.: I Respectfully Dissent :.

Kelo - may the farce be with you

Following on from the Supreme Court's disastrous ruling in Kelo v. New London, in which the court (speaking through the voice of Justice Stevens) effectively voided the public use clause of the 5th Amendment (yes, that is ultra vires, well spotted!), SCOTUSblog advises the world that:

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, moved swiftly on Monday to narrow the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision last Thursday that upheld broad government power to seize private property to turn over for profit-making economic development. Cornyn’s new bill, S. 1313, would lay down a congressional definition of “public use,” far narrower than the Court’s constitutional interpretation in Kelo v. City of New London (04-108).

The bill's relevant text:

“( a ) In General. – The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.
“( b ) Public Use. – In this Act, the term ‘public use’ shall not be construed to include economic development.
“( c ) Application. -- This Act shall apply to –
(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government, and
(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.”

It seems preposterous to me that we have reached a stage where the Congress of the United States feels itself required to pass a law which substantively says nothing which is not already in the Constitution, for no reason other than the inability of the Supreme Court to read the text which they have sworn to uphold. The Cornyn bill says "The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use"; the 5th Amendment says "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation". Spot the difference!

I can't help but hark back to Justice Scalia's warning of over a decade ago, in County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) at 60-61:

The story is told of the elderly judge who, looking back over a long career, observes with satisfaction that, "when I was young, I probably let stand some convictions that should have been overturned, and when I was old I probably set aside some that should have stood; so overall, justice was done." I sometimes think that is an appropriate analog to this Court's constitutional jurisprudence, which alternately creates rights that the Constitution does not contain and denies rights that it does. Compare Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (right to abortion does exist) with Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (right to be confronted with witnesses, U.S. Const., Amdt. 6, does not)."

That the modern supreme court has essentially liberated itself from the shackles
of the text is hardly news; that they feel able to so brazenly abrogate an explicit
constitutional protection is a little newer, and a little scarier. I have to confess
that, in my copy of the Constitution, I do not see any mention of the Supreme
Court in Article V, nor any mention of the power to amend the Constitution in
Article III. Perhaps Justice Stevens would be good enough to make available his
version to the world.

Kelo goes wrong four sentences into §III, where, having come painfully
close to grasping the point - "it has long been accepted that the sovereign
may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation" - it then rejects this as a basis for deciding the case. This is as close as Stevens' opinion gets to the Constitution, and thereafter, it never again reconnects with text, tradition, or common sense, even, for that matter. Having dismally failed to demonstrate that handing the land to a private developer is a public use, Stevens suggests an alternative test: "The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City’s development plan serves a public purpose". In my view, he does not convincingly prove that private employment is a public purpose, either. How is a Pfizer research facility a "public purpose"? Is creating jobs a public service, rather than an economic activity? On the other hand, this is at least consistent with Stevens' previously-expressed view of what employment is; cf. PGA Tour v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting from per curiam by Stevens, J.) at
§I ¶9.: "By the Court's reasoning, a business exists not only to
sell goods and services to the public, but to provide the "privilege" of employment to the public; wherefore it follows, like night the day, that everyone who seeks a job is a customer" (emphasis added).

The fundamental problem with Kelo, then, the reason above all else that it is wrongly-decided, is that it is in open collision with the 5th Amendment, and no amount of stare decisis - even if we allow, for sake of argument, that adherence thereto would mandate the result embodied in Stevens' opinion - can ever change that. Respect for precedent cannot justify an unconstitutional result, and in a case where only either stare decisis or the text of the constitution can be sustained, it is the latter which must prevail. Such is the case here. The 5th Amendment says that state governments can take your property for public use; Kelo effectively says that state governments can take your private property for any use. The majority essentially contends that the term "public use" implies no limitation. But consider the text: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But remove the public use clause, and you are left with "nor shall private property be taken without just compensation" - which still makes sense. The Court therefore suggests that the public use clause is meaningless. Or, as Justice Thomas put it, "If such 'economic development' takings are for a 'public use', any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution" (Thomas, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). These two propositions cannot both survive; there either is, or there is not, a formal limitation in the 5th Amendment on what the government can do with land under its emminent domain power (q.v. Kelo, O'Connor, J., dissenting, at §II ¶1-2). Justice Stevens says there is not. The Constitution says otherwise, and the Constitution's answer is always right.

