Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
I’ve been hearing about this film clip and I was looking over Good Lieutenant’s site last week I came across it, and I’ve been trying to get around to watching it ever since. It’s a debate between Justice Antonin Scalia and ACLU President Nadine Strossen on how we should go about interpreting the Constitution.
Not really sure if Scalia came out ahead here. I’m not sure because…Scalia and Strossen have two different perspectives on pretty much everything. That’s why there’s a debate in the first place. To be sure, if I could somehow agitate a young mind into being interested in constitutional interpretation, before he or she had an emotional axe to grind against any one group of people, and that freshman mind could see these film clips — in that setting, Scalia has a decisive advantage. And what an incredibly healthy experience that would be.
This is outside of Strossen’s preferred audience, though. Watch the clips; every rejoinder to what Scalia says is, at sum, a “what about” argument. What about these people, what about those people, what if this happens to you, what if that happens to you.
I was told liberals are “open-minded.” Scalia, here, is actually responding to the things Strossen is saying. Strossen seems to have a terrible case of CBTA.
I can’t prove what is going on here that I think I’m seeing…but it looks an awful lot like…just to speculate…
A lot of kids are going into law school to become the next John Grisham hero, determined to “make the world a better place” — for selected classes of people. And Nadine Strossen has formed her talking points by speaking to them.
Why do I think that? It’s got to do with the “but what about” stuff. And this thing about Law of Nations. Good golly, do I have that right? Scalia attacks the practice of looking to foreign courts for judicial precedence — a direct contradiction to the oath justices take before they are seated, if you ask me. Strossen refers to language that appears (not even sure I’m applying her comments correctly here) in Article I, Sec. 8 wherein the powers of Congress are enumerated. Is that really what she means?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. This whole thing is a losing proposition. You ask reasonable questions about liberal viewpoints and go look things up when liberals refer to them…you end up in a big cul de sac every damn time. It isn’t what they’re after. They’re recruiters, and they’re used to doing their recruiting in environments where they’ve already gotten some kind of a boost — pre-selection of the audience, indoctrinated animosity against middle-aged white guys, lots of hours spent watching cable television.
All in all, a good clip. I think they should show it in the sixth grade. Among the kids who are successfully persuaded to pay attention, I predict Scalia would make lifetime converts out of the ones who have no axe to grind as of yet, and Strossen would make lifetime converts out of the ones who already do have one.
Well, not “lifetime.” Judicial activism is just like affirmative action: It has the potential to make lots of sense to every person, until said person becomes a victim of it. I think I can just about promise that if you’re on your way to court yourself, as a prosecutor or plaintiff or defendant…if you really do think you’re in the right on things, you are going to want the judge to be thinking the way Scalia is thinking. Seems to me the Strossen model is tailor-made for people who want an uneven playing field.
“Law of Nations” comment aside, I didn’t see her grapple with the logic of Scalia’s viewpoint one single time. Everything else she said was cast from the “you can’t do that, you might hurt (so-and-so)” mold.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Which was not yet the case when I wrote What Is A Liberal? Part V or IV, or the first three chapters either. Now, the air is thick with their blatherings. I haven’t exactly been trying to escape them, but assuming that avenue was open to me, escape doesn’t seem to me to be a wise plan. Being a liberal is all about coming up with ideas to solve problems, that aren’t necessarily so likely to solve the problem, as they are to change the lives of everyone in a way we can’t ignore once the ideas are put into effect. So this is the interesting thing about our liberals — you can ignore them today, you can ignore them tomorrow. Can’t do both. There’s a certain “pay the piper” attribute when it comes to paying attention to, or ignoring, liberals. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/01/2007 @ 11:42