Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Monday, April 16, 2007
Gun Control Laws Work Again
Click.
I know I'm being a bit crass here, but I've got no choice. Every time there's a school or workplace shooting the same thoughts go through my head. All I think about is the insanity of laws that forbid people from carrying concealed handguns in school or work. You're basically hanging a giant sign on the building informing every nutjob that everyone inside is utterly defenseless.
I know I'm being a bit crass here, but I've got no choice. Every time there's a school or workplace shooting the same thoughts go through my head. All I think about is the insanity of laws that forbid people from carrying concealed handguns in school or work. You're basically hanging a giant sign on the building informing every nutjob that everyone inside is utterly defenseless.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Terry Moran Is An Idiot
Read.
Ugh.
But perhaps the outpouring of sympathy for Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty and David Evans is just a bit misplaced. They got special treatment in the justice system--both negative and positive. The conduct of the lacrosse team of which they were members was not admirable on the night of the incident, to say the least. And there are so many other victims of prosecutorial misconduct in this country who never get the high-priced legal representation and the high-profile, high-minded vindication that it strikes me as just a bit unseemly to heap praise and sympathy on these particular men.
Ugh.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
As A Lawyer, You Would Think He Would Know Better
Giuliani on publicly-funded abortions:
"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected."
While I salute him for not flip-flopping on the issue, what he says makes no sense. Just because something is a Constitutional right, does not necessarily mean the government has to support it financially. My 1st Amendment rights are not violated if the government doesn't buy me a radio station to air my political views, nor are my 2nd Amendment rights violated if the government doesn't provide me with rifles and ammunition.
Taxpayer-financed abortions may be correct from a policy perspective, but they sure aren't constitutionally required.
"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected."
While I salute him for not flip-flopping on the issue, what he says makes no sense. Just because something is a Constitutional right, does not necessarily mean the government has to support it financially. My 1st Amendment rights are not violated if the government doesn't buy me a radio station to air my political views, nor are my 2nd Amendment rights violated if the government doesn't provide me with rifles and ammunition.
Taxpayer-financed abortions may be correct from a policy perspective, but they sure aren't constitutionally required.
Monday, April 02, 2007
A Morally Reprehensible View...
...or just outright lying.
That is the only two ways of explaining Rudy Giuliani's view on abortion. It's the classic "I'm personally opposed to it, but I shouldn't force my view on others. Thus I support a woman's right to choose" John Kerry voiced the same view in 2004.
The only way you can get away with a view like that is if you are totally passive on the abortion issue. You don't campaign in favor of abortion. You don't give speeches to NARAL and you don't call for government funding for abortion. You stay silent on the issue as much as possible.
But that's not what Giuliani has done in the past. He's been a very strong supporter of abortion rights. He's actively campaigned on the pro-choice side of the issue. I'm sorry, but that is just morally reprehensible.
The other possibility is that Giuliani is just lying, that he isn't personally opposed to abortion. This actually does make a bit more sense to me. Think about it: what other issue in contemporary American politics would someone NOT want to impose his viewpoint on everyone else? Can you imagine a politician saying, "I'm personally in favor of gun-control but I don't want to force my view on others"? How about "I'm personally in favor of stronger narcotics laws but I don't want to force my views on others?" Or my personal favorite: "I'm personally in favor of more immigration, but I don't want to force my view on others?"
That is the only two ways of explaining Rudy Giuliani's view on abortion. It's the classic "I'm personally opposed to it, but I shouldn't force my view on others. Thus I support a woman's right to choose" John Kerry voiced the same view in 2004.
The only way you can get away with a view like that is if you are totally passive on the abortion issue. You don't campaign in favor of abortion. You don't give speeches to NARAL and you don't call for government funding for abortion. You stay silent on the issue as much as possible.
But that's not what Giuliani has done in the past. He's been a very strong supporter of abortion rights. He's actively campaigned on the pro-choice side of the issue. I'm sorry, but that is just morally reprehensible.
The other possibility is that Giuliani is just lying, that he isn't personally opposed to abortion. This actually does make a bit more sense to me. Think about it: what other issue in contemporary American politics would someone NOT want to impose his viewpoint on everyone else? Can you imagine a politician saying, "I'm personally in favor of gun-control but I don't want to force my view on others"? How about "I'm personally in favor of stronger narcotics laws but I don't want to force my views on others?" Or my personal favorite: "I'm personally in favor of more immigration, but I don't want to force my view on others?"
