?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Lakeshore
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2011-01-05 05:19
Subject: [links] Link salad leans on a thing or two
Security: Public
Tags:books, culture, healthcare, links, personal, politics, publishing, reviews, writing
The Business Rusch: Midlist Writers (Changing Times Part 11) — Kris Rusch with some detailed comments on the fate of midlist writers in trade publishing these days. I see myself in this mirror, unfortunately. (Thanks to daveraines.)

George W. Bush and the Question of Authorship — An interesting squib about the art and theory of book reviews.

Adventures of the mind — Skepchick on the serendipity of travel and a slice of cultural history and medical weirdness. (Thanks to lt260.)

SMBC on tolerance — This cracked me up, hard. And is often the case with SMBC, the mouseover is a scream, too.

Get Fuzzy on muppets, squid and the race card — Yeah, it's that strange.

Reagan gave Medicare the Tea Party Treatment — Coz, you know, conservatives have been right every time about creeping socialism. Kind of like how Christianists have been right every time about the date of the Rapture. Come to think of it, exactly that right.

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination — More conservative thought leadership from a strict constructionist who believes the Constitution says whatever he wants it to say, but not what anyone else wants it to say.

Rep. Darrell Issa's wild accusations are hurtful - to his own reputationREP. DARRELL ISSA (R-Calif.), incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says he misspoke when he called President Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times." Rather, Mr. Issa now says, Mr. Obama has merely presided over "one of the most corrupt administrations." Yeah, I can see that. Cooking intelligence to start a trillion dollar war of choice against a country that didn't attack us. Burning a CIA agent for political gain. Torturing prisoners against US and international law. Writing crooked contracts to a company in which the Vice President has a substantial financial stake. Yes, those Democrats are definitely bad news.

The Tea Party and Foreign Policy — A conservative analysis of the tension between strict constitutionalism and aggressive globalism.

?otD: No matter where you go, uh, where are you?




1/5/2011
Writing time yesterday: 2.25 hours (2,500 words on book one of Sunpsin)
Body movement: 30 minute stationary bike ride
Hours slept: 6.5 hours (solid)
Weight: 250.6
Currently reading: Salamanca by Dean Francis Alfar; My Teenage Werewolf
A Mother, A Daughter, A Journey through the Thicket of Adolescence
by Lauren Kessler

Post A Comment | 15 Comments | | Flag | Link






S-47/19-J
User: shsilver
Date: 2011-01-05 13:59 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Since Issa really made his name by instituting the recall effort against Gray Davis, it is clear to me that he a) has no respect for the electoral process, b) has no interest in working with Democrats, and c) is probably projecting his own corruption on anyone who disagrees with him.

Issa has been saying that he would be investigating every conceivable aspects of Obama's administration as much as 6 months ago.

As I noted elsewhere, Scalia appears to be saying that women and homosexuals are not citizens. William Burton pointed out that he's actually saying they aren't persons.
Reply | Thread | Link



Cairsten: disaffected
User: kuangning
Date: 2011-01-05 14:10 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:disaffected
Sometimes, I confess, I wonder a little enviously just what it is that Antonin Scalia's been smoking. And then a moment's thought tells me that it's probably for the best if he never tells and, for the love of Pete, never shares. That was the biggest load of wistful, magical-thinking (because if he says it, of course that rewrites history to make it so!), revisionist tripe I've heard in quite awhile. Whom does he think they had in mind when they wrote that amendment, if not minority groups including women? The unamended version was, after all, quite sufficient if you happened to be a white male.
Reply | Thread | Link



jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2011-01-05 15:12 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination — More conservative thought leadership from a strict constructionist who believes the Constitution says whatever he wants it to say, but not what anyone else wants it to say.

What he believes happens to be true. Remember the Equal Rights Amendment? Remember that we didn't pass it? The Constitution originally did not provide for equal rights for women, and absent an amendment, it still doesn't.

Know what I think we should do about it? Pass an Equal Rights Amendment for women.
Reply | Thread | Link



Cairsten
User: kuangning
Date: 2011-01-05 16:00 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
That reasoning only holds up if you believe that women are not persons under the law, and are therefore not included in that "any person" amendment. It is a shame that we've needed to reinforce the "these people are people" message by naming them explicitly, but as long as you accept that the word "person" means more than just white males, or whichever group you happen to feel are people, that 14th amendment covers them all.

The 14th amendment, contrary to Scalia's contention that he doesn't think anyone intended women, was drafted at a time when the women's rights movement was already alive and active, and if no-one had intended women, then they could very easily have used the wording of the 15th, which would certainly have excluded women's concerns entirely. Instead, they first drafted the inclusive one, and then two years tacked on a further, more specific one to drive home the issue of race.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2011-01-05 17:23 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
At the time that the 14th Amendment was passed, women were not allowed to vote in any State of the Union, and never had been allowed to vote. They were not full citizens under the Constitution or the laws derived from this, and so the 14th Amendment clearly did not provide for equal rights for women. That is why women's suffrage was not secured until the passage of the 19th Amendment, in 1920.

