2003 + 25 = 2012?

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court decided the two University of Michigan Affirmative Action cases, Grutter v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) and Gratz v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) . In those cases, the Justices split hairs very neatly, declaring, in Gratz, that hard numerical quotas for minority admission to a state-supported university was an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in Grutter, the Court allowed, by a 5-4 decision,1 the University of Michigan’s Law School to consider race in its admissions decisions, because it was not set down as a numerical quota, and the Court decided that the policy was narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest in securing diversity in the student body of the Law School. Justice O’Connor concluded by noting that the majority were still quite concerned about this subordination of the individual right to equal protection of the laws by stating:

We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.

Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fisher v University of Texas at Austin, a case which could well reassess Grutter.


Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Affirmative Action Case


By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: February 21, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a major case on affirmative action in higher education, adding another potential blockbuster to a docket already studded with them.

The court’s decision in the new case holds the potential to undo an accommodation reached in the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger: that public colleges and universities could not use a point system to boost minority enrollment but could take race into account in vaguer way to ensure academic diversity.

Much more at the link. The New York Times story noted that the membership on the Court has changed since 2003, with the most notable change being that Associate Justice Samuel Alito has replaced Justice O’Connor. Granting certiorari requires the affirmative votes of four Justices, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from both the case and the decision to grant certiorari, due to her involvement with the case when she was Solicitor General.2 Since the case on appeal from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was in favor of the University of Texas, there is little reason to suppose that the four Justices who wished to take this case were inclined to uphold Grutter; denial of certiorari would have let the Fifth Circuit’s ruling stand.

There are grounds on which Miss Fisher could win her case, and still not overturn Grutter. After losing initially in a smaller panel, Miss Fisher filed for an en banc3 rehearing by the Fifth Circuit, which was denied 9-7. One of the opinions by the dissenting judges concerned about the way in which the University applied the Grutter test, and whether it met the ceriteria for being narrowly tailored. It would seem unusual, however, to think that four Justices would have voted to grant certiorari on a case in which they just wished to examine how narrowly tailored the University’s policies concerning the consideration of race were, as opposed to the constitutional issue itself.

In addition, Miss Fisher’s case would seem to have serious issues concerning her standing to sue: she is on course to be graduated from Louisiana State University at the end of this semester, and by not filing this as a class action suit, her case is very nearly moot. The case is scheduled to be heard not this spring, but in the October 2012 session of the Court, by which time Miss Fisher should have been graduated. This would actually seem to be not the strongest case on which a reversal of Grutter could be based, because it could be decided on lesser issues and still leave Grutter intact. Unless the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia believed that there was a strong possibility that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, a noted hair-splitter himself, though one of the minority in Grutter, would go along with a reversal of Grutter, it would seem that voting to grant certiorari would be an exercise in futility.
________________________

  1. Both decisions were 5-4, with Associate Justice Sandra O’Connor as the swing vote; Justice O’Connor wrote the majority opinion in Grutter.
  2. Justice Kagan’s recusal does not necessarily the Affirmative Action “side” of this case; if the case results in a 4-4 tie, the judgement of the Fifth Circuit would be upheld.
  3. An en banc review is one by the entire Court of a decision made by a smaller panel.

169 Comments

  1. Koolo wrote:

    What you are leaving out of your thinking, koolo, is the suppression of African-Americans by us Caucasians over three plus centuries, which makes a huge difference regarding long term impact, don’t you think so? Hardly is my position racism, it is compassion, a quality which you apparently come up wanting in this regard!

    Progressives never believe they’re guilty of racism, even when it stares them right in the face.

    Your answer is still ridiculous: If diversity is of paramount import in improving student achievement, then why do HBCs continue to exist? If diversity is “good,” why isn’t it “good” for African-Americans??

    I think you have asked the wrong question. Rather, if diversity is paramount in improving student achievement, why are blacks permitted to opt-out of diversity, while whites are not only required to participate, but may actually find their individual rights subordinated to the state’s attempt to achieve diversity?