......
Post facto: I took note of the practical consequences of Kelo for the litigants in Kelo: the real-world consequences of bad decisions, 8/18/05, and revisited the subject in Kelo, revisited, 1/23/06.

Posted 17:08, 6/28/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Kelo v. New London | Comments (1)

Strange matters afoot in Kentucky

This was reported no our local news, but the WashTimes has a fairly similar precis:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050602-041412-9855r.htm

I will write more about this once I've had a chance to review the relevant materials, but in summary: Kentucky requires six year residency for State Senate candidates; the winner of an election last fall had been a resident for a little shy of six years. A Judge voided her candidacy post facto and declared her opponent the winner; the Kentucky Senate begged to differ, claiming that the Constitution permits that body to determine the results of elections, and promptly seated woman who won the election. Bizarre stuff.

Posted 22:45, 6/22/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Default | Comment on this

GID - thoughts

A poster who identifies themselves as a female on a message board I frequent has "come out" (if that's the correct term for these things) as a "pre-op male-to-female transsexual". I have to admit that transexuals - like bigamists - are one of the few areas where my tolerence for, shall we say, alternatives, fails me. This being a posible learning opportunity, I noted:

[M]y instinct when someone expresses desire for gender realignment would be that they seek the help of a medical professional, as in a psychologist, not a surgeon. I'm sorry you have these problems, but I believe that we're born male or female, and I don't believe that we can change that, any more than we can change our ethnicity.

For much the same reasons, I don't agree with your premise that you were "born in the wrong body" either - you weren't "born in the wrong body", you were born in the body in which you were born - which is, by definition, the right one. It's true that male and female brains are wired differently, (See, e.g., Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works; Barbara & Allan Pease, Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps), but it's generally agreed that there is a wide range of variance and crossover. For example, according to the Pease test (Pease, supra, at 57-66), my brain is more female-wired than my mom's, and my mom's brain is more male-wired than either mine or my dad's. All four of the immediate family (my sister is more borderline than the rest of us) are on the "wrong" side of the line for male vs. female wiring. Does that mean that we were born in the wrong bodies? Nope. Does it mean we should go to therapy? Nope. Does it mean we should undergo gender reassignment surgery? Nope. It means that we were born how we were born, and that's that. There is no such thing as "the wrong body"; there is only what you're born with.

Lastly, I reject your comment that "transsexuality can't be 'cured'", insofar as, in my view, "curing" implies that there's something inherently "wrong" in the first place, which I simply don't subscribe to. Depression, or any number of other psychological disorders, are a function of the mind, and they are certainly real to the people experiencing them, but we treat people with depression with psychological help; we don't deal with acoholism with a nice big bottle of bourbon and a friendly wave, and so it seems to me that we shouldn't deal with gender idendity disorder with surgery.

(see also, Tammy Bruce, The Death of right & Wrong for perspective on this matter). However, because this could potentially be a learning experience, and because I'd like to think that if someone presented facts that couldn't be reconciled with my views that I'd change my mind, I questioned:

If you can point me to some studies which contradict this view, I'd be willing to read them, but my viewpoint on this is that it isn't a question of tolerance; rather, it's a question of sympathy for people who have a psychological affliction, and ensuring that they get the help they need. We don't "tolerate" people with schizophrenia or Borderline Personality Disorder - we help them.

And so he provided me with a few links, none of which did anything to change my mind. My subsequent reply, including discussion of some of those materials, is reprinted below. (N.b., when I write "you", I am addressing the person to whom I was responding, not you, the present reader).

