from the sticks lost faith with the Dixie Chicks. How President Bush missed an opportunity to call the Toby Keith/Martina McBride generation to national service.
Finally, on Sunday afternoon, I had the chance to listen to the Merle CD. Driving along Waco Drive, crossing the Brazos River Bridge into East Waco, I listened to:
I own quite a bit of Merle, but this one is special. This offering from "TeeVee Records" showcased "country's greatest singer/songwriter," claiming to feature all the "songs that made him a legend." There he was on the cover, perhaps early-to-mid-1970s Merle, hard-eyed and chiseled, bearded, hairline just beginning to recede--but still jet black.
Hey hey, the working man, the working man like me
I ain't never been on welfare, that's one place I won't be
Cause I'll be working long as my two hands are fit to use
I drink a little beer in a tavern
Sing a little bit of these working man blues
Once this election passes, I intend to consider the American electorate at a crossroads. Who we are. Where we want to go. How the Democratic Party lost us. Can they get us back? Why the GOP seemed to understand us but now seems incapable of sealing the deal. Part of the answer of who we are lies in country music (American music). Why the hicks from the sticks lost faith with the Dixie Chicks. How President Bush missed an opportunity to call the Toby Keith/Martina McBride generation to national service.
Finally, on Sunday afternoon, I had the chance to listen to the Merle CD. Driving along Waco Drive, crossing the Brazos River Bridge into East Waco, I listened to:
Some quick thoughts on the GOP ad against Harold Ford in Tennessee:
The ad itself (view here):
If you have not seen the ad (which is highly unlikely), the spot features a series of staged and silly man-on-the-street interviews in which ostensibly common Tennessee voters react to Democratic senatorial candidate Harold Ford.
The ad itself is "campy." I cannot imagine any voter actually mistaking the actors for real people. Some of the gags are actually funny. My favorite is the camouflaged hunter who says: "Ford's right. I do have too many guns."
Of course, the bit that has everyone talking is the squeaky-voiced blonde who claims she "met Harold at the Playboy Club." Then, in the tag, she winks into the camera and whispers, "Harold, call me."
The flap:
Are the Republicans playing on racism in the closing days of the Tennessee canvass? A contest in which more than one pundit has wondered whether this moderately conservative Upper South state was actually capable of sending a handsome black man to the United States Senate. The answer, at this point, is too close to call.
Is this ad racist?
On the Friday political roundup (transcript) on The Newshour, Mark Shields succinctly articulated the consensus reaction of people (mostly Democrats--but certainly not exclusively so) who felt the ad crossed the boundaries of acceptability in American politics:
"[Y]ou've got the blonde girl, and there's a second one where she's topless -- you can't see anything she has on -- and, "Harold, call me," that's playing to one of the atavistic, base fears of the Mandingo black man who's after our white daughters. And that is very much implicit in this ad."
What was the GOP really going for?
Did the Republicans really need to remind Tennessee voters that Ford was African American? It was not like when the Kerry-Edwards team went to great pains in 2004 to make sure that President Bush's socially conservative supporters knew that Vice President Cheney had a gay daughter, whom, evidently, he still loved and had not shunned from the family. Presumably, every person in Tennessee who would vote against Ford for being black knows he is black and is reacting accordingly.
I tend to agree with Rich Lowry, who made the rounds yesterday on NPR and PBS (on the Newshour with Shields) making this point:
"I think [it] was very effective. I don't think it had anything to do with race. I think...it had to do with God and church, because Harold Ford has been running a brilliant, almost flawless campaign in Tennessee, partly based on the idea that he's a choir boy who wants to do nothing else but be in those church pews.
"And the Republicans wanted to get him talking about going to a Playboy party, which is not a big sin in the scheme of things, but it complicates his message. And he has had to address it now. He has been on the defensive responding to an ad which is never a good thing in a campaign."
What about the politics?
The race debate among the Democrats and Republicans is not directed at African Americans or white racists. There is no constituency more faithful to the Democratic Party than African Americans. No need to remind them to vote Democratic. Conversely, most of the Southern racists have been flushed out of the Democratic Party long ago. The ones who remain (a few blue-collar unionists, for example) are resigned to holding their noses and accepting their offensive African-American coalition partners.
