Friday, August 12, 2005

The 19th Amendment: Pointless?

Just thought I would share this lovely perception on the inherent flaws in the 19th Amendment. I was cruising the web, checking out some lovely Dominionist and Kinist sites when I found it. You should read the whole article from Vision Forum Ministries concerning the need to return to patriarchy. I think it is quite enlightening. I know that I was converted. Just don't tell my wife.

In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh”and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.

You know, this country DID start going downhill when those women got the right to vote. Now excuse me. It's my turn to do the dishes and laundry. (Crossposted by Bostondreamer at FloridaBlues)

Gay Adoptions: The Next Gay Marriage?

The newest issue of the libertarian mag, Reason, has a great article on the increasing trend toward restricting the rights of gay couples to adopt children. The whole article is worth a read, but the closing paragraph, authored by Reason editor Julian Sanchez, is killer:

Better still, they could visit Florida and ask a child in foster care which makes him feel more threatened: the thought of being raised by homosexuals, or the prospect of an indefinite number of years spent passing through an indefinite number of homes. They could ask whether “family values” are best served by attempting to marginalize gay couples who raise families, by “protecting” abused or sick children from people who want to give them a home, by forcing parents to worry whether they’ll have the legal authority to bring their kids to the hospital in an emergency. They could ask Charlie.
Read the article to learn just who this Charlie is, and for more examples of complete insensitivity, such as this doozy:

In 2003, as he introduced a bill to ban gay foster parenting, Texas legislator Robert Talton (R-Pasadena) told the state’s House of Representatives: “If it was me I would rather [leave] kids in orphanages as such—this is where they are now if they’re not fostered out. At least they have a chance of learning the proper values.”

Excuse the language, but what an asshole.
(Crossposted by Bostondreamer at FloridaBlues)

Bizzaro Hillary and the Mob

Bad news for the NYGOP, if this story is in the least bit accurate. From the Daily News:

Jeanine Pirro declared "I have taken on the mob" when she announced her run for U.S. Senate this week, but she could have said "I have taken from the mob."

The Westchester District Attorney pocketed nearly $12,000 in campaign checks from firms and associates with alleged links to organized crime, the Daily News has found.

A review of campaign and court records shows at least six donors with ties to mob families who've contributed to Pirro since 2003. That casts a shadow on Pirro, who's basing her run against Sen. Hillary Clinton in part on her reputation as a tough prosecutor.

On top of that, the same article reports that Pirro's husband discussed a case of her's with a mobbed up contractor. Not good. Now, I'm not exactly Hillary's biggest fan, but I am glad to see that the NYGOP continues to shoot itself in the foot. Or insists on wearing concrete galoshes, in this case.
I listened to part of Pirro's interview on Hannity (shiver) the other day as I was trying to drill a hole in my head...I mean driving... and it occured to me why the NYGOP wants her to run: she is the Bizzaro Hillary! I mean really: both women, both lawyers, both married to men that do stupid things, both rising stars (or risen, in Hillary's case) in their respective parties. Yup, from now on, Jeanine Pirro will be known as Bizzaro Hillary, the dim mirror image of SuperHillary. At least by me. Maybe it will catch on.
(Crossposted by Bostondreamer at FloridaBlues)

Young Young Earthers, New Old Headaches

So, the school year has begun, and I have something that I have never had to deal with before in my classroom: vocal young earth creationists. Not IDers. Young Earthers. I am about to begin a discussion of the Origins of Man and the rise of civilizations. Can any readers recommend any sites or articles that might be appropriate for 10th graders concerning the validity of anthropological and archaeological research (they asked me for proof about dating methods today!). Also, um, it needs to be written in such a way that I can present it without getting fired. I am currently perusing The Panda's Thumb for some help, but I have feeling that that will not be enough.
(Crossposted by Bostondreamer at FloridaBlues)

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Update: Hell is other people...especially upset students

The first week of school has been hell. I'll update once things are settled down (this weekend).

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Breaking News: The ACLU May Not Be Evil!

Eugene Volokh of the libertarian lawyer blog 'The Volokh Conspiracy' has a thoughtful, eloquent, and somewhat passionate defense of the ACLU against those who argue that that organization is pro-terrorist, anti-American, and makes a practice of filing frivolous lawsuits. Volokh argues that
In fact, my sense is that most of the criticism that the ACLU faces comes because their arguments are too successful -- not only nonfrivolous, but actually ones that win in court. If the ACLU only filed complaints that were such clear losers to be frivolous, they wouldn't much bother people: At most, they'd waste some government lawyers' time, but since government entities tend to have lawyers on salary (and generally not very high salary), they wouldn't even waste much government money. In those frivolous cases, the government would fight the ACLU, win (by definition, since if the government lost, the case wouldn't be frivolous), and even get sanctions against the ACLU.
Later in the post, Volokh says that while he disagrees with many of the positions of the ACLU on certain issues, it is simply wrong to throw around misleading labels when arguing against them.(emphasis mine)
But stop calling them "criminal" for exercising their constitutional rights. Stop calling their lawsuits "frivolous" when the lawsuits bother you precisely because they may well prevail. Stop calling them "pro-terrorist" when there's absolutely no reason to think that they indeed favor terrorism, and lots of reason to think that they favor (whether soundly or misguidedly) legal rules -- such as limits on government power to search -- that unfortunately sometimes protect terrorists while at the same time protecting law-abiding citizens. (It's far from clear to me that random searches are going to do much good at stopping suicide bombers, or that bans on random searches will help terrorists; but I acknowledge that some constitutional rules that the ACLU defends do at times protect terrorists as well as protecting law-abiding citizens.)
He finishes his defense of the ACLU with a strong and, I think, well put argument about what the REAL problem between the ACLU and its most vocal detractors actually is (emphasis mine):
What is in question here, indeed, is "the definition of freedom." There is lots of room for good faith disagreement about the scope of our freedoms. But that some people have a broader view than you do -- whether it relates to the right to bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel, the right to spend one's money for political causes -- doesn't make them criminals, doesn't make them pro-criminal or pro-terrorist, and doesn't make their arguments frivolous.
There is, as Volokh points out in later posts on the ACLU here and here, a common misperception that the ACLU is this monolithic liberal entity intent on crushing Christian expression, conservative thought, and advancing a liberal, anti-American agenda. I think that perhaps the ACLU needs to do a better job of publicizing the fact that it has actually worked to defend the rights of ALL Americans, defending the right of a student to wear a pro-NRA t-shirt and condemning campus speech codes, for example. Arguments like Volokh's, a figure of some significance in the legal circles of the conservative blogosphere, will go a long way to perhaps cleaning up the image of the ACLU. Yes, it may continue to take on silly cases (such as removing the tiny cross from a city seal), but it does far more good than harm in the defense of American freedoms. As Volokh argues, you are free to criticize the goals of specific ACLU-backed lawsuits, but to question the groups motivation is just uncalled for.
(Crossposted by Bostondreamer at Floridablues)
< Blogarama