* * *

As it seems to me, and I've read nothing in the links that you've posted that convinces me otherwise, gender identity is as much a function of one's physical presence, and societal reaction thereto, not just one's psychology. In §§ I and II, I will further expand on my views as noted above, and in §§III and IV, I will respond to some of the material you posted in rebuttal. I

The psychological characteristics that we call "male" and "female" are obviously and certainly very real, and there is a legitimate difference between "male"-wired brains and "female" wired brains. The difference is predominantly in the density on connections between hemispheres. See generally, Pease, supra, at 43-57. We can explain this difference in either evolutionary or theological terms co-equally, as a function of the different roles played by men and women in an earlier (essentially, pre-Roman) time. However, if the difference between a "male" wired brain and a "female" wired brain is in somthing as extrisic to gender as - in effect - bandwidth, we might wonder: how deep-rooted are the labels of "male" and "female" as they apply to brains? Or even, what does it mean to call a brain "male" or "female", vs. a more physiologically literal description of "densely connected" and "less connected"?

We must discard our assumptions of what "male" or "female" mean to us in common usage, and look through these terms to their roots. I would argue that it is the functions which have been assigned to us based on our gender that influence whether those brain functions are characterized as "male" or "female", rather than the other way around. In other words, the labels of a "male" brain vs. a "female" brain are a result of characteristics which seem particularly well-adapted to the gender roles assigned to humans with a male physiology compared to those gender roles assigned to humans with a female physiology. For example, male-type bodoes being physically stronger and less sensitive for pain, it was obvious that those humans with male-type bodies would be hunter-gatherers, and thus those brain functions particularly conducive to the hunter-gatherer role - e.g., spacial abilities - would also be labelled "male" functions. Q.v. Pease, supra, at 102-124.

In the modern era, our gender expectations - and those placed on us - are also largely formed by physical constraints; by societal reaction to our physical gender, and by factors intrisic to gender (for example, in women, menstruation). These factors create a shared sense of commonality and, where applicable, community. Because societal evolution has largely eviscerated (or at least, severely undercut) the notion of prescribed gender roles, the "male" and "female" brain characteristics are generally seen as being inherent in the definition of being "male" and "female", rather than their being merely the characteristics associated with obsolete gender roles that men and women played. It seems to me that the question asked by transsexuals is: "I don't feel like I belong in this body", based on what they percieve to be conflict between the way their brain works and their physical body. This rests on the assumption that the female gender is a female-wired brain in a female body. But gender, as I see it, is a physical description which informs a social experience; certainly, there are characteristics - psychological and physiological - which particularly appertain to men and women, but don't accept that a woman who likes sports is any less a woman, or a man who cries is any less of a man. In other words: our gender identity is about more than how we're wired upstairs, it's a deeply-rooted combination of physical, psychological and societal factors.

II
That sexuality is disconnected from gender should be obvious from your own experience: you're seeking (one presumes) a gender realignment from male to female, yet having undergone that procedure, you intend to retain your current sexual preference: you prefer women, and that's because you prefer women, not innately and as inevitable function of the fact that you're a male. My understanding is that this is situation normal for many (if not most) transsexuals.

III Article:

Rather, transsexuals take such drastic measures because they feel so strongly and consistently that they should have been born the opposite sex

I would argue that they do so because they WANT to be the opposite sex, and their argument that they SHOULD have been born the opposite sex is a post facto (and likely subconscious) attempt to rationalize that desire. Interestingly, according to the same source, the overwhelming majority of transsexuals are also male-to-female:

Rates of occurrence of known female-to-male transsexuals are significantly lower, typically being around 1/3 to 1/4 of the rate for male-to-female transsexuals.

The article notes that "[t]his suggests that varying cultural factors might play a role in the decision to be open about the condition". I would suggest an alternative interpretation. All children are concieved as women, and are altered to men by a massive dose of hormones given at a certain point during gestation. One can hardly help but wonder if there is a connection between the overwhelming majority of transexuals being male-to-female and our biological beginnings as female. Precisely what that link might be, and what the implications of this would be, however, I do not know.