The race debate is usually about appealing to conservative-leaning but fair-minded white voters, who are not comfortable with virulent racists. These voters, many of whom are religious people, would not accept an appeal to ancient Southern fears such as Mark Shields described. This explains why the Republicans retreated so quickly in the face of that "racist" criticism. The GOP cannot afford the appearance of impropriety in this regard.
Do GOP ads sometimes appeal to racial stereotypes? Yes. The Willie Horton ad (view here) recognized that many white voters believed that the violent-offender portion of your average prison population was disproportionately black. The famous Jesse Helms ad (view here) in which white hands crumpled a rejection letter because, as the voice over says, "they had to give that job to a minority," played on a belief about quotas commonly held among regular folk. Actually, I would argue that both of those ads were fair game. They both dealt with serious issues and illustrated real positions held by their opponents. Michael Dukakis did sign weekend passes; Harvey Gantt actually favored racial quotas as a way of advancing Affirmative Action.
The Harold Ford ad is much less racial than the ads against Dukakis and Gantt. It is also much less substantive and much more whimsical.
The Ford ad controversy is more about the opposition attempting to characterize the GOP as racists nationally than it is the GOP appealing to racist fears in Tennessee.
The ad itself (view here):
If you have not seen the ad (which is highly unlikely), the spot features a series of staged and silly man-on-the-street interviews in which ostensibly common Tennessee voters react to Democratic senatorial candidate Harold Ford.
The ad itself is "campy." I cannot imagine any voter actually mistaking the actors for real people. Some of the gags are actually funny. My favorite is the camouflaged hunter who says: "Ford's right. I do have too many guns."
Of course, the bit that has everyone talking is the squeaky-voiced blonde who claims she "met Harold at the Playboy Club." Then, in the tag, she winks into the camera and whispers, "Harold, call me."
The flap:
Are the Republicans playing on racism in the closing days of the Tennessee canvass? A contest in which more than one pundit has wondered whether this moderately conservative Upper South state was actually capable of sending a handsome black man to the United States Senate. The answer, at this point, is too close to call.
Is this ad racist?
On the Friday political roundup (transcript) on The Newshour, Mark Shields succinctly articulated the consensus reaction of people (mostly Democrats--but certainly not exclusively so) who felt the ad crossed the boundaries of acceptability in American politics:
"[Y]ou've got the blonde girl, and there's a second one where she's topless -- you can't see anything she has on -- and, "Harold, call me," that's playing to one of the atavistic, base fears of the Mandingo black man who's after our white daughters. And that is very much implicit in this ad."
What was the GOP really going for?
Did the Republicans really need to remind Tennessee voters that Ford was African American? It was not like when the Kerry-Edwards team went to great pains in 2004 to make sure that President Bush's socially conservative supporters knew that Vice President Cheney had a gay daughter, whom, evidently, he still loved and had not shunned from the family. Presumably, every person in Tennessee who would vote against Ford for being black knows he is black and is reacting accordingly.
I tend to agree with Rich Lowry, who made the rounds yesterday on NPR and PBS (on the Newshour with Shields) making this point:
"I think [it] was very effective. I don't think it had anything to do with race. I think...it had to do with God and church, because Harold Ford has been running a brilliant, almost flawless campaign in Tennessee, partly based on the idea that he's a choir boy who wants to do nothing else but be in those church pews.
"And the Republicans wanted to get him talking about going to a Playboy party, which is not a big sin in the scheme of things, but it complicates his message. And he has had to address it now. He has been on the defensive responding to an ad which is never a good thing in a campaign."
What about the politics?
The race debate among the Democrats and Republicans is not directed at African Americans or white racists. There is no constituency more faithful to the Democratic Party than African Americans. No need to remind them to vote Democratic. Conversely, most of the Southern racists have been flushed out of the Democratic Party long ago. The ones who remain (a few blue-collar unionists, for example) are resigned to holding their noses and accepting their offensive African-American coalition partners.
The race debate is usually about appealing to conservative-leaning but fair-minded white voters, who are not comfortable with virulent racists. These voters, many of whom are religious people, would not accept an appeal to ancient Southern fears such as Mark Shields described. This explains why the Republicans retreated so quickly in the face of that "racist" criticism. The GOP cannot afford the appearance of impropriety in this regard.
Do GOP ads sometimes appeal to racial stereotypes? Yes. The Willie Horton ad (view here) recognized that many white voters believed that the violent-offender portion of your average prison population was disproportionately black. The famous Jesse Helms ad (view here) in which white hands crumpled a rejection letter because, as the voice over says, "they had to give that job to a minority," played on a belief about quotas commonly held among regular folk. Actually, I would argue that both of those ads were fair game. They both dealt with serious issues and illustrated real positions held by their opponents. Michael Dukakis did sign weekend passes; Harvey Gantt actually favored racial quotas as a way of advancing Affirmative Action.
The Harold Ford ad is much less racial than the ads against Dukakis and Gantt. It is also much less substantive and much more whimsical.
The Ford ad controversy is more about the opposition attempting to characterize the GOP as racists nationally than it is the GOP appealing to racist fears in Tennessee.
28/10: On the European Front
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Absolute multiculturalism in Britain questioned by unlikely figures. From TCS Daily. Here Hat tip Instapundit.
In the last few days in Britain, three events have caused what was already a small crack in the paper-thin edifice of "multiculturalism" in Britain to widen to a noticeable fissure.
Muslims revolting in France. From Worldtribune. Here. Hat tip Jihadwatch.
"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists," said Michel Thoomis, secretary general of the Action Police trade union. "This is not a question of urban violence any more. It is an intifada, with stones and firebombs."
The French Interior Ministry has acknowledged the Muslim uprising. The ministry said more than 2,500 police officers have been injured in 2006. This amounts to at least 14 officers each day.
The battles have been under-reported but alarming to French authorities. Muslim street commanders, who run lucrative drug networks, have organized youngsters in housing projects to ambush police and confront security forces. The response time allows hundreds of Muslims to storm police cars and patrols within minutes.
. . . .
France's huge Muslim minority community has come under the influence of agents often influenced and financed by Al Qaida. These agents have recruited Muslim youngsters for urban warfare in which police and government representatives are injured daily.
Not surprisingly, Muslim neighborhoods are becoming autonomous zones, with police and government workers too scared to enter. The police union is demanding the Interior Ministry supply officers with armored cars.
Paging Charles Martel and Richard the Lion-Hearted.
In the last few days in Britain, three events have caused what was already a small crack in the paper-thin edifice of "multiculturalism" in Britain to widen to a noticeable fissure.
Muslims revolting in France. From Worldtribune. Here. Hat tip Jihadwatch.
"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists," said Michel Thoomis, secretary general of the Action Police trade union. "This is not a question of urban violence any more. It is an intifada, with stones and firebombs."
The French Interior Ministry has acknowledged the Muslim uprising. The ministry said more than 2,500 police officers have been injured in 2006. This amounts to at least 14 officers each day.
The battles have been under-reported but alarming to French authorities. Muslim street commanders, who run lucrative drug networks, have organized youngsters in housing projects to ambush police and confront security forces. The response time allows hundreds of Muslims to storm police cars and patrols within minutes.
. . . .
France's huge Muslim minority community has come under the influence of agents often influenced and financed by Al Qaida. These agents have recruited Muslim youngsters for urban warfare in which police and government representatives are injured daily.
Not surprisingly, Muslim neighborhoods are becoming autonomous zones, with police and government workers too scared to enter. The police union is demanding the Interior Ministry supply officers with armored cars.
Paging Charles Martel and Richard the Lion-Hearted.
27/10: Camille Paglia Speaks
My favorite atheist Democrat cultural observer (no, really) has an interview in Salon covering Democrats, Republicans, Mark Foley, the media and about anything else her brilliant mind chooses to dissect. She is always worth reading.
