Fritz Feds |
Front page
Federalist Society members corresponding from the Walter F. Mondale Hall at the University of Minnesota. |
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Posted
10:04 AM
by Jason
0 comments Monday, February 27, 2006
Posted
10:19 AM
by magnu231
0 comments
Posted
8:41 AM
by magnu231
0 comments Sunday, February 26, 2006
Posted
4:10 PM
by Jason
"In their 20s, he was a Roman Catholic priest; she was a teacher and a nun. They fell in love and chose to marry." Well, that's just not the best way to score points with the Church, now is it? What's more, they have a gay son: "Now, love looms tall again to test the St. Paul couple's strong ties to Catholicism. The church has toughened its stand against Catholics in same-sex relationships. And one of the couple's six children is gay." Toughened? If by that you mean that the stand is the same as ever. So they're upset, predictably: "At the Cathedral of St. Paul, people wearing rainbow-colored sashes — considered a political statement in support of people in gay relationships— are refused communion." Honestly, who does that? I went to mass there last night and didn't see anything of the sort, but it was my first time there (they have a 7pm instead of 5pm, and I was running late on everything, as usual) so I can't really say whether or not it's actually a big deal. "All gays want is the protections heterosexual couples have," Charlie Girsch says. And that means that the Catholic Church should be ok with it? Also, why is it always "protections"? Furthermore, Charlie, you need to work on your grammar. "Charlie Girsch felt another sort of sting when he was denied Communion because he wore a rainbow sash. He realized he had lost, however briefly, the white, male — and straight — privilege to which he was accustomed. "In some ways, it didn't hurt," he says. He knew he could go back to the Communion rail without the sash and partake of the sacraments." Now, I can't figure out if this is supposed to be a news story, but receiving communion is emphatically not a matter of straight white male privilege, nor has it ever been. Lines like that seriously drive me crazy. Here's the bottom line Charlie. Opposition to gay marriage is not the same thing as hate for gay people. Trust me on this one. No sensible person hates your son for being gay. There probably are people who do, but they are probably not incredibly bright. Church is not a place to score political points, and you of all people should know that, having been a priest. Or maybe, I would guess, you just don't get it. Your past actions would tend to suggest this conclusion. You aren't going to change the Church's mind on this, so leave politics to political institutions; you just might make some progress there. For what it's worth, I don't dig the Archbishop's postcards either, and I am more or less ok with civil unions. If you want religious sanction though, I can't help you. I'm sure there are some sects out there that would be glad to let you wear whatever sash you want. 2 comments Friday, February 24, 2006
Posted
2:59 PM
by Jason
1. We haven't exactly had a lot of problems with the UAE. 2. This is a business deal (an acquisition; contracts exam flashback imminent), day to day operations shouldn't change much, and as for security, that's our job no matter who is in charge. 3. All of that aside, they're OUR ports, so we should have Americans running them (can I join the AFL-CIO now?). Not Brits, not Arabs, not Scots, not Japanese, not even Australians. As my friend pointed out, the President rides around in Cadillac for a reason. 4. If I hear you say that President Bush is selling the ports to Arabs, I might lose it. I heard this enough times over the past week that I had to go back to what I had read originally, and sure enough, yup, it's the Brits selling the ports. So basically, this change hardly registers on my meter. I guess it called attention to the issue of who runs our ports, which is good, but sale or no sale has no effect on the fact that I don't particularly care for them being run by foreigners (am I a xenophobe yet?), whoever they may be. UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg has an NRO column on the topic here. 0 comments Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Posted
8:06 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
5:01 PM
by magnu231
0 comments
Posted
4:58 PM
by Jason
"Short version: the administration may have thought it was helping a Valuable Ally and probably a pal, end of story. But it plays like Bush defending eminent domain to condemn a neighborhood to build a mosque." Read the rest. 0 comments
Posted
10:59 AM
by magnu231
0 comments
It just dawned on me that Ted Kennedy and George Washington have the same birthday. Don't tell Ted.