It is thus exceedingly clear that, in 1868, "every person" having equal rights under the law did not include women. You may wish that it did -- so do I, since I'm a strong believer in the equality of women -- but such wishes are as vain as the wish that the Founders, in 1787, meant "every person" to include black slaves. The latter interpretation, if enforced by 1800, certainly would have saved us a lot of trouble down the line.

The reason why it is important to read the Constitution in the language that it was written is that, otherwise, we could interpret the Constitution to mean anything that we currently desired it to mean. And if we did that, then it wouldn't protect anything at all, beyond that which our current political masters wanted it to protect -- which would be less than worthless, since they might just interpret it to mean that they got to stay in power without any messy business about elections (and if you like, I'll demonstrate to you exactly how it could be read that way, in a sufficiently broad interpretation).

Scalia was simply telling a truth you didn't want to hear. If you want to change it, support an equal rights amendment. Seriously, we should have passed one decades ago.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2011-01-05 19:10 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Your argument would be relevant if "modern women" were something new and not considered to be "women" by the late 18th-century definition. But human genders haven't changed in any such manner: "modern women" are simply women who happen to be alive right now: there is no fundamental difference qua "womanhood" between Abigail Adams, Susan B. Anthony, and Brittany Spears. (Though the former two were notably more intelligent.

Note that the 2nd Amendment refers to "arms," not to a specific type of "firearms" nor even to "firearms" exclusively. If we enforced the 2nd Amendment completely, it would logically include swords and nuclear missiles. Whether or not this interpretation would be desirable is a matter for another debate.

I would point out to you that interpreting the Constitution in a "broad" and "flexible" manner might not be entirely to the advantage of women. To take the obvious example, what would happen if we decided that the 1st Amendment (freedom of religion) superseded "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" where the treatment of women by Muslims was concerned? This is more than an academic worry, as something very similar has happened in Europe, which lacks a meaningful Constitution, and hence suffers all the disadvantages of "flexible" interpretation.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2011-01-05 19:12 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Oh, and FYI (though this is tangental) there actually were other kinds of firearms other than "single-shot, black powder muzzle-loaders" in 1787. There were multi-shot weapons and breech-loaders, though due to relatively primitive machining technology, such weapons were unreliable and uncommon.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Cairsten
User: kuangning
Date: 2011-01-05 23:02 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
We're going to agree to disagree on this. In Minor v Happersett, though I abhor their major conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that while the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer the right to vote to women (because that right had never been extended to female citizens) women were and were intended to be citizens and persons under the law, which would include the 14th amendment. It added to the impetus to specifically extend the right to vote to female citizens, but you can't truthfully claim "they couldn't have meant the 14th amendment to apply to women too" when there was a ruling within the same era that clarified that yes, they did mean that. Scalia's assertion that the 14th amendment doesn't protect women from discrimination (people abridging their rights) is claptrap. For women, as for every other group of citizens, the 14th Amendment says you may add to their lot, but you can't subtract.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Cairsten
User: kuangning
Date: 2011-01-06 01:39 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
For the record, by the way, though it's nowhere near the central point, your statement that At the time that the 14th Amendment was passed, women were not allowed to vote in any State of the Union, and never had been allowed to vote isn't true. New Jersey initially allowed women to vote with their state constitution of 1776, but rescinded that later in 1807, restricting it to white men.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2011-01-06 06:24 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I did not know that! Thanks for informing me!
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Eposia
User: eposia
Date: 2011-01-05 19:27 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Husband and I just had an interesting discussion on the Scalia link. He pointed out that Scalia seems to be saying that the 14th doesn't apply a blanket protection *against* discrimination, and if so that sounds like a correct interpretation. The people panicking about it seem to have less ground to stand on, as the text provided fairly clearly does show that you can't have a law passed that takes away equal protection, privileges, and immunities of citizens. And since other amendments define women as "citizens", what it sounds like is that I as a woman can't declare that any discrimination against me is automatically illegal, but anyone acting under existing laws who DOES try to discriminate against me is running afoul of the 14th.

So what am I missing?
Reply | Thread | Link



Dan/Дмитрий
User: icedrake
Date: 2011-01-05 21:59 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
SMBC has alt-text??
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2011-01-05 22:00 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Yep. Do a mouseover on the red ball below the comic.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Dan/Дмитрий
User: icedrake
Date: 2011-01-05 22:02 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Huh. That's a very tricksy way of doing mouseover jokes.

...and now I have to go through the entire SMBC archive to read them. Fuck me.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: mmegaera
Date: 2011-01-06 03:45 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:garden
AotD: Right here, darnit.
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances