Of iGovernment by Crony, and iBlogs
William Safire, in his inimitable concise style, writes in his weekly Times Magazine column from this Sunday about "When was the lowercase i before an uppercase anything born, and what did it stand for?"
He goes on to record that the first "i-product was the iMAc in 1998." This led to the iBook, followed by Apple's iPhoto, iTunes and of course the iPod. The meaning of i went beyond Internet, to be taken as "individual", "integrated", "interactive", or "what I want when I want it". Other companies jumped in. A furniture company calls its massage chair "iJoy".
So keep on the lookout for the iBlogs. I'm sure they are coming. Mine shall remain an "UnBlog", which means, very simply, that it isn't one.
Now of course since Miers has gone to the wolves, devoured by both Democrats and Republicans alike, we are presented with Alito, which suggests, as Safire laments, that it's back to "Government by Crony" (or perhaps, "iGovernment?"). But the fight brewing (and it will be a big one) isn't about judicial philosophy, experience, or whether you are Conservative or Liberal. What it's about is ABORTION.
And that's too bad, because it's a very minor facet of the big picture. The Supreme Court has already long since made its views known on the subject, and the Conservative "base" is attempting a stab at revisionist history. Conservatives bitch a lot about "left wing judicial activists". Since when is attempting to sway the Supreme Court to the right for the sole purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade not "right wing judicial activism"?
It's filibuster time again. Another nasty way to waste our tax dollars instead of having a hearing and voting up or down, which is what I thought we are paying Congress to do.
He goes on to record that the first "i-product was the iMAc in 1998." This led to the iBook, followed by Apple's iPhoto, iTunes and of course the iPod. The meaning of i went beyond Internet, to be taken as "individual", "integrated", "interactive", or "what I want when I want it". Other companies jumped in. A furniture company calls its massage chair "iJoy".
So keep on the lookout for the iBlogs. I'm sure they are coming. Mine shall remain an "UnBlog", which means, very simply, that it isn't one.
Now of course since Miers has gone to the wolves, devoured by both Democrats and Republicans alike, we are presented with Alito, which suggests, as Safire laments, that it's back to "Government by Crony" (or perhaps, "iGovernment?"). But the fight brewing (and it will be a big one) isn't about judicial philosophy, experience, or whether you are Conservative or Liberal. What it's about is ABORTION.
And that's too bad, because it's a very minor facet of the big picture. The Supreme Court has already long since made its views known on the subject, and the Conservative "base" is attempting a stab at revisionist history. Conservatives bitch a lot about "left wing judicial activists". Since when is attempting to sway the Supreme Court to the right for the sole purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade not "right wing judicial activism"?
It's filibuster time again. Another nasty way to waste our tax dollars instead of having a hearing and voting up or down, which is what I thought we are paying Congress to do.
It is about abortion and so much more. Judicial activism on the left is out of control. They realize what they can't get passed into law and be enacted as a defacto law via the courts. This cannot be allowed to continue. Congress and the President should write and pass laws. The Supreme Court should only be involved in interpreting whether it is constitutional, not whether they like it or not. I'm afraid the latter happens for too often.
ReplyDeleteOK, and what I was saying is that there is judicial activism on the right as well.
ReplyDeleteRoe v Wade says a woman has a right to decide. You might not agree with that, and then you may. The point is, it's already the law, and has been for a very long time.
Settled law != proper law. They are not always equal. A child has rights. A mother gives up 100% of her rights when they become entangled with those of her child.
ReplyDeleteAbortion is by definition, killing a child. No matter how you twist the words, it is still killing a child. Some wrongs, are in need of being righted...
This is a "perfect" example of opinion masquerading as law.
ReplyDeleteMy "opinion" is that everybody should be allowed to smoke pot, anytime. But the law says you can't. I have a right to my opinion, but it doesn't give me the right to break the law.
The right to an abortion doesn't exist. No federal law was passed making it so. There are state laws that permit it and state laws that don't. The supreme court has found a right that isn't in the constitution or law passed by congress. They are supposed to interpret law not write it.
ReplyDeleteI beg your pardon? How about the right to breathe? Does one need a "right" for that too? Where do you draw the line?
ReplyDeleteAbortion, induced by herbs or manipulation, was used as a form of birth control in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome and probably earlier. It wasn't until modern times that governments took it upon themselves to "legislate" abortion "rights" (or the lack thereof).
My post here was not intended to spark a debate about the morality or legality of abortion, although it now appears that the instant the word shows up somewhere there are people who seem to have the last word about it.
What it's about is the PROCESS of the President nominating and the Congress confirming a nominee to the Supreme Court. Actually, its about the process being corrupt, because it is clear it's about ABORTION instead.
If you are commenting here to say abortion is right or wrong, I am sorry but you have completely missed the point because of your total immersion in whatever "abortion" debate you are promulgating.