1 comments Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Posted
7:24 PM
by magnu231
0 comments
Posted
5:14 PM
by magnu231
0 comments Monday, February 20, 2006
Posted
10:42 PM
by Jason
"Now that gentleman’s [a NYT columnist] concern for the wellbeing of the Bush administration is on the level of his concern for the quail that Mr. Cheney did or did not kill (this is the only detail of the event unexplored by the historians). Why did the critic want Mr. Cheney to resign? Because “Mr. Cheney is arrogant, defiant and sometimes blatantly vulgar.” Oh? Yes — the critic arrived with documentation in hand: “He once told Sen. Patrick Leahy to perform a crude act upon himself.” You do not say! Well, that’s the kind of thing one would expect from somebody who goes about crippling his friends while ostensibly aiming only at quail." That said, news coverage and blog discussions of the past week have called to mind this excellent thread on Ace of Spades HQ. Also, I hate the usage X-gate used to describe any problem a politician may have. Therefore I am going to use the formulation X-aquiddick, since Wednesday is Ted Kennedy's birthday. Liquid lunch anyone? 0 comments
Posted
7:19 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
7:09 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Ah, I knew I saved my old Times-Delphic (Drake's student newspaper) columns for a reason. Today, Presidents' Day (actually George Washington's Birthday on the books) was the topic of my first. Looking back at it, I was a little prone to exaggeration, but not by too much, and my writing style needed help. I was also more a fan of Thomas Jefferson than I am now. Anyhow, here's a relevant portion (disregard the names of administrators, just know that they were student activity folks who sent far too many emails):
Flash back to a month ago, that Monday that you didn’t have class. Classes were cancelled and there were events [honoring] Martin Luther King Jr. I do not mean to reduce the general appreciation for Dr. King, but where were the e-mails from Herschel Jackson about Presidents’ Day, if not specifically Washington’s Birthday? It wasn’t even mentioned in Jan Wise’s usually meticulous Campus Calendar for the week. I’m not saying that we need another day off; I’m saying that we, as a nation, have lost sight of our origins. We celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day for his work in the Civil Rights movement, but there are still people living who remember that time and knew him personally. Not so with Thomas Jefferson. Independence Day is now more about fireworks and parties than about reverencing our liberty, and given time, MLK day could devolve into something else as well. Jefferson outlined the moral philosophy on which the new nation was to be founded. Washington became the symbol of the growth of this great nation. All else, from the accomplishments of Lincoln to Susan B. Anthony to Martin Luther King Jr., has been an expression of corollaries, which could not have existed without the earlier expressions by Jefferson and Washington. If we lose respect for our foundation it will eventually crumble. That being said, I encourage you all to take some time on Feb. 22nd to honor the man who shaped a largely untrained militia into a force for freedom, the man who refused to be King, the Father of Our Nation, George Washington. And I think the point I was trying to make is valid. The U of M has graciously given us both Monday and Tuesday off, though under the guise of either A) "Law School Winter Break; or 2) some kind of "Mental Health Holiday". It isn't that I don't appreciate it, I do, believe me, I DO, but I think somehow we're missing the point. In closing, and old joke(ish thing). What was the greatest thing George Washington ever did for the United States? (I will post the answer in the comments) 1 comments
Posted
3:29 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
3:16 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
12:11 PM
by magnu231
0 comments Sunday, February 19, 2006
Posted
3:05 PM
by Jason
0 comments Friday, February 17, 2006
Posted
9:37 AM
by magnu231
--Bryant Gumbel Apparently, I am. I saw this on drudge the other day, and I heard about it on the radio. People are trying to justify this different ways. To me it's unjustifiable. I don't care about what socio-economic point Gumbel thinks he's trying to make. It's a racist comment, and it's unacceptable. I'm not going to make the point, what if Rush said the opposite, which I think is just trying to excuse what Rush said. But the fact that Gumbel is skating by on this one with nary a mainstream word of dissent is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. EDIT: Here's another post on it from one of the best hockey bloggers around. 4 comments Thursday, February 16, 2006
Posted
6:58 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
10:45 AM
by magnu231
1 comments
Posted
9:26 AM
by magnu231
2 comments Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Posted
10:20 PM
by Jason
“According to its mission statement, a primary goal of the American Bar Association is to "promote respect for the law." In the interest of mandating racial preferences in admissions, however, the ABA has just ordered law schools to do the opposite--in fact, to violate the law--and is resorting to blackmail to achieve its end.” What the hell is going on here? (thought you might ask) “Meeting in Chicago this past weekend, the ABA's Council of the Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted in favor of "equal opportunity and diversity" standards. Under these standards, any law school that seeks to maintain or acquire ABA accreditation will be required to engage in racial preferences in hiring and admissions, regardless of any federal, state or local laws that prohibit of such policies. Since only graduates of ABA-accredited schools may take the bar exam in the vast majority of states, the association has, in effect, a legal monopoly on accreditation standards.” Seriously, it only gets better from there. Check this out: “Interpretation [the interpretations are given “equal weight” to the rules] 211-1 states that "the requirements of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of gender, race, ethnicity or national origin in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school's non-compliance with Standard 211."” Whatever whatever, we do what we want… 0 comments
