Social equality should not mean that blacks can take pride in any part of history they choose (even if their self-proclaimed leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Malcolm X were murderers), whereas whites can only honor those parts of history which minorities and the Left deem politically correct.
However, racism towards the South continues to exist and does not appear to be going away anytime soon. It is no wonder that the Left is so prejudiced towards the South: it’s conservative, Christian, traditionalist, and resistant to cultural revolution. In other words, Southern attitudes stand in the way of Leftists’ agendas. Thus, as usual, the Left finds it necessary to censor the South or berate it into submission by throwing guilt at its people.
As I was leaving the couple’s house that night in New Orleans the professor warned me, “If the Left succeeds in removing the Confederate Battle Flag from the public sphere they will no doubt declare war against another emblem of American history: Old Glory herself.”
Indeed; by attacking the symbol of a slaveholding elite that launched a war intended to destroy the United States, we are ourselves anti-American. Oh, and racist.
Without calling for restrictions such as parental consent laws, Wallis believes that if the Democrats were to alter their abortion platform, it could help them make inroads among young evangelicals and Catholics.
“Taking abortion seriously as a moral issue would help Democrats a great deal with a constituency that is already leaning in their direction on poverty and the environment,” said Wallis. “There are literally millions of votes at stake.”
Wallis expects us to believe that there is a substantial bloc of voters who 1)care enough about abortion to vote against Democrats they would otherwise support because of abortion, and 2)will switch back despite no change in the party’s substantive positions if Democratic rhetoric just becomes even more mealy-mouthed when defending reproductive freedom. Since this is implausible in the extreme, and I’ve never seen the slightest bit of evidence to support it, I see little reason to take this seriously.
In addition, even if this mythical group of single-issue-anti-abortion-voters-who-don’t-care-about-abortion-policy existed, there are potential strategic (as well as normative) costs to Wallis’ strategy. Shouldn’t we consider the many voters who have had abortions and don’t appreciate people like Wallis implying that they did something grossly immoral? In addition, as even Amy Sullivan has conceded McCain’s entirely unearned reputation for moderation on the abortion issue seems to be worth a significant number of votes. The Democrats would be much better off emphasizing McCain’s extensive history of unpopular anti-abortion extremism (including support for the draconian ban in South Dakota) than further muddling their position to chase after unicorns.
Stories like this make Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s jobs too easy.
Larry Craig and David Vitter have just co-sponsored the “Marriage Protection Amendment” — a law that would “protect” the sacred institution that is heterosexual marriage. An institution they have so honored.
I shit you not.
Ah, I just love the hypocrisy of the Republican party.
I have to agree with Noah; the evidence for inter-service tension between the Army and the Air Force in this article is largely inferential. Shanker relates some anecdotes about Army frustration with the performance of the Air Force, notes that the Army is developing a UAV force, and concludes that the former must have brought about the latter. But of course the Army doesn’t need to be frustrated with the Air Force to seek to augment its own capabilities; the dynamics are complicated, but it’s hardly unusual for organizations to try to seize new turf and pursue greater autonomy, even absent bureaucratic tension. Moreover, Noah correctly notes that Odin (the Army UAV project) has been in the open for quite some time, in contrast to the picture that Shanker tries to paint.
As everyone is aware, I’m all for augmenting the tactical capabilities of the Army at the expense of the Air Force. However, I suspect that Shanker is inferring something that isn’t there. It’s possible that people on the inside are telling him something that he’s not relating to us, but we need to see that evidence before jumping to conclusions.
See also Peter.
There’s something of a curious disconnect between two passages of Scalia’s opinion in Heller:
After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
In other words, both Scalia and Breyer are for all intents and purposes engaged in “interest balancing.” Both are that the scope of the right to bear arms are limited by important states interests; they differ only in where they draw the line. I am inclined to believe that Scalia rather than Breyer draws it in the right place where the D.C. gun ban is concerned, but claim that Breyer’s interest-balancing is somehow unusual is odd. Especially since the majority’s balancing seems just as “free-standing” as Breyer’s.
That aside, the second passage is of course the critical one: what this decision means will be determined by how the Court applies the right in the future, and especially since the Court didn’t articulate a clear standard for evaluating future regulations we simply don’t know how this will affect more reasonable types of regulation. One could be concerned that the precedent will lie around like an, er, loaded weapon and will have much broader consequences.
Taking Scalia’s assertions at face value, though, I don’t see anything objectionable about the Court’s judgment: the D.C. gun ban is too ineffective and overbroad to justify the restriction of a constitutional right. And since I generally take the Stevens/Marshall position that dividing rights into discrete categories of scrutiny isn’t useful in itself and often fails to accurately describe what the Court actually does in practice, I’m not concerned that the Court left a lot of unanswered questions per se. Even if the Court had tried to develop a standard, the direction of the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence would be determined by future presidential elections and other political developments in any case.
Great point by Sandy Levinson:
If one had any reason to believe that either Scalia or Stevens was a competent historian, then perhaps it would be worth reading the pages they write. But they are not. Both opinions exhibit the worst kind of “law-office history,” in which each side engages in shamelessly (and shamefully) selective readings of the historical record in order to support what one strongly suspects are pre-determined positions. And both Scalia and Stevens treat each other—and, presumably, their colleagues who signed each of the opinions—with basic contempt, unable to accept the proposition, second nature to professional historians, that the historical record is complicated and, indeed, often contradictory. Justice Stevens, for example, writes that anyone who reads the text of the Second Amendment and its history, plus a murky 1939 decision of the Court, will find “a clear answer” to the question of whether the Second Amendment supports a “right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes.” This is simply foolish. Justice Stevens pays no real attention to a plethora of first-rate historical work written over the past decade that challenges this kind of foolish self-confidence, as is true also of Justice Scalia. There is no serious discussion, for example, of Saul Cornell’s fine book A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control, but many other examples could be offered, from various sides of the ideological spectrum.
Both Scalia and Stevens manifest what is worst about Supreme Court rhetoric, which is precisely the tone of sublime confidence when addressing even the most complex of issues. The late Victoria Geng once wrote a marvelous parody of Supreme Court decisions in which, among other things, the Court announced that “nature is more important than nurture.” We wouldn’t take such a declaration seriously. It is not clear why we should take much more seriously the kinds of over-confident declarations as to historical meaning that both Scalia and Stevens indulge in.
The one caveat is that I wouldn’t even say that it’s the “worst kind” of law office history; their historical analysis is actually considerably less perfunctory than most tendentious historical analysis in judicial opinions is. At any rate, it should be pretty clear that invoking originalism does little to constrain justices, not only because of irresolvable ambiguities in the historical record and the ability to use originalism’s ladder when dealing with the meaning of broad constitutional provisions, but because even on cases where a grand theory seems to produce fairly clear answers judges will ignore them if they conflict with strongly held policy preferences.
Meanwhile, Publius notes that exclusively relying on originalism would be undesirable even if it actually worked to substantially constrain judicial discretion.
So what’s happening, and why should you care? In a world increasingly inhabited by the homeless and displaced, Chad is the worst-case scenario. Nearly half a million refugees make this one of the most desperate and volatile countries in the world. Here we see the enormous human toll of the ongoing conflict in Darfur, which has expanded into proxy wars between Chad, Sudan and the Central African Republic. Refugees from all three countries have sought safety in Chad. But Chad is far from safe, and even the presence of thousands of French and E.U. troops cannot guarantee the country’s integrity. Chad is bad off. But Chad could get much much worse. We should care not just because Chad is a major oil exporter, but because this crisis could spread throughout central Africa, affecting millions.
So, I have received no small number of questions and e-mails in response to this post; here is a short explanation.
On Sunday afternoon, Davida and I rented a car and left Jerusalem for Ken Bahula, a bed and breakfast near Rosh Pinna. We arrived without incident, got settled, and began to make plans for visiting the various attractions of Galilee and the Golan; I was particularly interested in the various military fortifications (from 1099 to 1973) in both areas, while Davida was more focused on visiting some of the ancient synagogues around the Sea. We got up on Monday morning, but shortly before breakfast Davida fell ill. I won’t go into the details, but about 45 minutes later she, myself, and Eveline (the proprietress of Ken Bahula) were speeding towards the hospital at Sieff, about 10 miles away.
Much screaming and unpleasantness ensued, before painkillers were finally administered, a bed was found, and we began our first hand encounter with the Israeli health care system. Since the hospital “has had a bad experience” with American insurance companies, all expenses were up front, out of pocket. I don’t blame the Israelis so much as the Americans, and I don’t doubt that the bad experience was genuine, but it’s kind of a shock to have to suddenly put $1800 on the credit card that you swore you would never, ever, ever use again except for emergencies. In any case, Davida was eventually moved to a room, which she shared with a very nice young Druze woman; we assume she was nice, anyway, because she didn’t speak English and we don’t speak either Arabic or Hebrew. Indeed, the latter turned out to be rather a problem, because we found that the hospital at Sieff is staffed disproportionately by recent Russian immigrants, who have impressive medical skills but meager English language capability. As you can imagine, the situation was, at times, trying; it was very hard to figure out what was going on, and even harder to communicate what we needed. Eveline, our B&B host, was indispensable, translating when necessary and in general making things happen.
Davida stayed in the hospital Monday night, and I returned to the B&B to make various phone calls and send various e-mails. When I went back the next morning Davida was better, but not great, and went back and forth all day long. We learned from a doctor who spoke English that Davida might not be able to fly for a week, or even a month, which meant that our Thursday morning flight back to the US would have to be cancelled. That done, we considered our options, which included an extended stay somewhere in Tel Aviv, where we had some friends.
The situation had changed for the better on Wednesday morning, as Davida was discharged under instructions to take it easy for a couple of days, and come back in about a week for a check up. This is where we currently stand; we are still in Ken Bahula, are taking advantage of the extra days to do some (low key) sightseeing, and don’t know when we’ll be able to fly back to the United States. The situation was complicated by the fact that the wireless at Ken Bahula was broken for several days, which meant that we had to walk down the street and… borrow someone else’s wireless. As the area is beset by a large number of loose dogs, this resulted, on more than one occasion, in canine confrontation. Now that the wireless is repaired, we’re returning to semi-normality, given the situation.
All in all, things are okay. The hospital at Sieff was quite good, and we hope (!!) that our insurance company will present us with no difficulties in terms of reimbursement. If we had been uninsured, or if we hadn’t had a lot of free credit card space, things would have been a lot more difficult. As I suggested, the host and hostess of Ken Bahula has been of enormous help, and I heartily recommend the B&B to anyone who’s traveling in the area. Of course, we don’t know when we’ll be coming back, and Israel ain’t cheap, so it’s fair to say that not everything is hunky dory. Fortunately, Davida is doing much better, with the concern now regarding the effect of the plane ride rather than any enduring discomfort.
Will update when we have new information.