IV

I mentioned in my remarks at the top of this thread that I had not read anything which changed my mind, but at least one of the essays you linked to re-inforces my view that gender identity disorder is a psychological disorder and should be treated as such. Indeed, one of the links you posted suggested it is, in as many as 80% of cases, a result of molestation or other childhood trauma:

There are many and varying family circumstances which may be partly responsible for transsexuality. As for homosexuality, a late birth order is common (Blanchard et al., 1996). It appears that being late, or last, in a family of children is often not optimum. A child may receive less attention from parents, and other siblings may well be dominant. Rather unusual family conditions have sometimes been implicated (Rekers, 1996) In an NIMH program, a survey of 70 clients found no obviously physical symptoms (except one case of an undescended testicle) but 80% of the mothers and 45% of the fathers had psychiatric problems of various types which are very high incidences. For the most gender dysphoric, in all cases the father was absent. Overall in 54% of cases the father was absent, and in 37% of cases there was no adult male role model. If a father or role model was available, in 60% of cases he was psychologically distant. Another common factor was frequent ineptness at sport. The latter can arise from lack of physical co-ordination, but will have strong psychological effects in the highly competitive world of growing boys. Thus there are a constellation of social factors probably involved.

In some cases (pers. comm. J.Leach) sexual abuse may be involved. As in homosexuality, particularly for those subjects in clinical settings, rates of 80% have been recorded."

(From Whitehead, Should transsexuality be freely endorsed by Christians?) (Citations in original). Whitehead further notes that, "Identical twins, having identical genes and identical environment, should have identical transsexuality; if not, unique individual experiences are responsible". This has an obvious implication, and Whitehead does not shy from it:

The question whether transsexuality is determined, i.e. innate, inescapably forced on people, is best answered by two paths (a) do identical twins always both have the condition? (b) is any change through therapy possible? ...For transsexuality (a rarer condition than homosexuality) far fewer twin data are available. There is one case (Garden & Rothery, 1992) in which a female to male identical twin pair was discordant for transsexuality. Another study showed (Buhrich et al., 1991) that 3/4 identical twins were discordant. These are very small samples, but certainly show that in a significant number of cases transsexuality is enforced neither by genes nor environment.

Neither is the condition unalterable psychologically. Personally known to the author (who has not sought out such cases) are three males who have decided they are not after all women in men’s bodies, and have instead cultivated their masculine side with good success.

The conclusion of the Whitehead essay you posted, then, is forced to the same conclusion that I reach:

This shows that gender characteristics apart from the sheerly physical ones are socially constructed and deliberately cultivated. The data also show that homosexuals and transsexuals are within the normal masculine/feminine range of the trait under study, for their gender. Thus, although they are more feminine than average, they are hugely outnumbered by the heterosexuals who are as feminine as they are. Although transsexuals would like to think of themselves as physiologically different, the differences are within the normal range for their sex, and the belief is clearly psychological.

(Citations ommitted)(Emphasis added).
* * *
Because I find no contradiction of my previous views in the material reviewed, I remain of the same opinion expressed above. Viz., gender identity disorder is a psychological disorder which should be met with sympathy and care, much as depression is, not gratuitous surgery. I remain open to being pursuaded otherwise, but for now, I am not.

UPDATE: there's a study to which I've been directed, which can be found here. I've not yet had time to read it, but will update again in due course.

Posted 22:08, 6/22/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Default | Comment on this

WallyWorld and free trade

PBS' Frontline just ran a marvellous commentary on Wal*Mart and the pernicious effects of free trade with China. As one of their economists noted, "this ruthless trend of lower prices would be marvellous if we were just a nation of consumers - but we're not, we are workers, too". Or, as I've put if before, "every time you see one of those "rollback" stickers, it means another American lost their job".

I actually don't have that much of a problem with Wal*Marts "pushy" business model, my objection is to the influx of low-cost Chinese goods in a manner that can't be competed with by American companies. Competition on a level playing field is always fine; competition from Chinese manufactured - unfairly unencumbered by many restrictions on US manufacturers - and its blessing by the US Governmen is unforgivable. Yet another unfortunate lapse of Clinton's administration that has unfortuntely - if anything - gained momentum under the current administration.

See also my comments here about CAFTA.

Posted 21:56, 6/14/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Default | Comment on this

Chairman Dean

An update on Chairman Dean's problems:

Dean's real problem may not be his mouth but his mind-set. He and his aides seemed genuinely mystified at the idea that his characterization of the GOP was a political mistake. But by labeling the other party a bastion of Christianity, he implied that his own was something else—something determinedly secular — at a time when Dean's stated aim is to win the hearts of middle-class white Southerners, many of whom are evangelicals.

