| HOLY SHIT. |
[Nov. 5th, 2008|12:42 pm] |
History. History. Pure History!
I have no words. |
|
|
| Election! |
[Nov. 5th, 2008|10:09 am] |
I have had my doubts about the voters' judgment, but it looks like America might just get it right this time. Even if it is four years late.
GO PA!!!!
I am so excited about this election that it feels bizarre and flatout wrong to me that instead of being out at a bar with a rowdy and enthusiastic crew of Americans cheering as the results roll in, I'm sitting in the office on Nov 5th morning trying to get my day's legal research started.
Next election, though, things will be different. I've made a personal promise to myself that I WILL be in the thick of the action.
|
|
|
| A link |
[Mar. 17th, 2006|10:26 pm] |
divisadero has a brief but thought-provoking and touching post about those who engage in community/social/public-interest work. Please read it if you have the time. |
|
|
| State of the Union Address |
[Feb. 1st, 2006|03:14 pm] |
| [ | Tags | | | politics | ] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| | content | ] |
Thanks to Ambivalent Imbroglio's post on the State of the Union Address, I found this doing the rounds on the internets. I missed the speech, deliberately, but it was good to read a brief summary, especially when it was so alluringly smattered with a good dose of humour. Another year, another SOTU. Status quo reigns supreme. |
|
|
| Do you sodomize your wife? |
[Jan. 31st, 2006|04:13 pm] |
That was the question that a gay NYU student posed to Justice Scalia sometime in September of 2005. Scalia refused to answer. The conservatives rejoiced that a gay person committed such an outrage that their bigotry now had some basis. The liberals thought the questioner was acting improperly, thereby hurting his own cause. In fact, everyone had an opinion about Eric Brandt's question to a mighty Justice.
Here, Eric Brandt addresses those opinions and explains his question. I respect Brandt for the maturity and clarity with which he writes that piece. |
|
|
| All hail... |
[Jan. 31st, 2006|12:56 pm] |
In a totally unsurprising move, the Senate today voted to confirm Alito as the 110th Supreme Court Justice. A lot of people are upset by this confirmation, most of them, women. Alito's stance on abortion is definitely catholic, meaning irrational and religious. You would think that a nation that spells out the dichotomy between religion and politics wouldn't want a Supreme Court Justice, appointed for life, who would decide based on his/her religious beliefs. But this is no longer that same nation. It has been hijacked by the current administration. Yes, the same administration that has strenuously sought to defraud its citizens, rape the middle east (although, frankly, the middle east, for all its fundamentalistic notions about virtue and chastity, was never a virgin), fuck its middle and lower classes, and play global bully whenever it has some time to spare. But, and here I want to emphasise, what I feel and think about this administration is in no way my impressions about this country. Like I was telling 3L last night, the only problem I have with the whole wiretapping scandal is that it was done by this administration. Under any other President, I would have understood it and perhaps, even respected it. But the current administration smacks of sleaze that anything it does that violates the Constitution has me think negatively about it.
Similarly, my position on abortion is ambivalent. I don't think there is anything immoral about it; nor do I think it should be advocated and continued shackes-free. To the extent that there is (scientific & medical) doubt as to when life starts, I will always view abortion with some suspicion. Abortion, to me, is a necessary evil. Till the time there is inequity in the quality and level of education people receive about sex and contraception, abortion must be legal. You cannot just preach abstinence and say some shit about contraception and expect people to blindly follow. If you want that, as a nation, you should be in the middle east. Blind faith cannot exist in a democracy where free speech is a cornerstone. Blind faith is exactly what people like Osama and Hussein advocate and expect. If you are going to be at war with fundamentalists such as those two and justify that war partially by saying that you want to spread democracy, for heaven's sake, practise what you preach! This is a society where there is free intermingling of the sexes, and where privacy is considered sacred. Given that, there is bound to be a free flow of hormones and people are going to act on them, especially so if proper sex-ed isn't conducted.
My bottom-line is that unless sex-ed is improved, drastically, and religion is driven to the ground, where it belongs, abortion should always be legal in a democracy. I would love to see the day where abortion is no longer necessary, except for rape and health reasons. |
|
|
| What I learn in school |
[Nov. 10th, 2005|09:50 am] |
Sorry for the silence. I seem to have misplaced my computer power supply & so haven't been online much. Thank goodness for kind folks in law school - I looked around for another IBM-user & found a total stranger sitting behind me with one. So a minute before class, I went up & asked if I could borrow his power supply for the duration of the class. He was very very helpful and let me have it. Thank god, really! If I'd had to take notes by hand, I would've missed half the things of importance. This morning, I borrowed Temple Law's laptop (they use IBM too), so that I could use their power supply. Hence this post.
I realise I haven't mentioned Alito since he was nominated. That situation cannot continue. As an engaged law student (lying online doesn't count, does it?), I read a couple of articles on Alito, and I have to say, I'm not so disturbed as others seem to be about his nomination. He seems to be a centrist, and I think, in the days where we seem to meet party-loyalists, a Supreme Court Justice ought to be a centrist. It would be good for the country and its ((currently bitter) politics. He voted to let muslim police officers keep their beards, and this was in the days following 9/11. He voted to grant asylum to muslim women-feminists from Iraq & Iran because he firmly believed in women's rights. Granted, he voted to overturn PA's law on abortion in that he required women to notify their husbands before getting an abortion, but that really doesn't bother me quite as much. As much as I am pro-choice, it's not that he was saying women should get their husband's permission, just that they should notify the bloke who was 50% responsible for the wife's condition.
But one particular ruling doesn't quite sit well with me - or maybe I just don't understand it. He ruled that tribes in Florida couldn't use paoti in their religious rituals despite it being part of their custom. Now, the law allows for minors in Christian households to be given alcohol as part of the Christian tradition of drinking Jesus' blood (so macabre!!). So why is using paoti for the very same religious reasons wrong?! I don't like Alito's views on religion; I don't like anyone's religious views if that means their religion gets priority and other religions get the shaft. But other than that, I think Alito's a fine choice and I'm pretty sure he'll be one of the nine shortly.
I was in my Affirmative Action class the other day, and were discussing a case where the court stated that for any institution to discriminate against anyone and use affirmative action as the enablign instument, that institution should have itself directly discriminated against minorities to do so. Basically, the court said that if (for instance) SEPTA wants to take in more African Americans and therefore, discriminate against the whites to achieve this, SEPTA should prove that it, in the past, discriminated against the blacks and employed whites. And this has proved very difficult for a few reasons, which I shall not go into right now. But while we were on this issue, and people were going back and forth on the court's (lack of) reasoning, this one student made a (in my opinion) a BRILLIANT observation. She said that the court is essentially being asked to do right by one group of people: the blacks and the whites. The court is saying that although white enslaved the blacks for so long, for society to make things right for that grave injustice, the blacks should prove that they were discriminated against. The court says that if we allow this kind of affirmative action, the whites' rights are violated. So the blacks, once again, have to sacrifice even though they are sacrificing ensure whites' well-being. When the whites were the one who caused the blacks to be in the position they are in at present.
I'm not saying it as well as she did, but it was such a profound and insightful observation. I was blown away. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| |
|
|