    Now, if a school is a private school, then your editor does not care if that school wishes to maintain any tradition it wishes, whether limitations by race or sex or ethnicity, or anything else it chooses. But some of the historically black colleges, like Norfolk State University, are public colleges, and that should make a difference. In a way, it does: no student is turned away from NSU because of race. But in emphasizing a tradition of being historically black, doesn’t that school create a subtle, or perhaps not so subtle, pressure against white admissions?

    Founded in 1935, Norfolk State University adheres to the traditional purpose of the Historically Black University and espouses the tradition of service to its students, its alumni, the academy, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the nation, and the world.

    Any college which emphasized it’s history as a traditionally white school — even if it was a private school — would very quickly see the federal investigators on its doorstep.

    It’s all really fairly simple: for Wagonwheel, the rules for blacks and whites are, and should be, different. For your editor, at least, the rules should be the same for everybody. Your editor admits to being unable to see how having separate rules for blacks and whites is fair and inclusive, while having the same rules for everybody is racist.

  2. Wagonwheel says:
    F

    ebruary 24, 2012 at 17:16

    DNW, I think you need to take another look at whether or not a “community of believers in the Resurrection” is a government. You might start by looking up the meaning of the word: government

    “Government refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by which they are organized.”

    You need to ask yourself whether those described in the Book of Acts were in control of the state.

  3. “Government refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by which they are organized.”

    As I was taught in school in the 1970s, it is always wrong to define a term by using that term within the definition.

  4. Wagonwheel says:
    February 24, 2012 at 17:16

    DNW, I think you need to take another look at whether or not a “community of believers in the Resurrection” is a government. You might start by looking up the meaning of the word: government

    “Government refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by which they are organized.”

    You’re confusing this with Islam and the Koran. The Koran covers everything; religion, business, courts, governing and anything to do with your daily life. Sharia Law is derived from the Koran. One Shop Stopping.

    Local, County, State and Federal Governence is not derived from any religion.

  5. I agree with your criticism, Mr Hitchcock, and therefore would modify the definition of government as follows:

    “Government refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the political system by which they are organized.”

    By this definition, organized religions fit, as exemplified by the Roman Catholic Church, and many others of course.

    Moreover, I think our founders were prescient in recognizing and understanding that religion and the state should be separate. One is based on myth, the other on observable reality, thus they are basically different entities although they share one important characteristic: control of people.

    It seems to me a perplexing mystery that the same person would commit to the control of the Church, yet reject the control of the State, wherein both entities are actually conceived and operated by humanoids.

  6. DNW asked:

    “You need to ask yourself whether those described in the Book of Acts were in control of the state.”

    Yes! The Acts describes how the early followers of Christ, believing Him to be the Son of God, attempt to organize the Church, which is the equivalent of a state, a government, according to a definition of “government” given in the post before this one.

    This passage from Wiki makes the point:

    “Paul travels to Jerusalem where he meets with the apostles — a meeting known as the Council of Jerusalem. Paul’s own record of the meeting appears to be Galatians 2, however, due to the differences, some argue Gal 2 is a different meeting. Members of the Jerusalem church have been preaching that circumcision is required for salvation. Paul and his associates strongly disagree. After much discussion, James the Just, leader of the Jerusalem church, decrees that Gentile Christian converts need not follow all of the Mosaic Law, and in particular, they do not need to be circumcised.”

    You see, DNW, the emerging Church is not only about worship, it is also all about control of the believers, and proselytizing in order to increase the numbers of believers, thus expanding the myth, i.e., the “state”.

  7. SINP writes

    It seems to me a perplexing mystery that the same person would commit to the control of the Church, yet reject the control of the State, wherein both entities are actually conceived and operated by humanoids.

    Today, the answer is quite simple: The Church has no means by which to enforce its control. The State does. Thus, a person can easily act beyond the bounds of the Church’s rules anytime he wants, but cannot, however, do so with the State.