Guest Blog
A few weeks ago, Bosque Boys friend, Gossenius, traveled to the nation's capital to witness arguments before the Supreme Court pertaining to his legal specialty, sentencing. I asked him to reflect on his experience for us. Thank you, Gossenisus, for this excellent piece, which is both meaningful and provocative.
We are in sad need of a little majesty. I say that as someone who usually eschews formality, and who is grateful that we live in a democracy and not in a monarchy of any sort, with the false elevation of an individual by the mere accident of birth.
What a little majesty can counteract, however, is the farce that our government has become. The legislature has been reduced to a crude reality show, with the driving motivation being to hurt the other side and to grab as much money off the conveyer belt of taxation to earmark for your own. The presidency has now been damaged by undeserved arrogance for four consecutive terms, held by two men who commonly betray not an ounce of humility even while pronouncing to all the importance of their Christianity.
What neither the legislative nor the executive branch gives us is a particular, necessary form of majesty—that of actual debate and consideration of an issue, where the people speak to the government as a sovereign of which they are a part. People in our country are kept away from their political leaders but for discussing superficialities, we have no question time in our Parliament, and our leaders’ public moments seem thoroughly bled of spontaneity and humanity.
There is still some majesty, though; we do still have the Supreme Court. I had the privilege of witnessing the Court in action for the first time two weeks ago, as they heard arguments in the case of Cunningham v. California, which involved the constitutionality of the California sentencing system. I was able to get a ticket to sit up front from Justice Souter’s chambers, close enough to smell the attorney’s fear.
The Supreme Court’s courtroom is not large. I have argued cases in four federal Courts of Appeal, and many of those rooms were about the same size. Nor is the décor of particular note; ornate carvings and huge draperies are pretty much the norm for appellate courts. What sets the Supreme Court apart is something more subtle: An aura of gravity reflected in the solemn movements of the marshals, the dress of the visitors (coat and tie were the norm), and the air of anticipation as the hour approached.
That air of solemnity became more pronounced as people took their places. The invited guests of the Justices sit to the right, the press to the left. Nina Totenberg arrived, and warmly greeted some of her colleagues. On the benches with me, I recognized a few other professors and sentencing specialists. There was a hush as the attorneys arguing the case swept into the room, clutching folders as they settled into the front desks. A respectful silence settled into the room for the next five minutes as we all waited anxiously for the arrival of the Justices.
And in they came, on the traditional call of “Oyez, oyez!” It almost seemed like we should applaud, the entrance was so grand. But it was not that kind of show. The Appellant approached the podium, and we were off.
It was quickly apparent that there is a reason that these guys (and Ginsburg) have risen to the level of the Supreme Court. Their exchange was witty, biting, informed, and meaningful. It was, in short, the best and most intense exchange of ideas on the topic I have heard in any forum. The attorneys almost faded into the background as the justices took on one another. The brightest minds seemed to be the ageless Stevens and uproariously brilliant Scalia, who is more entertaining (and probably smarter) than anyone you will see analyzing the things that he says. Even those of us who work in the field, who know the issues, who interact through scholarship with the Court, seemed taken aback by their ferocious attack of the issues.
At one point, Scalia, Stevens, and Roberts were finishing one another’s sentences, trading off policy considerations in a furious shorthand: “[Scalia] We could say the middle option is presumptively reasonable… [Stevens] Or we could require jury findings… [Roberts] Which could lead to a half-dozen jury trials in every case.” It was better than football.
Oh, you can complain all you want about “legislating from the bench,” but that is hardly a partisan issue. If you want to see some amazing judicial legislation, tune in for next week’s argument in Phillip Morris USA v. Williams, in which your heroes of the Right will want to judicially impose caps on punitive damages—something that seems to be well within the authority of Oregon’s legislature. The Court is and will be a check on the other branches of the government, and the mechanism is sometimes as rough and crude as the wrestling we see between the other branches. But the spectacle of it, the competing wisdoms on display—let’s not let that go too easily in a nation hungry for something with both grit and meaning.
