http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss mazurs@mac.com © MazursNorth Thu, 26 May 2005 07:29:10 -0400 Thu, 26 May 2005 07:29:16 -0400 iBlog 1.4.1 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1287895528/index.html

Welcome to the dawn of a new day for Mazurland Blog. We are pleased to announce our new home, with its minimally changed design (so far), but important new additions. (Please update you "favorites" addresses") We are now using typepad for software. The older iBlog program has served well, is user-friendly and is recommended for Mac users. However, the new service allows posting from any computer connected to the internet, as well as an integrated comments section. More importantly, it allows multiple authors to help broaden the scope and vibrancy of this site.

Initially, I have invited two of our valued commenters, Marty and Paul, to author posts. This will assure some consistency of political thought, as well as genetic material for the time being. After all, we don't want to shock anyone's system! In short order, we hope to invite authors with more "varied" opinions. However, since this is "Mazurland", we may require future contributors to have at least 1/16th Mazur DNA or be in a legally binding relationship with one of same. (Chad, this is your cue to foster a "closer relationship" with one of us).
This site will continue to be in evolution....

On a personal note, I'd like to thank ALL the commenters who have made this site spirited and kept me motivated. Specifically, this includes Chad (who came out of nowhere and is truly a valued presence) and Sarah (who is a special gift in a different way) and David & Amy (a beloved, but misguided pair) all of whom continue to brave the Conservative onslaught of Marty and Paul and more recently, the vivacious Becky.

And I especially want to thank my wife, Jamie and daughter, Anna who have allowed me more than enough computer time to fiddle with posts and site design, which I previously knew very little about.

Now, let the blogging resume!

]]> Thu, 26 May 2005 00:00:01 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1287895528/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1881172165/index.html

This judicial compromise may have ushered in an era of mediocre reform and watered down ideology. Now there's talk of the same group of moderates working on a Social Security compromise. Does the election of Republicans in the Senate, House and presidency speak nothing about Americans' wishes?

Ironically, today is the anniversary of the opening of the Constitutional convention in 1787. A period when brave men were forging the rules of a new, visionary government.

]]> Wed, 25 May 2005 11:58:16 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1881172165/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E752496511/index.html

This article talks about the value of time away from parents while growing up in past generations. Back then, it was more possible for kids to explore on their own; discover new worlds, find limits, work out differences, etc. Now it's much more likely for a child to be supervised in all facets of his/her youth due to changes in child-rearing norms, as well as the paucity of available areas for unsupervised exploration in today's suburbs .

Ahhh, the good old days of starting fires, defacing property, throwing things at buses, derailing trains......

]]> Wed, 25 May 2005 11:41:36 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E752496511/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E122141364/index.html

I'm still trying to work out my feelings about the deal made by Senate moderates on Bush's judicial nominees. So much of how I feel about it will depend on what happens in the future, which is difficult to predict. Will Bush now nominate more "moderate" judges (unlikely)? Will the Dems invoke the "extraordinary circumstances" clause (after they've just agreed to OK three of the most controversial and vilified judges) on any future nominee with conservative leanings? Will the Republican members of the "gang of 14" then have the courage to nix the deal if a filibuster is threatened?

One thing I can say is that there is a certain sense of calm now that would not have been present if the nuclear (constitutional) option had been triggered. If that had happened, Republicans would now be in the midst of a PR assault (by the Dems and the press) the likes of which has not been seen since the Gingrich days. It would affect my ability to sleep. So on the positive side, it looks like three of Bush's most controversial nominees will now be appointed. As for the rest, only time will tell.

For additional opinions, there are those that feel the deal was OK for the GOP, bad for the GOP or a mixed bag. Only time will tell.

]]> Wed, 25 May 2005 10:07:19 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E122141364/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E955586023/index.html

"Washington Prays At Valley Forge"


According to this article, the next crusade against religious symbols in the public square will target the words "In God We Trust" on public buildings, monuments and even currency. I don't think the general public is on the side of say, the ACLU, but that hasn't stopped judges from legislating from the bench in the past. The question is the intent of "separation of church and state"; does it mean that government cannot impose religion or does it mean that our religious heritage cannot be acknowledged in the public square? Many on the Left believe the latter, and would have us go the route of secular Western Europe where there is no room for God, let alone family. If only the Left could do something about that pesky reference to the Creator in our Declaration of Independence.


"The words appear on every dollar bill and US coin. They are displayed at the entrance to the US Senate and above the Speaker's chair in the House.
But when local officials in North Carolina placed "In God We Trust" on the front of the Davidson County Government Center, they soon found themselves in federal court facing a complaint that they were violating the separation of church and state."

]]> Tue, 24 May 2005 10:53:18 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E955586023/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1802225653/index.html

Apparently, the Senate "moderates" have reached a deal to prevent the enacting of the "nuclear option". The Dems have agreed to allow an up-or-down vote on three of Bush's current nominees and have promised not to filibuster future judicial/Supreme Court nominees unless there are "extraordinary circumstances". C'mon, when a Supreme Court seat is in the cards, "extraordinary" will mean anyone to the right of Hillary.

This is purely a temporizing measure. We'll all be revisiting this when Bush nominates an ideological conservative (as he should, and we know he will) for the next Supreme vacancy. The good news is that a few more of Bush's appellate nominees will now get approved. The bad news ,besides postponing the inevitable showdown, is that people like McCain look like heroes.

Many folks, like those at Powerline, think this was a bad compromise for the GOP.