Posted
9:48 AM
by magnu231
6 comments Monday, February 13, 2006
Posted
3:18 PM
by magnu231
And as long as we're linking to video, here's the video of the Brits beating up some Iraqis. A lot of British people are outraged by the video. I'm a bit perturbed by whoever's doing the filming, because his comments are a little too gleeful. But I can't really feel too badly over what's going on. I understand that at home, a country at war and at peace, must balance civil liberties and security. I would tend to favor liberty over security, but that's just me. But when people are firing at you, and mobs are struggling with you, sometimes feelings boil over. I'm not saying all the actions taken in this video are right, but understandable. 3 comments
Posted
9:06 AM
by magnu231
2 comments Sunday, February 12, 2006
Posted
10:00 PM
by Jason
0 comments Friday, February 10, 2006
Posted
1:27 AM
by Jason
1. The random, pointless, haphazard anti-western/anti-American statements. Now, these may play well with the AI crowd, but seriously, you’re not reaching new people when you do this. When you insult Winston Churchill and quote him favorably in the same talk, in my mind you should 2. The speaker’s demand that (paraphrasing) “if you are a sensitive person you refer to northern Iraq as Iraqi Kurdistan” or some such. Seriously, no one is being insensitive by referring to the accepted political borders. Also, this Kurdistan never has, as best as I can tell, existed as a nation state, and those who demand it should be open to the possibility first that it is possible to have personal and political freedom without the creation of a new nation state. 3. The attempts to invoke Israel, slavery, and the American Civil War in my mind fell flat. I have no dispute with the stories he told themselves, only that it left me wondering about statistics and evidence outside of these anecdotes. 1 comments Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Posted
9:41 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
12:34 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
9:06 AM
by magnu231
4 comments Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Posted
5:15 PM
by Jason
Also, saw this one linked on Southern Appeal today, a site called The New Constitutionalist, and it looks interesting. Their mission: The New Constitutionalist is devoted to exploring and advancing the cause of liberal constitutionalism as understood by the founders of the American republic. Contributors represent a broad spectrum of disciplines include professors of political science, mathematicians, economists, lawyers, journalists, and other informed citizens who share this commitment. As Matthew Franck at Bench Memos points out that this means “’liberal’ as in ‘conservative.’” They have some really good stuff up right now, topics including: Abu Ghraib, Intelligent Design, judicial nominations (yeah well, who doesn’t), Israel/Hamas, and more. Incidentally, we are working on updating some things, so I will dedicate the comments section of this post to any thoughts you may have on what to add. Wow, this is me encouraging spam, but I reserve the right to smite/mock. 0 comments
Posted
4:51 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
8:50 AM
by magnu231
0 comments Monday, February 06, 2006
Posted
10:34 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
10:33 PM
by Jason
The University has determined that the Law School must allow the military full access to assistance from the Career Services Office so long as the military represents that it does not unlawfully discriminate. Nevertheless, the Law School wants to make clear that the military’s hiring practices do not conform to the Law School’s and the American Association of Law Schools’ nondiscrimination in employment policies. Allowing the military on campus is not an endorsement of the military’s policies with respect to Gays and Lesbians. Now how hard was that? 0 comments
Posted
10:33 PM
by Jason
0 comments
Posted
12:05 PM
by magnu231
0 comments Sunday, February 05, 2006
Posted
12:43 AM
by Jason
0 comments Saturday, February 04, 2006
Posted
3:06 PM
by magnu231
Volokh's got an interesting post on the cartoon scandal. He wonders if there's a double standard for Islam, with people asking for more tolerance for Muslim beliefs than those of Christians. I already posted on this subject, but since than there has been a rising furor, and some of the cartoonists have gone into hiding. In case you are wondering, here are the cartoons in question. http://cryptome.org/muhammad.htm Some of them seem to be in poor taste. I don't deny it. However, do we have a double standard here? Tolerance is usually a good thing. But in placating the thugs who are trying to incite violence from a few brushstrokes might be a mistake. Compare, if you will, the previous cartoons to those on this site (I was directed both to those cartoons and these from infinite monkeys, an excellent blog.) http://www.radioislam.org/islam/roligt/roligt.htm 0 comments Thursday, February 02, 2006
Posted
11:23 PM
by Jason
Colin Powell and Condi are tokens "The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side," he charged. He referred to former Attorney General John Ashcroft as J. Edgar Ashcroft. He compared Bush's judicial nominees to the Taliban. In July 2001, Bond said, "[Bush] has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection." ME: Yawn, it’s a shame that people take this guy seriously. The NAACP could be a useful and worthwhile organization, but the devotion of their leadership to the screaming left has rendered it, well, redundant and irrelevant. 0 comments
Posted
11:06 AM
by magnu231
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm Meanwhile, Christians decry a new show making fun of the crucifiction. But no riots, boycotts, or violence ensue. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200602\CUL20060202b.html 0 comments Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Posted
2:10 PM
by magnu231
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0201/dailyUpdate.html 0 comments
Posted
12:38 AM
by Jason
"Tonight," he said, "when the president announces to applause the fact of Judge Alito's confirmation, what he should really hear, because of the partisan nature of his choice, is the sound of one hand clapping." Yeah, it’s hard for the right hand to clap when the left hand is permanently frozen in middle finger position. 0 comments
|