In a country where in excess of 90% of the population identify themselves as Christians, one is reminded of Ronald Reagan's cautionary aphorism that one does not build a majority by looking for groups to alienate. This is particularly true when there is no inherent reason, in my view, why Christianity (or, at least, the lanaguage thereof) must be the exclusive turf of the GOP.

I predicted (in writing, no less, although not on LJ) back when Dean was denied the nomination last year that if Kerry subsequently lost the election, the Dems would have themselves a nice little civil war while they tried to figure out their way back from the political wilderness. Part of that civil war would be the activist base - which is the "anti-war, anything goes, atheist" wing - vs. the moderate (i.e., secular rather than atheist, sceptical rather than angry, cautious) wing of the party. It seems to me that the activist side is winning, and I don't think that's helpfull for them. I have to say that I liked Governor Dean - the moderate, fiscally conservative Governor Dean - a lot better than I liked the candidate who figured out that the louder, more objectionable and more anti-war he got, the more people cheered and gave cash. Unfortunately, it is the latter Dean who the DNC elected as its Chairman, and ironically, while it seems that it's Candidate Dean the dem base wants, it's Governor Dean that the dem party needs to get back into serious contention.

On the other hand, I may yet end up eating my words:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Election%202008%20Generic.htm

Lastly, I'm currently in the process of tidying up some code for v1.0 (yes, that's a REAL version 1.0!)of the blog software I've been working on, at which point, much of the political content from this blog may transfer over to my own site. Anyone who wants to know more (which is likely only Rob), let me know.

Posted 16:12, 6/13/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Default | Comment on this

Pink Floyd will play Live8

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/12/pink.floyd.reut/index.html

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Four members of seminal British rock band Pink
Floyd will play together for the first time in 24 years at London's Live 8 charity
concert for Africa on July 2, publicists for the event said on Sunday.

Guitarist David Gilmour, drummer Nick Mason and keyboard player Richard Wright
will be on stage with bassist Roger Waters for their first public performance
since they played at London's Earls Court in 1981.

This is truly unbelievable, but if it was ever going to happen for anything,
it would be for these purposes, Roger being the inveterate social conscience
that he is. I honestly don't know how this will work out, though - will they
have a four-piece, or will they include, say, Jon Carin (who played on both
Roger and Floyd's last tour)? Who will sing what? Will any material from the
post-Final Cut albums (Floyd's or Waters') appear? And, of course, who
will throw the first punch?

Posted 14:08, 6/12/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Music | Comment on this

CAFTA again

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8759736

There is a chance - a very, very slim chance - that CAFTA could be beaten. Not only is it some 30-40 votes short in the House, but, although it is likely to be confirmed if it reaches the full Senate, it is possible - very unlikely, but possible - that, because of the membership of the Senate Finance Committee, that the bill could be strangled in the Finance Committee. The hearing is on Tuesday. www.capitolhearings.org

See further comments I made on Centerfields:
http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/002202.html

Pat Buchanan on CAFTA:
http://amconmag.com/2005_05_09/buchanan.html

Posted 18:52, 6/10/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Default | Comment on this

More on the EU constitution's ratification failure

What an astonishing comment by Jack Straw:

In an emergency statement to MPs in the Commons, Mr Straw said: "Until the consequences of France and the Netherlands being unable to ratify the treaty are clarified, it would not in our judgment now be sensible to set a date for second reading."

France and the Netherlands were not "unable to ratify the treaty", France and the Netherlands REJECTED the treaty. Referendums were held, lest it have escaped Jack's notice, in which the French and Dutch rejected this inartfull excuse for a constitution.

What's most interesting is the attitude revealed by Straw's likely subconscious parsing of "France" in substitute for "the French" and "the Netherlands" in substitute for "the Dutch". If by "France" and "The Netherlands" Straw means "the French Government" and "the Dutch Government", then who does he think is restraining France and Holland, other than the French and the Dutch people? The US Constitution begins "we the people"; the cheerleaders for the EU constitution seem - as Straw's ludicrous comment makes clear - to belive in ratification "in spite of the people".

