Quote of the Day
One never notices what has been done; one can only see what remains to be done.
Marie Curie
Obama's Mideast Speech and the 1967 Borders/Two-State "Solution":
A Brief Review: Thumbs DOWN!
We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion here: Obama has a habit of mixing substance with mere lip service to salient points and issues. He makes references to swaps (referencing the difficult issue of current Jewish settlements in the West Bank and some sort of territorial concession in return by Israel) and he uses a key peace demand for Israel: "secure borders". But he also made reference to "contiguous" borders for the Palestinian state, presumably meaning between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The Gaza Strip borders northeastern Egypt and southern Israeli Mediterranean coast in western/central Israel, while the West Bank borders the central-northern east border of Israel across from Jordan (see below). How can the Palestinian territories be contiguous without separating northern Israel from southern Israel? The point is, the rub is in what security means and what contiguous means.
 |
Courtesy of worldatlas.com/graphicsmap.com |
(I will point out Bush had also made similar talking points on contiguous states, not the 1967 borders.) However, the 1967 borders comment seems to imply that Obama is making an unexpected concession consistent with long-time Palestinian demands. From an Israeli perspective, the 1967 borders is code for return to an earlier time when the Arab states launched multiple attacks on Israel, threatening its right to exist; not only that, but it seems to suggest revisiting returning Jerusalem (including Jewish access to some of its holiest sites, especially the Wailing Wall) to the Arabs, a non-starter. Obama says this even after a recent reconciliation among Palestinians, including the terrorist organization Hamas, revives calls for armed resistance, meaning things like suicide bombings and rocket attacks aimed at innocent Israeli citizens. This is fundamentally unacceptable.
Let me make myself clear here: despite Obama's incoherent foreign policy and divisive, counterproductive, naive rhetoric, the American people will never allow a second Holocaust against the Jewish state. Never again will we stand by and allow the massacre of a beautiful, righteous, peace-loving but strong people, whom honor God with millennia of faithful prayers.
Finally, I think Obama has problems stemming from unrealistic expectations of his 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world. I don't see his proactive stance in demanding autocratic American allies to relax emergency powers and violations of the people's civil liberties. It seems that Obama wants to share some of the spotlight of those brave participants in the north Africa/Middle East spring uprising--AFTER they were attacked by ruthless rulers (like Qaddafi) desperately clinging to power. There seems to be a double standard where Obama is late to the draw when it comes to confronting excesses of the anti-American regimes, say, in Iran and Syria, but he's more than willing to throw long-time allies in Egypt and Israel under the bus. We hear Obama dust off his domestic policy political spin and applying it within a Middle East/northern Africa context. Remember when he spoke faith in the ability of our workforce in meeting the demands of the new global economy? He makes essentially the same speech to the working people of the Middle East.
Appellate Court Nominee Goodwin Liu Rejected:
Cloture on Filibuster Blocked 43-52: Thumbs UP!
Am I being hypocritical because of my revulsion over the handling of the Bork nomination? No, because I did not view Bork's judicial philosophy as upsetting the balance of power among the three branches of government. Normally, I am inclined to support a President's nominees, particularly if they are qualified, and I agree Professor Liu is qualified. I supported Elena Kagan's approval but not Sotomayor, whom made damaging Freudian slip admissions regarding making policy from the bench and the innate superiority of Latina judges. Goodwin Liu made similarly ill-advised, divisive statements during the Sam Alito SCOTUS nomination.
The Democrats have no one but themselves to blame given the fact that they themselves poisoned the well with their unconscionable personal attacks on Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, among others. I have repeatedly brought up the example of Miguel Estrada, whom was denied being named to the DC circuit for purely political reasons, not as a matter of competence. I don't have problems with people viewing the denial of Liu as being a quid pro quo for the unconscionable treatment of Estrada.
The Gang of 14 agreed to retain filibuster rules in exchange for allowing all except the most divisive candidates through. The Democrats still didn't let some qualified Bush nominees through. The idea that Democrats could exercise filibusters under this arrangement but not Republicans is patently partisan. President Obama would be well-advised to stay away from more judicially strident candidates like Goodwin Liu.