  8. Yorkshire, if I assume that your characterization of the Koran is accurate, and it may well be, I think one could make a similar statement about the Bible and the Christian doctrines derived therefrom. We allow for prayers in schools, prayers to open government meetings, tax free tithing to support our churches, and tax free properties for our churches. Our laws have a Judeo-Christian basis. So yes, Christianity permeates our state institutions, in spite of the First Amendment restriction, which should be no surprise at all, because we are a nation the majority of whom declare ourselves as being Christians.

  9. SINP writes

    So yes, Christianity permeates our state institutions, in spite of the First Amendment restriction,

    “In spite of?” But you yourself said in that same post that “Our laws have a Judeo-Christian basis.” So, clearly, it is not “in spite of.”

  10. “The Church has no means by which to enforce its control.”

    I suggest you ask a strict Roman Catholic, like our Editor, if he would agree with this statement of yours, koolo. Have you ever heard about Purgatory?

    “Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.”

    Read about Purgatory, temporal punishment, and venial faults here, as in Catholic doctrine.

  11. SINP writes

    I suggest you ask a strict Roman Catholic, like our Editor, if he would agree with this statement of yours, koolo. Have you ever heard about Purgatory?

    But as you [correctly] noted, there is nothing concrete about what the Church can do and/or prove regarding its teachings. The Church can say you’re going to Purgatory (or Hell, or whatever) but the only “control” they have over your life in that regard is the degree to which they can make you believe it. They have no other means by which to enforce their teachings — it’s all upon the individual believER.

    OTOH, with the State it is the complete opposite.

  12. SINP writes

    Koolo, the First Amendment restriction I referred to was what has been interpreted as the church-state separation portion, which is why I said “in spite of”.

    But the two are not mutually exclusive.

  13. WW wrote:

    I agree with your criticism, Mr Hitchcock, and therefore would modify the definition of government as follows:

    “Government refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the political system by which they are organized.”

    By this definition, organized religions fit, as exemplified by the Roman Catholic Church, and many others of course.

    and:

    “The Church has no means by which to enforce its control.”

    I suggest you ask a strict Roman Catholic, like our Editor, if he would agree with this statement of yours, koolo. Have you ever heard about Purgatory?

    “Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.”

    Read about Purgatory, temporal punishment, and venial faults here, as in Catholic doctrine.

    These are odd statements. A government can be defined as you have stated, but a government is normally thought to have political authority and control, through the normal exercise of police power. The Roman Catholic Church exercises that in the 110 acres which make up Vatican City. Outside of Vatican City, the Church’s control consists of voluntary acquiescence of the individual. His Holiness the Pope cannot force me to go to Mass or Confession, cannot force me to contribute to the Church, cannot require me to send my children to parochial school, and cannot use the power of government to compel any action or inaction.

    Given that you said you were brought up as a Christian, but became an apostate, you should certainly understand that belief and participating are voluntary.

  14. WW wrote:

    Yorkshire, if I assume that your characterization of the Koran is accurate, and it may well be, I think one could make a similar statement about the Bible and the Christian doctrines derived therefrom. We allow for prayers in schools, prayers to open government meetings, tax free tithing to support our churches, and tax free properties for our churches. Our laws have a Judeo-Christian basis. So yes, Christianity permeates our state institutions, in spite of the First Amendment restriction, which should be no surprise at all, because we are a nation the majority of whom declare ourselves as being Christians.

    The problem with this statement is that you have mistaken the cultural for the religious. Yes, we do not tax churches, but that includes Jewish synagogues, Muslim mosques and Hindu temples. We allow “tax free tithing” to support the Boy Scouts, the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra, the A I DuPont Hospital for Children, and many thousands of other charitable organizations, because they are charitable contributions, not because they are necessarily religious ones.

    The basis of our morality certainly is Christian: that is our culture and that is our heritage. The basis of our law is English, because our country began as a British colony. Those things are intertwined and interrelated, and you will never get away from that. Laws against public nudity are certainly moral in origin, but I’d point out that other laws, such as those prohibiting insider trading, are based on moral notions as well: we don’t think that it’s fair that people with insider knowledge should be able to use that to profit vis a vis people who are outsiders.

  15. WW wrote:

    DNW asked:

    “You need to ask yourself whether those described in the Book of Acts were in control of the state.”