Posted 13:30, 6/6/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Default | Comment on this

The chief, and possible next chief

USA Today carries a fascinating AP story today profiling Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is expected to retire at the end of the term. The latter story, incidentally, tips Judge Michael McConnell as a possible successor.

Posted 10:50, 6/3/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Default | Comment on this

Freedom and Feminism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/danielle-crittenden/are-you-free-woman-tak_1720.html

My fellow--sister?--blogger Erica Jong took issue this week with Mrs. Bush's visit to the Middle East. Like many women on the left, Jong seems to feel that living under the Bush administration is comparable to living under a regime run by mullahs. Maybe it's even worse: "Of course women in the Middle East need the vote, an end to domestic violence and free access to contraception. But so do we. Odd that it is always easier to proselytize for feminism abroad while ignoring deteriorating women’s rights at home."

Myself, I've never understood why women’s groups weren't out front cheering the wars against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Were there ever more feminist wars than these? You'd think the National Organization for Women would be egging the administration on to Saudi Arabia and Iran. But no, and for the same reason that organized feminists have refused to applaud George Bush’s historic appointments of women to positions of high office, including most recently his nomination of two women, one of them black, to appellate judgeships. Bush is a Republican. The organized feminists are Democrats. It's as simple as that.

Still, I wouldn’t think the feminist worldview could be quite SO simple as to equate the oppression of women who live under repressive and murderous regimes in the Islamic world with the condition of women in the United States. For HP bloggers and readers who have trouble telling the difference, I’ve prepared the following quiz:

1. Are you allowed to drive a car? Y/N

2. Must you be accompanied at all times in public by a male escort? Y/N

3. If you were to say "what the hell" and drive to the mall by yourself, would you be immediately surrounded by bat-wielding male police officers? Y/N

4. Could you be beaten for saying “what the hell”? Y/N

5. When you go outside on a hot summer day, can you wear shorts and a t-shirt? Y/N

6. You wouldn’t know what the weather was because your vision is a confined to the small slit opening in a burkha or abaya? Y/N

7. Have you ever been stoned at a party? Y/ N
8. Have you ever been buried up to your neck and stoned (i.e. with rocks) for kissing a man not your husband at a party? Y/N

9. Were you free to marry the man of your choice or, as it may be, free not to marry? Y/N

10. Did your parents force you to marry a man of their choosing? Y/N

11. If you refused your parents’ choice of husband would you be banished from the family and/or beaten within an inch of your life and/or to death? Y/N

12. Were you 11-years-old when you were married? Y/N

13. Does your husband have more than one wife? Y/N

14. Does your religion permit and encourage “moderate beatings” by the husband whenever he feels his wife is disobedient? Y/N

15. If you are unhappy with your husband, can you initiate a divorce? Y/N

16. Were you educated? Y/N

17. Were you educated for a career? Y/N

18. Was the career that of a suicide bomber? Y/N

19. When dealing with the law or facing a court case, is your word valued at half that of a man’s? Y/N

20. In a rape case in which there are no witnesses, is your word worth nothing against that of the rapist’s—and furthermore, for the admission of sex with a man outside of marriage, even forcibly, can you be put to death? Y/N

21. Can you vote? Y/N

22. Can you read any book you like? Y/N

23. Did you read the Arabic version of “Fear of Flying”? (oh, skip this one—it doesn’t exist)

24. Is fear of flying how you feel whenever you step on a plane post-9/11?

SCORING: If you answered “yes” to questions 1, 5, 7, 9, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 24, congratulations! You live in the freest society for women in the history of Planet Earth. If you answered “yes” to any of the other questions, Allahu Akbar!

Absolutely marvellous. This Huffington Post thing might be worth something after all.

Posted 00:00, 6/02/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Feminism | Comment on this

Affirmative action

I made various comments clarifying my position on affirmative action in this thread over at Centerfields. See also, entry, 11/15/2004

Posted 18:07, 6/9/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Default | Comment on this

CAFTA

I've posted fairly recently on immigration and free trade (the "America First" issues, if you will - q.v. comments, 5/23/2005), but the issue of CAFTA came up recently on Centerfields, and my remarks can be found here.

Posted 12:19, 6/6/2005 by Simon | Filed under: Default | Comment on this