Gossenius
A few weeks ago, Bosque Boys friend, Gossenius, traveled to the nation's capital to witness arguments before the Supreme Court pertaining to his legal specialty, sentencing. I asked him to reflect on his experience for us. Thank you, Gossenisus, for this excellent piece, which is both meaningful and provocative.
We are in sad need of a little majesty. I say that as someone who usually eschews formality, and who is grateful that we live in a democracy and not in a monarchy of any sort, with the false elevation of an individual by the mere accident of birth.
What a little majesty can counteract, however, is the farce that our government has become. The legislature has been reduced to a crude reality show, with the driving motivation being to hurt the other side and to grab as much money off the conveyer belt of taxation to earmark for your own. The presidency has now been damaged by undeserved arrogance for four consecutive terms, held by two men who commonly betray not an ounce of humility even while pronouncing to all the importance of their Christianity.
What neither the legislative nor the executive branch gives us is a particular, necessary form of majesty—that of actual debate and consideration of an issue, where the people speak to the government as a sovereign of which they are a part. People in our country are kept away from their political leaders but for discussing superficialities, we have no question time in our Parliament, and our leaders’ public moments seem thoroughly bled of spontaneity and humanity.
There is still some majesty, though; we do still have the Supreme Court. I had the privilege of witnessing the Court in action for the first time two weeks ago, as they heard arguments in the case of Cunningham v. California, which involved the constitutionality of the California sentencing system. I was able to get a ticket to sit up front from Justice Souter’s chambers, close enough to smell the attorney’s fear.
The Supreme Court’s courtroom is not large. I have argued cases in four federal Courts of Appeal, and many of those rooms were about the same size. Nor is the décor of particular note; ornate carvings and huge draperies are pretty much the norm for appellate courts. What sets the Supreme Court apart is something more subtle: An aura of gravity reflected in the solemn movements of the marshals, the dress of the visitors (coat and tie were the norm), and the air of anticipation as the hour approached.
That air of solemnity became more pronounced as people took their places. The invited guests of the Justices sit to the right, the press to the left. Nina Totenberg arrived, and warmly greeted some of her colleagues. On the benches with me, I recognized a few other professors and sentencing specialists. There was a hush as the attorneys arguing the case swept into the room, clutching folders as they settled into the front desks. A respectful silence settled into the room for the next five minutes as we all waited anxiously for the arrival of the Justices.
And in they came, on the traditional call of “Oyez, oyez!” It almost seemed like we should applaud, the entrance was so grand. But it was not that kind of show. The Appellant approached the podium, and we were off.
It was quickly apparent that there is a reason that these guys (and Ginsburg) have risen to the level of the Supreme Court. Their exchange was witty, biting, informed, and meaningful. It was, in short, the best and most intense exchange of ideas on the topic I have heard in any forum. The attorneys almost faded into the background as the justices took on one another. The brightest minds seemed to be the ageless Stevens and uproariously brilliant Scalia, who is more entertaining (and probably smarter) than anyone you will see analyzing the things that he says. Even those of us who work in the field, who know the issues, who interact through scholarship with the Court, seemed taken aback by their ferocious attack of the issues.
At one point, Scalia, Stevens, and Roberts were finishing one another’s sentences, trading off policy considerations in a furious shorthand: “[Scalia] We could say the middle option is presumptively reasonable… [Stevens] Or we could require jury findings… [Roberts] Which could lead to a half-dozen jury trials in every case.” It was better than football.
Oh, you can complain all you want about “legislating from the bench,” but that is hardly a partisan issue. If you want to see some amazing judicial legislation, tune in for next week’s argument in Phillip Morris USA v. Williams, in which your heroes of the Right will want to judicially impose caps on punitive damages—something that seems to be well within the authority of Oregon’s legislature. The Court is and will be a check on the other branches of the government, and the mechanism is sometimes as rough and crude as the wrestling we see between the other branches. But the spectacle of it, the competing wisdoms on display—let’s not let that go too easily in a nation hungry for something with both grit and meaning.
Gossenius