    Yes! The Acts describes how the early followers of Christ, believing Him to be the Son of God, attempt to organize the Church, which is the equivalent of a state, a government, according to a definition of “government” given in the post before this one.

    This passage from Wiki makes the point:

    “Paul travels to Jerusalem where he meets with the apostles — a meeting known as the Council of Jerusalem. Paul’s own record of the meeting appears to be Galatians 2, however, due to the differences, some argue Gal 2 is a different meeting. Members of the Jerusalem church have been preaching that circumcision is required for salvation. Paul and his associates strongly disagree. After much discussion, James the Just, leader of the Jerusalem church, decrees that Gentile Christian converts need not follow all of the Mosaic Law, and in particular, they do not need to be circumcised.”

    You see, DNW, the emerging Church is not only about worship, it is also all about control of the believers, and proselytizing in order to increase the numbers of believers, thus expanding the myth, i.e., the “state”.

    Oh, good grief! The “state” in first century Judea was the Roman Empire! The Roman governor did not care if the Jews or the Christians followed circumcision, but whether they paid their taxes, obeyed the law, and didn’t foment sedition.

    The Pharisees didn’t crucify Jesus, because they didn’t have the legal authority; they took Jesus to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, who did have the authority, to order and carry out the crucifixion.

    The legal authority of the church? St Peter was crucified by the Roman government, and St Paul was imprisoned and then beheaded. Most of the first apostles were executed by various means, on orders from the Roman government. For being a “state,” they sure seemed to lack state power.

  16. From Rasmussen:


    55% Oppose Affirmative Action Policies for College Admissions


    Sunday, February 26, 2012

    The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to hear a case involving the use of race as a factor in college admissions. Most voters oppose the use of so-called affirmative action policies at colleges and universities and continue to believe those policies have not been successful despite being in place for 50 years.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 24% of Likely U.S. Voters favor applying affirmative action policies to college admissions. Fifty-five percent (55%) oppose the use of such policies to determine who is admitted to colleges and universities. Twenty-one percent (21%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

    The national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted February 22-23, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error for each survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

    Hat tip to Smitty.

  17. Wagonwheel says:
    February 25, 2012 at 08:56

    Yorkshire, if I assume that your characterization of the Koran is accurate, and it may well be, I think one could make a similar statement about the Bible and the Christian doctrines derived therefrom. We allow for prayers in schools, prayers to open government meetings, tax free tithing to support our churches, and tax free properties for our churches. Our laws have a Judeo-Christian basis. So yes, Christianity permeates our state institutions, in spite of the First Amendment restriction, which should be no surprise at all, because we are a nation the majority of whom declare ourselves as being Christians.

    I would expect that the Koran is used directly in enforcing the law in hardcore Islamic States like Iran. Then at a point we had Egypt, and still have Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan of examples of a mix of Civilian and Koranic Law. I would say our laws are based on the Principle of Judeo-Christianity, but unlike Islam states where Koranic law exists partially or totally, a Cleric may override a decision of a court. Here, Clergy have no say in the courts to override any decision.

  18. Wagonwheel says:
    February 25, 2012 at 08:56

    Yorkshire, if I assume that your characterization of the Koran is accurate

    And don’t forget that about 10 years or so years ago a group of teenage girls in Saudi Arabia burned to death because the religious police would not let them out of a burning building. The reason was they did not have their head scarves on. The alleged modesty of the headscarves overroad saving the lives of these girls to the religious police. You know if such a thing happened here, the police would be charged with murder. In Saudi, even though the girls died, the police were told they did the right thing. How warped is that logic and thinking?

  19. Editor says:
    February 25, 2012 at 11:28

    WW wrote:

    DNW asked:

    “You need to ask yourself whether those described in the Book of Acts were in control of the state.”

    Yes! The Acts describes how the early followers of Christ, believing Him to be the Son of God, attempt to organize the Church, which is the equivalent of a state, a government, according to a definition of “government” given in the post before this one.