Quote of the Day On Harmon Killebrew
The Killer was one of the most feared sluggers in baseball history, but he was also one of the nicest people ever to play the game. He was one of the few players who would go out of his way to compliment umpires on a good job, even if their calls went against him. I'd call a tough strike on him and he would turn around and say approvingly, "Good call." And he was the same way in the field. And he never did this to get help on close plays, as some players do. The man hit 573 major league home runs and no umpire ever swung a bat for him. - Ron Luciano, The Umpire Strikes Back
Guest Editorial: Cato Institute/David Boies, "Equal Protection and Marriage"
This is an interesting topic that allows me to discuss an issue across the dividing line between libertarianism and conservatism. David Boies is best known as the attorney backing Gore's attempt to reverse the Presidential vote in Florida, which had been won by Bush in two impartial, machine-scored tabulations, including a recount. (Gore subsequently attempted to reverse the election by reclassifying a sufficient number of disqualified ballots by county election boards controlled by Democrats--a manifestly unconstitutional violation of equal protection, later confirmed by SCOTUS in a 7-2 ruling. So I find it rather ironic David Boies wants to use the equal protection argument to advance his gay marriage agenda before SCOTUS in Perry v Schwarzenegger. (Kristen Perry is a lesbian whom sought to marry her partner Sandra Steir after California voters in 2008 Proposition 8 restored the traditional definition of marriage directly to the state constitution after the California Supreme Court ruled the existing marriage statute unconstitutional. California voters in 2000 had earlier approved propositions defining marriage and domestic (gay) partnerships.)
I have no objection to readers hearing opinions different from mine. I have already mentioned in previous posts my support for traditional marriage and against the Boies/Ted Olson moves to impose gay marriage on states and US. Probably the standard response from the libertarian standpoint is for the government to stay out of the marriage or at least limit its regulation to the state level. In terms of DOMA and the recent focus of states on marriage, the issue is the concern that states could use reciprocity recognition to force recognition of nontraditional marriages, say, if a gay couple moved from "gay marriage" Massachusetts to "traditional marriage" Texas and then filed suit to get the gay marriage recognized, despite Texas law.
Let me just touch on a few points made by Boies and my responses and then my conceptualization of the matter. First, he argues that we now have an intrinsically unfair situation in California because after the judicial fiat by the California Supreme Court allowed gays to "marry", California "took the right away" from gays. That's false. The Supreme Court CREATED a nontraditional legal right and the state was required to allow and recognize these "marriages" until Proposition 8. Boies argued that Proposition 8 stripped away that right. Not really: the effect was to write the definition of marriage into the Constitution itself. You cannot take away a nonexistent right of gay marriage which never existed until a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision a few years ago. The Boies argument says the fact the state Supreme Court established a legal right, even temporarily, it was unconstitutional for the people to override an activist judicial policy decision. I don't think that's accurate. States have traditionally regulated marriage.
The second point is that majoritarian passage of state propositions cannot define away individual liberties. In fact, I agree with that, but I disagree with its application in this context. I think the state can make certain core restrictions on marriage (e.g., minimum ages) but not others of a more incidental nature (e.g., race, religion, etc.)
The final point is that marriage is a fundamental right, e.g., like life, liberty and property. I disagree. I do think that liberty implies the right to voluntarily associate with others. I don't have a problem with a gay couple living together and having/being able to establish legal rights of hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.
Marriage is not arbitrary but an institution which has developed across time, cultures, and religions. Marriage and family are core constructs to the sustainability of a society and culture. Marriage is the foundation to family; procreation is by nature heterosexual. The definition of a marriage between a man and a woman is not arbitrary but provides the socially acceptable context for reproduction. Any individual characteristic which does not bear on procreation is arbitrary (including factors like race, religion, size, etc.) Arguing the heterosexual nature of marriage is arbitrary is a perverse error of presentism. All 50 states have traditionally recognized only marriages between a man and a woman, even though gays have existed throughout human history. We don't see any historical evidence of a comparable concept of same-sex marriage and family. It's not a matter of discrimination but historical fact.
At the state level, I do think certain individual restrictions are reasonable to promote the stability of marriage and family, e.g., society's age criteria for being recognized as an adult.
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
Atomic Power Review notes:
- Thursday: A mega-float barge (for storing contaminated water) is being delayed by climate/water navigation issues. Rad levels in plant 2 are lower than expected although humidity remains high. It looks like TEPCO wants to repeat the same type activities done or planned for reactor 1, e.g., water level recalibration, nitrogen injection, and preparation for external cooling units.
Political Humor
"Donald Trump says that he will not run for president. You know why? He couldn’t find his birth certificate." - Jay Leno
[In his preliminary negotiations with the Chinese over imposing a stiff tariff on their products, Trump was informed that just like in his other bankruptcy proceedings, the Chinese would not allow President Trump to retain executive authority over US government operations.]
Disney is trademarking the phrase “SEAL Team 6,” after the team that took down Osama bin Laden. Yeah, cause when they shot bin Laden, captured his wives and found his porn, I was like, “This would make a great Disney movie.” - Jimmy Fallon
[It's their next cartoon musical feature film: "When the SEALs Strike Back". You know all those hunters whom club seal pups to death? But first, some unfinished business... Remember that hunter whom took out Bambi's mother?]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Chicago, "Free"
