Justice Ginsburg: Abortion and Women's Equality

♠
The Supreme Court came down with a big decision that represents a turning back from the protection of a woman's right to have an abortion. As friends have pointed out, this right was affirmed but this decision works from the proposition that rights are not absolute. In particular, the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions has been upheld.

Dr. Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, makes the interesting argument that Justice Ginsburg's dissent in the case may prove to have more lasting legal life than the majority decision, re-casting the right to have an abortion in terms of women's equality rather than the more nebulous right of privacy:

IN THE LONG RUN, the most important part of the Supreme Court's ruling on "partial-birth" abortions may not be Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion for the majority. It might well be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent, which attempts, for the first time in the court's history, to justify the right to abortion squarely in terms of women's equality rather than privacy.

... In this week's case, Ginsburg, now the only woman on the court, attempted to re-conceive the foundations of the abortion right, basing it on well-established constitutional principles of equality. Borrowing from her 1985 argument, she said that legal challenges to restrictions on abortion procedures "do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."

In particular, Justice Ginsburg argues that, at a minimum, restrictions on abortions must protect a woman's health. The ban on partial-birth abortions that the Court upheld is noted for not even allowing an exception for the health of the mother, which marks this ban as being rather hard.

On a personal note, I suppose this argument based on women's equality could work, but I hate the idea of weakening the right of privacy, which protects the idea that government needs to keep its big nose out of our bedroom. But you take what you can get, and individual rights are an endangered legal species these days.


(Source: Cass R. Sunstein for The Los Angeles Times)

xXx

Justice Ginsburg: Abortion and Women's Equality

♠
The Supreme Court came down with a big decision that represents a turning back from the protection of a woman's right to have an abortion. As friends have pointed out, this right was affirmed but this decision works from the proposition that rights are not absolute. In particular, the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions has been upheld.

Dr. Cass Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, makes the interesting argument that Justice Ginsburg's dissent in the case may prove to have more lasting legal life than the majority decision, re-casting the right to have an abortion in terms of women's equality rather than the more nebulous right of privacy:

IN THE LONG RUN, the most important part of the Supreme Court's ruling on "partial-birth" abortions may not be Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion for the majority. It might well be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent, which attempts, for the first time in the court's history, to justify the right to abortion squarely in terms of women's equality rather than privacy.

... In this week's case, Ginsburg, now the only woman on the court, attempted to re-conceive the foundations of the abortion right, basing it on well-established constitutional principles of equality. Borrowing from her 1985 argument, she said that legal challenges to restrictions on abortion procedures "do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."

In particular, Justice Ginsburg argues that, at a minimum, restrictions on abortions must protect a woman's health. The ban on partial-birth abortions that the Court upheld is noted for not even allowing an exception for the health of the mother, which marks this ban as being rather hard.

On a personal note, I suppose this argument based on women's equality could work, but I hate the idea of weakening the right of privacy, which protects the idea that government needs to keep its big nose out of our bedroom. But you take what you can get, and individual rights are an endangered legal species these days.


(Source: Cass R. Sunstein for The Los Angeles Times)

xXx

The Killer in the Mirror

♠
I've lost interest in the cracks, chips, holes and broken places in the lives of men like Cho Seung-Hui, the mass murderer of Virginia Tech. The pain, grievances and self-pity of mass killers are only symptoms of the real explanation. Those who do these things share one common trait. They are raging narcissists. "I died--like Jesus Christ," Cho said in a video sent to NBC.

Psychologists from South Africa to Chicago have begun to recognize that extreme self-centeredness is the forest in these stories, and all the other things-- guns, games, lyrics, pornography--are just trees. To list the traits of the narcissist is enough to prove the point: grandiosity, numbness to the needs and pain of others, emotional isolation, resentment and envy.

-- David Von Drehle for Time

I definitely like this inclination to stop looking at things like porn for these mass crimes. These murderous actors may find some emotional props in racy movies and music, but it is not like these entertainments are conveying some fatal germs that work on the weak mind. If there is a larger cultural answer, it probably is deeper as suggested by Drehle, perhaps resting in part in the narcissism and the 'I am God!' of the culture.

( article )

xXx

The Killer in the Mirror

♠
I've lost interest in the cracks, chips, holes and broken places in the lives of men like Cho Seung-Hui, the mass murderer of Virginia Tech. The pain, grievances and self-pity of mass killers are only symptoms of the real explanation. Those who do these things share one common trait. They are raging narcissists. "I died--like Jesus Christ," Cho said in a video sent to NBC.

Psychologists from South Africa to Chicago have begun to recognize that extreme self-centeredness is the forest in these stories, and all the other things-- guns, games, lyrics, pornography--are just trees. To list the traits of the narcissist is enough to prove the point: grandiosity, numbness to the needs and pain of others, emotional isolation, resentment and envy.

-- David Von Drehle for Time

I definitely like this inclination to stop looking at things like porn for these mass crimes. These murderous actors may find some emotional props in racy movies and music, but it is not like these entertainments are conveying some fatal germs that work on the weak mind. If there is a larger cultural answer, it probably is deeper as suggested by Drehle, perhaps resting in part in the narcissism and the 'I am God!' of the culture.