    This passage from Wiki makes the point:

    “Paul travels to Jerusalem where he meets with the apostles — a meeting known as the Council of Jerusalem. Paul’s own record of the meeting appears to be Galatians 2, however, due to the differences, some argue Gal 2 is a different meeting. Members of the Jerusalem church have been preaching that circumcision is required for salvation. Paul and his associates strongly disagree. After much discussion, James the Just, leader of the Jerusalem church, decrees that Gentile Christian converts need not follow all of the Mosaic Law, and in particular, they do not need to be circumcised.”

    You see, DNW, the emerging Church is not only about worship, it is also all about control of the believers, and proselytizing in order to increase the numbers of believers, thus expanding the myth, i.e., the “state”.

    Oh, good grief!

    The collectivist crowd seems to have problems with formulating or even understanding categories and drawing operative distinctions.

  20. You see, DNW, the emerging Church is not only about worship, it is also all about control of the believers, and proselytizing in order to increase the numbers of believers, thus expanding the myth, i.e., the “state”.

    You see, everyone, no matter what, Wagonwheel has to personally attack, disrespect, and impugn Christianity, and in blasphemous ways. He cannot help himself, as the above example shows.

    No, Wagonwheel, you have personally rejected Who Jesus is, thus you have to fabricate a counterfeit Jesus in your mind in order to replace Him with him. Jesus is God, the very Son of God. Your rejection of that stone cold fact has caused you to look for something else, and in your rejection of Truth, you have found yourself in a state of delusion, incapable of seeing the Truth. There is a Bible reference to the End Times (which we are in, but not currently in the Tribulation) and Providence doing just that to those who refused the Truth: sending them a powerful delusion such that they become absolutely, incontrovertibly incapable of believing the Truth. You may well be there.

  21. “No, Wagonwheel, you have personally rejected Who Jesus is, thus you have to fabricate a counterfeit Jesus in your mind in order to replace Him with him. Jesus is God, the very Son of God. Your rejection of that stone cold fact has caused you to look for something else, and in your rejection of Truth, you have found yourself in a state of delusion, incapable of seeing the Truth.”

    Speaking about truth, we are still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claim that the US will be expereiencing hyper-inflation next year, Mr Hitchcock.

    I’m sure that someone as dedicated to the truth as you didn’t just lie and make that up.

  22. Anna Nova, you are readily doing the exact same thing you did in your previous iteration on the previous site: attempting to force people to defend positions they did not take by selectively quoting (which means out of context) or by supplying definitions they did not use and attempting to force them to defend definitions they did not use or by any number of other methods. And lying is one of the strongest methods you use to accuse others of lying.

    Seriously, dude, go find that 70-year-old book out of the stacks for the person who asked you for it, and quit your trolling. The reason I so rarely respond to you is that you are truly not worth a response. The fact you get one on occasion is out of my good graces and nothing more.

  23. “Anna Nova, you are readily doing the exact same thing you did in your previous iteration on the previous site: attempting to force people to defend positions they did not take by selectively quoting (which means out of context) or by supplying definitions they did not use and attempting to force them to defend definitions they did not use or by any number of other methods”

    http://www.journal14.com/2012/02/19/the-secretary-of-the-treasury-tells-us-the-truth/#comment-9414

    —-
    Inflation index excludes fuel and food. I wonder who thought up that brilliant idea. / Of course, food and fuel (which hurt the poor and middle class the most) have spiked much faster than all other goods and services. But thanks to the Democrats and QE1 and QE2, and the in-the-works QE3, hyper-inflation is just around the corner and can’t be stopped.
    —-

    For someone who claims to have a dedication to the truth, you seem to have a few problems. Are you claiming you did not say precisely what I just quoted you as saying? Are you saying that I am ignoring a greater context where you establish that “hyper-inflation” does not, in fact, mean hyper-inflation?

    I have provided a link to your exact words. As someone who claims to be dedicated to the truth, please provide proof for your claim.

  24. Speaking about truth, we are still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claim that the US will be expereiencing hyper-inflation next year, Mr Hitchcock.

    *Ahem* Go back to the stacks for that book that lady asked you for. You’re none too good where truth comes into play. But we all already knew that from dealing with your previous iteration on the previous site. And Wagonwheel, you can quit calling him a woman now. He has a girlfriend (or did have one) that he’s ever so proud to proclaim (or was previously) in order to prove his manhood or machismo or somesuch rot.

  25. “It seems to me a perplexing mystery that the same person would commit to the control of the Church, yet reject the control of the State, wherein both entities are actually conceived and operated by humanoids.”

    Too too rich. On too too many levels.

    Do gotta look out for those humanoid operators, though …

  26. “*Ahem* Go back to the stacks for that book that lady asked you for. You’re none too good where truth comes into play. But we all already knew that from dealing with your previous iteration on the previous site. And Wagonwheel, you can quit calling him a woman now. He has a girlfriend (or did have one) that he’s ever so proud to proclaim (or was previously) in order to prove his manhood or machismo or somesuch rot.”

    This is a personal insult, and in violation of the comments policy.

    Mr Editor, please take note.

    I have not insulted you, Mr Hitchcock. I find it disappointing that someone who holds himself up to be an example Christian so publicly would resort to personal attack and insult so readily. I point you to James 1:26.

    Meanwhile, these are your words:

    —-
    Inflation index excludes fuel and food. I wonder who thought up that brilliant idea. / Of course, food and fuel (which hurt the poor and middle class the most) have spiked much faster than all other goods and services. But thanks to the Democrats and QE1 and QE2, and the in-the-works QE3, hyper-inflation is just around the corner and can’t be stopped.
    —-

    “Just around the corner” cannot refer to two or three years from now.

    We are still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claim that the US will be experiencing hyper-inflation next year, Mr Hitchcock.

  27. “I have provided a link to your exact words. As someone who claims to be dedicated to the truth, please provide proof for your claim.”

    It looks as though the only “claim” you present was in the form of a rhetorically delivered prediction; which despite its categorical delivery, implies at least one conditional in the case of a new “easing”.

    The demand for “proof” therefore, looks incoherent.

  28. ” I have not insulted you, Mr Hitchcock.

    That declarative is absolutely false.

    “Just around the corner” cannot refer to two or three years from now.

    That declarative is demonstrably false.”

    I refer you once again to James 1:26.

    These are your words:

    —-
    Inflation index excludes fuel and food. I wonder who thought up that brilliant idea. / Of course, food and fuel (which hurt the poor and middle class the most) have spiked much faster than all other goods and services. But thanks to the Democrats and QE1 and QE2, and the in-the-works QE3, hyper-inflation is just around the corner and can’t be stopped.
    —-

    If this does not apply to the 2013 year, then please indicate the time frame for which your words “just around the corner” applies

    We are still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claim that the US will be experiencing hyper-inflation “just around the corner”, Mr Hitchcock. Why is it that you cannot simply provide evidence to back up your claim?

  29. Au contraire Anna Nova. “We” are certainly not waiting for any more of your insane bullying antics. Your comments aren’t worth reading, your tactics are childish, and your repetition is boring, as are you.

  30. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Special Apology Edition

  31. Pingback: GayPatriot » Nominations for the Watchers’ Council (Leap Year Day Edition)

  32. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations: Special Apology Edition | therightplanet.com

  33. Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com

  34. The Watcher of Weasels, a collection of right wing neoconic rhetoric, is intent on taking the President to task for apologizing to the Afghans for our burning of copies of the Koran. Can you imagine? Can you imagine our reaction to their burning the Bible? This is the problem these wingers face: It is all one-sided for them. They should be listened to, then quickly rejected. It is exactly this mindset from where the neoconic bias has originated, to the detriment of our nation and world peace, you know, the Iraq War and unquestioned support of Israeli aggressions, across the board. We must no longer be swayed by their hateful rhetoric.

  35. WW wrote:

    The Watcher of Weasels, a collection of right wing neoconic rhetoric, is intent on taking the President to task for apologizing to the Afghans for our burning of copies of the Koran. Can you imagine? Can you imagine our reaction to their burning the Bible?

