|
|
Saturday, July 12, 2003
|
|
| |
One distressing aspect of Justice Scalia's Lawrence dissent is his embrace of the phrase "culture war":
It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.
The phrase "culture war" is a favorite of Pat Buchanan, Robert Bork, Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, and others. "We are in a culture war, a battle to define America", Buchanan declared in his address to the 1992 Republican Convention.
I have no quarrel with the phrase being used in a political speech or in an opinion column. It is a highly-charged rhetorical phrase which carries strong ideological connotations. I am dismayed, however, to see a Justice of the Supreme Court use this phrase, in all deadly seriousness, in his written opinion. It demeans him, in my eyes, because it represents his declaration of fealty to a position on a social and ideological issue. We would rather have our Justices keep above that sort of thing.
"Culture war" is commonly found in the same paragraph as "liberal elites" or simply "elites". Those using the word "elites" in this context are very seldom challenged to define precisely who or what is meant by the term. It is a convenient term that is used disparagingly to refer to a varying array of personages -- to academics, to lawyers, to judges, to the executives and screenwriters who produce mass entertainment, to writers whose articles appear in intellectual magazines. It always, of course, refers to others. No one will dare consider himself to be a member of "the elite". That words conveys its own sense of concordance with other words of derision, including "effete" and "effeminate", and thus suggests without ever really saying so a tie to the gay lifestyle and to another disdainful ideological phrase adopted by Scalia, the "homosexual agenda".
12:26:06 PM 
|
|
"Lincoln's war overthrew that Constitution."
So states Pat Buchanan in a widely-read and widely-commented upon column published on July 6, entitled "The Supreme Court is not Supreme".
Pat was making the point, echoing William Quick, that the original Constititional division of power was rearranged after the Civil War, and indeed no one can deny that the structure of our national edifice was dramatically altered after that cataclysmic event.
But no one in blogdom who has commented on Buchanan's column, and the good and bad points it makes, has mentioned the import of the phrase "Lincoln's war". In just two words, Buchanan reveals a great deal about his own political attitudes and, no doubt still, his ambitions.
Buchanan has always played to blue-collar conservatives, and a good deal of his message resonates with some Southerners. The use of the phrase "Lincoln's War" is calculated to pander to the neo-Confederate impulse in the Southern states. And of course it resounds with others in the backwaters of certain styles of "conservatism" as well.
9:39:50 AM
|
|
The Free Press reports that the Administration is requesting Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit's decision overturning its policy of revoking DEA controlled substance licenses of any physician who prescribes marijuana in compliance with the "medical marijuana" statutes in place in nine states.
What a wonderful New Federalism case for the Supreme Court! This case would put Rehnquist, in particular, to the test, to see if he would remain consistent with the federalism positions he has advocated for more than a decade. But I doubt that four Justices can be found to accept this case. Very few of them want to directly face this issue. I predict that key members of each bloc will vote against taking the case for fear the other side will prevail, and that the Ninth Circuit decision will remain in force.
The lunacy of the Administration's position on this issue is highlighted by Solicitor General Theodore Olson's inane comment, as paraphrased in the report:
Olson said the latest 9th Circuit decision keeps the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration from protecting the public. He said the ruling licenses doctors to treat patients with illegal drugs and that physicians who urge patients to use pot are no different than those recommending heroin or LSD.
Most of us can tell the difference between the use of marijuana to treat glaucoma and the use of LSD. The Administration has always taken the position that there is "no legitimate medical use" for marijuana, but that position simply contradicts scientific fact.
9:24:00 AM
|
|
Ernie points to a post by his fellow Louisiana logger Steve Covell on limiting Google searches to weblog domains. The tricks are worth reading, but the following will work, too, in any web page, including an HTML file on a local drive, to find text within the blogspot.com and radio.weblogs.com domains:
<!-- Search Google -->
<FORM method=GET action=http://www.google.com/custom>;
<TABLE bgcolor=#FFFFFF cellspacing=0 border=0>
<tr valign=top><td>
<A HREF=http://www.google.com/search>;
<IMG SRC=http://www.google.com/logos/Logo_40wht.gif border=0 ALT=Google align=middle></A>
</td><tr></tr><td>
<INPUT TYPE=text name=q size=31 maxlength=255 value="">
<INPUT type=submit name=sa VALUE="Google Search">
</td><tr></tr><td>
<font face=arial,sans-serif size=-1><input type=hidden name=domains value="radio.weblogs.com; blogspot.com"><br>
<input type=radio name=sitesearch value="radio.weblogs.com" value="" checked> Search radio.weblogs.com
<input type=radio name=sitesearch value="blogspot.com"> Search blogspot.com </font><br>
</td></tr></TABLE>
</FORM>
<!-- Search Google -->
This code was produced by an Add Google Search utility which I recall was previously offered by Google but is no longer findable at its site. Of interest is the fact that the utility added a hidden input code which contains a long series of characters, and I assume that those characters are used by Google to track the use of the service. That line has been removed from the code reproduced above, and that does not seem to affect its action.
Recall also that Radio offers a Google-It macro which will tie the Google search engine to every item title on your log, if you enable it.
8:19:13 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2003
Franco Castalone.
Last update:
8/2/2003; 9:32:38 PM.
|
|
|
