Sunday, October 30, 2005
Buying German Products
Jews who boycott German products are not trying to change anything. They are not trying get Germany to apologize for the Holocaust; that's already been done. They're not trying to "punish" Germany economically; the purchasing power of Jews isn't strong enough to have any serious effect. They boycott German products because they are making a statement and that's it. They are not going to buy from a country that slaughtered 6 million fellow Jews.
That's why the most common boycotted product is cars. When you buy a German car you are making a statement. "I don't care". (This doesn't apply to Sephardic Jews, who did not go through the Holocaust) If you see frum Jew driving a BMW, you wonder what's wrong with the guy. It's just so easy not to buy the BMW or the Mercedes and not broadcast to everyone around you that you have a German car. A dishwasher stays in your house. And since this boycott is all and only about image, that's ok.
So why don't Jews boycott Spanish goods? Or Ukrainian goods?
The truth is, if Jews want to be consistent, they'd have to boycott pretty much the entire world. But that's impossible. So Jews do the next best thing, they (try) to boycott the one country that represented the greatest evil of modern civilization. 50 or 100 years, maybe Jews will be driving German cars.
And no, this boycott isn't like the Arab boycott. The Arab boycott was designed to cripple the Israeli economy, and by extension, the State of Israel in it's infancy. No Jew is trying to cripple Germany. It's just a statement.
Rebecca points out that Sephardic communities were wiped out in the Holocaust; I was incorrect in saying that Sephardim did not go through the Holocaust. However, I believe that it is safe to say that the vast majority of Jews who were killed were Ashkenazim. The Sephardic Jews who do buy German cars, presumably were not from the communities that were invaded by Hitler. (Persian, Syrian, Bukharian, etc...)
Republicans who say that perjury or obstruction of justice is no big deal are hypocrites. Isn’t that what they tried to impeach Clinton for?
Democrats who say that perjury or obstruction of justice is a really big deal are hypocrites. Isn’t that what they tried to pooh-pooh when Clinton did it?
And on a side note: Democrats and the media’s attempts to spin this indictment into an indictment about the war are laughable at best.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
His Royal Lowness
"The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11".
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Miers No More
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Monday, October 24, 2005
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Sanity Restored...In Brazil
Another nation today realized that banning legal gun ownership doesn't reduce crime, as it is incredibly easy to purchase a gun on the black market. In fact, most gun-control laws have little or no effect on crime at all, the Brady guns laws the best example of this. If you're a criminal, why on earth would you buy a gun from a legitimate gun store?
There is one way to reduce crimes; one that works and doesn't take guns out of the hands of citizens: Use a gun while committing a felony, you've just earned yourself a mandatory 20 year addition to your sentance. You can bet the family farm that gun violence will go down.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Lucifer Is Throwing Snowballs!
Thursday, October 20, 2005
You may not like his politics, but you got to admit that DeLay just ruined the DNC's Christmas card photo.
I'm not a gun nut. I don't own one, and probably never will. Somehow I'd manage to shoot myself. But I respect other peoples' 2nd Amendment rights. I also hate frivolous lawsuits. So I'm really happy that Congress has granted the gun industry broad immunity from lawsuits.
If someone kills with a gun, why should the gun manufacturer be liable? What did they do wrong? If someone kills someone with a knife should the knife manufacturer be liable. How about if someone deliberately runs down a pedestrian with a car?
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
So it appears that Harriet Miers is pro-life/anti-choice. Woop dee doo! Her personal views are irrelevant. I don't care what her personal views are about social issues. Justice Kennedy, as a devout Catholic, apposes abortion, yet he still upheld Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The goal for most conservatives isn't to reverse Roe because abortion is murder, evil, whatever. The goal for most conservatives is to get judges on the SCOTUS who recognize that Roe (and yes, Griswold) was a legal travesty.
You can be personally apposed to abortion and up Roe. You can be personally supportive of abortion and strike down Roe. I'll take choice number two.
And even if Miers strikes down Roe, that doesn't mean that she's qualified.
Or as Ann writes, " without a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation, Miers will lay the groundwork for a million more Roes".
Monday, October 17, 2005
Keeping My Mouth Shut
Miers Quote of the Day
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Quote of the Week (part three)
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
It's Just Not Worth It
Seems that once the White House decided to nominate a woman, several of the women on their short list told the White House that they weren't interested. It seems that being appointed to the Supreme Court isn't enough of a reason for some people to have their name, reputation, character, and judicial philosphy raked across the mud by the NY Times and Ted Kennedy.
But one thing I don't like. If the White House was faced with an ever shrinking list of female candidates, why didn't they scrap the affirmitive action plan and nominate a male?
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Quote of the Week (part two)
Sunday, October 09, 2005
It seems to have been taken from an AC-130 Specter gunship.
Hat tip- Amshi
Update: Here's another AC-130 video from Afghanistan
Stupidity in the Ivory Tower
Here's a letter to the editor in today's NY Times.
To the Editor:
Activism, best understood as a court overturning legislation, may well be bad social policy, from either the right or the left. But overturning legislation because of a court's reading of the Commerce Clause is quite different from doing so because the legislation conflicts with the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court is designated to uphold exactly the individual rights Nicholas D. Kristof lists, including "barring school prayer, protecting protesters who used four-letter words, guaranteeing lawyers for criminal defendants, and securing a right to privacy that protected contraception and abortion," because the majoritarian "political process" would not do so.
These decisions are not the result of activism. They are the result of constitutionalism.Joseph P. Tomain
Cincinnati, Oct. 4, 2005
The writer is emeritus dean of the University of Cincinnati College of Law
What the writer doesn't understand, or chooses to ignore, is that the issues he listed only conflict with the Bill of Rights because a majority of of nine Supreme Court Justices said so. Nothing he listed expressly violates anything in the Bill of Rights.
School prayer only violates the 1st Amendment if you say that allowing prayer in school establishes a national religion. Banning abortion or contraceptions only violates the, well, it doesn't violate anything specificly, but it violates the Penumbras and Emanations in the Bill of Rights. (whatever the heck that means)
The writer pooh poohs turning over legislation because of a court's reading of the Commerce Clause, but overturning such legislation has only been done when the activity that Congress tries to regulate has nothing to do with interstate commerce at all. When the Supreme Court said that Congress wasn't allowed to regulate firearms near a school, the Court wasn't legislating; it was telling Congress- you have no authority to pass such a law based on the Commerce Clause, as guns near a school have nothing do with commerce, no matter how you frame it.
Hey, maybe I should be a dean.
Quote of the Week
Friday, October 07, 2005
What an Honor
Thursday, October 06, 2005
“"There are so many organizations and people devoting their lives to attracting people to a religious lifestyle," wrote Meizlik, "Why bother? Why convince them to make such a difficult, painful change? Why call upon them to come and live a Torah lifestyle if no one has any intention of giving them the opportunity to live such a lifestyle? Perhaps the time has come to stop investing in outreach and to redirect the immense energies of these organizations to the existing newly religious families."
- She isn’t another Souter, Bush has known her for years, so it’s safe to say that he knows her judicial philosophy.
- That being said, there were plenty of much more qualified candidates available, candidates that everyone knows their judicial philosophy.
- Bush picked Miers to avoid a fight, but a fights is exactly what this country needs
- Bush may be pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes, Miers may be more right-wing than Luttig or Owens, but no one will know until after she starts writing opinions.