    Yes, actually, I can. I can imagine that they would be pretty annoyed, and might even engage in some — horrors! — harsh rhetoric. What I can’t imagine them doing is rioting in the streets, burning cars, destroying buildings and killing people over it.

    As you try to construct some sort of moral equivalence over their reactions, perhaps you might consider that there is no moral equivalence here.

    Indeed, even if we control for cultural differences, and look solely are demonstrations among Americans, we can see the conservatives on one side, holding their TEA Party rallies, in which the ralliers threw their trash into trash cans, carried some of it out, and left the areas mostly clean, and the liberals of the Occupy protests, who trashed the place, and left it full of waste. Or, we can look at the anti-globalization protests, which destroyed local businesses, turned over and set cars afire, and just generally smelled, or the anti-war protesters, dirty, unkempt, often anti-Semitic, and only barely toilet trained civilized.

  36. SINP writes

    The Watcher of Weasels, a collection of right wing neoconic rhetoric, is intent on taking the President to task for apologizing to the Afghans for our burning of copies of the Koran. Can you imagine? Can you imagine our reaction to their burning the Bible?

    Yeah, I can imagine. People would be upset; however, they wouldn’t be rioting in the streets killing people left and right.

    This is the problem these wingers face: It is all one-sided for them. They should be listened to, then quickly rejected. It is exactly this mindset from where the neoconic bias has originated, to the detriment of our nation and world peace, you know, the Iraq War and unquestioned support of Israeli aggressions, across the board. We must no longer be swayed by their hateful rhetoric.

    The problem you progressives face is your inability to face actual reality. For example, you actually believe that our reaction to Bible burnings in the Muslim world would in any way be equivalent to what we now see Afghanistan? Christians are routinely murdered in Muslim lands and there’s barely a peep from the West! And, of course, there you are with your ridiculous anti-Israeli bias, well documented over at CSPT, keeping your head in the sand so as not to face reality … and history.

  37. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Special Apology Edition - ScrollPost.com

  38. Mr Editor, either you are the victim of propaganda from Fox News and the like, or you are intent on propagating it, I’m not sure which, or maybe both. Moreover, I note that there is not one cite to your allegations.

    While I can agree about the apparent overreaction by the Afghans to our Koran burning, I think we need to throw in the fact that their country has in effect been attacked and occupied. Therefore you need to consider what our reaction would be to an Islamic occupier, setting fire to a stack of Bibles here. Does this never occur to you, Mr Editor?

    You have great difficulty seeing through the eyes of others, and spare no animosity toward those who do not subscribe to your somewhat jaundiced and radical views, views which, over time, have been quite barbaric and destabilizing, as in Korea, Viet Nam, and Iraq. By saying this, I do not discharge responsibility for the same on the other side either. There has to be a better way!

  39. No, koolo, you need to be specific, otherwise your alleged anti-semitism is fallacious and without merit. I understand very well that to object to an Israeli policy is anti-semitism to those who do not even understand what a semite is. Is this you, koolo?

  40. SINP writes

    No, koolo, you need to be specific, otherwise your alleged anti-semitism is fallacious and without merit. I understand very well that to object to an Israeli policy is anti-semitism to those who do not even understand what a semite is. Is this you, koolo?

    No, SINP, what you need to do is to stop playing your usual games. If/when I even pointed to specific instances (of which there are many), we all know around here what you do. So again, please — you’re antics don’t fool a soul around here.

    And you brought up “anti-Semitism.” I said “anti-Israel.” But please refrain from the silly semantics games about “semite.” This merely attempts to distract from your head-in-the-sand views about that part of the world.

  41. SINP writes

    Mr Editor, either you are the victim of propaganda from Fox News and the like, or you are intent on propagating it

    Ah yes, if it isn’t Rush Limbaugh, it’s that other boogeyman, Fox News.

    While I can agree about the apparent overreaction by the Afghans to our Koran burning, I think we need to throw in the fact that their country has in effect been attacked and occupied.