( article )

xXx

Islam vs. Islamism

♠
Where are the moderate voices of Islam against the virulent strain of Islamism? Mr. M. Zuhdi Jasser passionately argues that they are hidden by the mainstream media with its misguided attempts to protect minority and religious rights. Jasser cites the way PBS shelved "Islam vs. Islamists":

The mainstream media (MSM) is apparently blind to the real ideology of Islamism and they allow Islamists to hide their theocracy behind minority politics. The MSM not only avoids the free flow of ideas within the Muslim community, it effectively allows the Islamists completely to stifle any and all debate which would have allowed Muslims to question those in positions of authority within the Islamic community.

It is time for the MSM to stop protecting Muslims from one another and to stop stifling the debate many anti-Islamist Muslims would like to wage against leading Islamists. If Muslims are going to form a public expression of Islam which is reconciled with western democracies which separate religion and government, this debate against Islamism needs yet to begin, let alone blossom into cultural change for Muslims.

Islamists fear nothing more than credible and genuine debate against the core political ideology of Islamism from pious anti-Islamist Muslims. With an ideological counter from anti-Islamist Muslims- the Islamist emperor "has no clothes". At every level, they are using America's naïveté about Islam in order to continue their theft of Islam for the political agenda of Islamism. The Islamists know that anti-Islamist Muslims rob them of their minority trump card of Islamophobia and force them to come to terms with the anti-freedom, and anti-liberty and anti-pluralistic ideology of Islamism. Anti-Islamist, pro-Islamic Muslims expose the real motives of Islamists--which is the exploitation of the spiritual path of Islam for political and governmental power and coercion.

The MSM would prefer to facilitate the current Islamist organizations and Islamist imams. Why? It could be a fear of litigation, minority victim politics, or simple ignorance regarding the goals of Islamism.

I wonder whether PBS is trying to protect Muslims by trying to refrain from fanning the flames of irrational, bigoted prejudice by not airing strong criticism of Islamist leaders and this more extreme form of Islam. If so, I think they may be only making matters worse by propping up the worst and most dangerous manifestations of Islam and this dark ideology, and by not giving more light to moderate Muslims. Islamism deserves no more protection than Nazism and should always be shown for what it is - a totalitarian medieval-based ideology. And this Islamism should also be shown for what it is not: it is not Islam. Or at least one hopes that it does not become the definitive Islam.


(Source: M. Zuhdi Jasser at RealClearPolitics.com)

xXx

Islam vs. Islamism

♠
Where are the moderate voices of Islam against the virulent strain of Islamism? Mr. M. Zuhdi Jasser passionately argues that they are hidden by the mainstream media with its misguided attempts to protect minority and religious rights. Jasser cites the way PBS shelved "Islam vs. Islamists":

The mainstream media (MSM) is apparently blind to the real ideology of Islamism and they allow Islamists to hide their theocracy behind minority politics. The MSM not only avoids the free flow of ideas within the Muslim community, it effectively allows the Islamists completely to stifle any and all debate which would have allowed Muslims to question those in positions of authority within the Islamic community.

It is time for the MSM to stop protecting Muslims from one another and to stop stifling the debate many anti-Islamist Muslims would like to wage against leading Islamists. If Muslims are going to form a public expression of Islam which is reconciled with western democracies which separate religion and government, this debate against Islamism needs yet to begin, let alone blossom into cultural change for Muslims.

Islamists fear nothing more than credible and genuine debate against the core political ideology of Islamism from pious anti-Islamist Muslims. With an ideological counter from anti-Islamist Muslims- the Islamist emperor "has no clothes". At every level, they are using America's naïveté about Islam in order to continue their theft of Islam for the political agenda of Islamism. The Islamists know that anti-Islamist Muslims rob them of their minority trump card of Islamophobia and force them to come to terms with the anti-freedom, and anti-liberty and anti-pluralistic ideology of Islamism. Anti-Islamist, pro-Islamic Muslims expose the real motives of Islamists--which is the exploitation of the spiritual path of Islam for political and governmental power and coercion.

The MSM would prefer to facilitate the current Islamist organizations and Islamist imams. Why? It could be a fear of litigation, minority victim politics, or simple ignorance regarding the goals of Islamism.

I wonder whether PBS is trying to protect Muslims by trying to refrain from fanning the flames of irrational, bigoted prejudice by not airing strong criticism of Islamist leaders and this more extreme form of Islam. If so, I think they may be only making matters worse by propping up the worst and most dangerous manifestations of Islam and this dark ideology, and by not giving more light to moderate Muslims. Islamism deserves no more protection than Nazism and should always be shown for what it is - a totalitarian medieval-based ideology. And this Islamism should also be shown for what it is not: it is not Islam. Or at least one hopes that it does not become the definitive Islam.


(Source: M. Zuhdi Jasser at RealClearPolitics.com)

xXx