    And just why was it “attacked,” SINP?

    views which, over time, have been quite barbaric and destabilizing, as in Korea, Viet Nam, and Iraq.

    Let’s see … views which

    1) prevented South Korea from becoming a basket case like its northern neighbor,
    2) saw a pullout which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people,
    3) advocated ridding a country of a brutal dictator resposnible for the deaths of myriad thousands, who invaded another country in 1990, and which thumbed its nose at the UN continually for years.

    Let’s hear what your views have led to, SINP.

  42. Koolo, I challenged you to cite a specific example for your anti-Israel allegation. You did not step up, as I would expect any high school student to do. Therefore, you have failed, a grade of “F”. If you decide to make a specific cite, then we can talk!

    It was our Editor who used the term “anti-Semite”, my mistake. However, objecting to an Israeli policy does not constitute being anti-Israel, except in the minds of a person like yourself and those who think only in black and white terms, as today’s American Conservatives are prone to do.

  43. Wagonwheel, stop with your superiority bovine byproduct. You are not anyone’s teacher here. You don’t come close to qualifying as anyone’s teacher here, since you are far less informed and far less accurate than those you purport to “grade”. So cut that crap out already. It doesn’t put you “above” anyone. All it does is attempt to enrage people, and you know it!

    And everyone knows your tactics by now. Demand citations that you will never look at (because that’s a way to refuse to talk about what everyone already knows). When citations are not given, play your superiority game and hand-wave what everyone already knows because you cannot be bothered to discuss the facts on the ground — that everyone already knows. And when citations are demanded of you, play the “trust me” game: “my word is good enough.”

  44. You also get a grade of “F”, a grade you have well earned over time by your hyperbole and your making stuff up, as regulars on here and CSPT have known for a long time.

    Why is it that you are diverting from discussing the issues; instead, you continue with your insults and personal attacks? Did not you learn from all the red-lining yesterday? If I were Editor, I would disengage you from being an administrator, based on your irresponsibility and behavior on here. Go back to your own blog and do what you please there.

  45. SINP writes

    Koolo, I challenged you to cite a specific example for your anti-Israel allegation. You did not step up, as I would expect any high school student to do. Therefore, you have failed, a grade of “F”. If you decide to make a specific cite, then we can talk!

    There are myriad instances at CSPT not to mention Hube’s Colossus so please don’t make a hindquarters of yourself by pretending they don’t exist. You were engaged in many, many arguments about such. Or, do you deny these did not take place, SINP?

    However, objecting to an Israeli policy does not constitute being anti-Israel, except in the minds of a person like yourself and those who think only in black and white terms, as today’s American Conservatives are prone to do.

    Of course merely objecting to an Israel policy isn’t necessarily “anti-Israel.” However, when one perpetually makes excuses for Israel’s enemies as you do — especially when those enemies proclaim genocide against Israel — I’d say that’s a pretty clear example of anti-Israel feeling, if not anti-Semitism.

  46. SINP writes

    Why is it that you are diverting from discussing the issues; instead, you continue with your insults and personal attacks? Did not you learn from all the red-lining yesterday? If I were Editor, I would disengage you from being an administrator, based on your irresponsibility and behavior on here. Go back to your own blog and do what you please there.

    Yet another hypocritical comment from SINP. Your comments were also redlined, SINP. Did you forget that, too, along with all your past anti-Israel comments? Hitchcock was never banned for two weeks as you were, now, was he? And why don’t you go back to your blog? Perhaps work on getting over ten visitors per day to it? That’d be a real achievement!

  47. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Special Apology Edition | askmarion

  48. Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Special Apology Edition

  49. Pingback: My Blog » » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Special Apology Edition

  50. Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Special Apology Edition | Virginia Right!

  51. Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results

  52. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | Independent Sentinel

  53. Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com

  54. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | Sago

  55. Pingback: My Blog » » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 03/02/12

  56. Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 03/02/12

  57. Pingback: March to the Sea |

  58. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 3-3-2012 | Virginia Right!

  59. Pingback: Bookworm Room » Watcher of Weasels — good food for smart, hungry brains

Comments are closed.