"The claim by Senator Graham and others that we need to get this issue behind us in order to proceed with the Senate's business is laughable. The Democrats will be emboldened by this "compromise" and will continue to obstruct. This Congress will accomplish little beyond what it already has, and that isn't much.

Finally, and most importantly, the president probably will be unable to get a Supreme Court Justice confirmed this session unless he appoints a moderate. And barring Republican gains in 2006, he probably will be unable to appoint a conservative Justice at all.
Senator Graham and his friends have likely given away one of the president's most important powers -- the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices of his choosing and get an up-or-down vote on them. I hope they enjoy the praise they are about to get from the Washington Post and the New York Times."

]]> Tue, 24 May 2005 06:04:23 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1802225653/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E897003424/index.html

I'm sure it happens, but I haven't really known anyone who was once Conservative and changed to Liberalism. The downward drift of Bush's popularity (mainly over the Iraq war) implies that this does occur, but I just haven't seen much of it. One might give examples of David Brooks or Andrew Sullivan as veering leftward, but I don't know them personally. On the other hand, I've seen first hand plenty of liberals become more conservative as they accrue life experiences.

This article describes one such conversion. Interestingly, it was written in San Francisco which certainly made his journey that much more arduous.

"I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.

I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode."

]]> Mon, 23 May 2005 10:23:25 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E897003424/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1787258426/index.html

Here's a neat site that assesses your political leanings. Turns out I'm a social and economic conservative best described as a "Republican". No surprise, except I came dangerously close to "Centrist". Time to pick up a few Ann Coulter books....

]]> Sun, 22 May 2005 08:00:04 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1787258426/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E666491656/index.html

Q: What is the difference between these two pictures?







A: The first is a picture of relatives searching for loved ones at the site of one of many mass graves attributed to Saddam Hussein, whose reign resulted in the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis .
The second is a picture Saddam getting dressed.

Apparently, the second picture is the more newsworthy.

]]> Sat, 21 May 2005 02:02:49 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E666491656/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E495410045/index.html

At contentious times such as these, it seems only fair to step back and perform the mental exercise of trying to put yourself into your opponents shoes as an attempt to understand their position. If we try to see how we would react, were the tables reversed, a better understanding and an improved dialogue might occur.
I found such an exercise at National Review online. Since it's relatively brief, I'll post it in its entirety:

"Imagine, if you will, that a Democrat President nominated a judge whose constitutional and policy views were, by any measure, on the extreme left fringes of American society.

Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.

Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.

And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.

Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.

Imagine, in sum, a nominee whose record is indisputably extreme and who could be expected to use his judicial role to impose those views on mainstream America. Surely such a person would never be nominated to an appellate court. Surely no Senate Democrat would support someone with such extreme views. And surely Senate Republicans, rather than deferring to the nominating power of the Democrat President, would pull out all stops—filibuster and everything—to stop such a nominee.

Well, not quite. The hypothetical nominee I have just described is, in every particular except his sex, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993.

President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993. A mere six weeks later, on August 3, 1993, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a 96-3 vote.

(The source for the information in the second through fourth paragraphs is “Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project: The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law,” co-authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brenda Feigen Fasteau in September 1974. The information in the fifth paragraph can be found in the transcript of Ginsburg’s confirmation hearing.)"

]]> Fri, 20 May 2005 11:23:28 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E495410045/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1553049983/index.html

Unfortunately, during a huge military operation involving half a million American soldiers, this kind of crap happens. A huge NY Times article documents the deaths of 2 Afghan prisoners being interrogated by US forces nearly three years ago. You will notice that the information came from military files related to internal military investigation and discipline. No coverup was occurring. Now this story will be amplified and used against the US military here and abroad. It will be implied that this is how we always operate. It will energize the insurgents and promote new recruits. More deaths of US soldiers and Iraqis will ensue.

Why can't the Times temper this with a few in-depth stories about the abuse and murder of US soldiers and Iraqi citizens at the hands of the insurgents? The hundreds of thousands who have died under Saddam and the mass graves that have been found since US forces entered Iraq? The "honor killings" of Islamic women in Iraq and abroad? About the culture of intolerance and civil rights abuses that these folks wish to impose? About the dedication and commitment of US soldiers and families? Is balance and perspective too much to ask for? Apparently, certain news is just not "fit to print".

]]> Fri, 20 May 2005 06:34:03 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1553049983/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1911429552/index.html

This should be good. Howard Dean is to be interviewed by Tim Russert on Sunday's "Meet The Press". Dean thus far has been a godsend for the GOP; alienating more people than he "energizes", calling Republicans "liars" and "evil". This coincides with a precipitous drop in contributions to the DNC. Even the liberal Barney Frank thinks he should put a muzzle on it. Keep it up Howard, please!

"Accordingly, anticipation of Dean on ''Meet the Press'' Sunday is unsettling for the party's faithful. This will be his first exposure as chairman on a major network interview, and Russert predictably will be well-prepared with a rap sheet of the chairman's verbal assaults. The prospect that Dean will make juicy additions to that collection unnerves Democrats."

]]> Thu, 19 May 2005 12:45:07 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1911429552/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E400986766/index.html

Rather than whining and obstructing and trying to change traditional Senate practices, the Democrats need to look at themselves and ask "Why are we becoming less popular?" and "What are WE doing wrong?"
They also need to realize that elections have consequences.
That being said, it doesn't look like the 2006 elections will provide huge swings, one way or another, in the Senate makeup.

]]> Thu, 19 May 2005 08:37:33 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E400986766/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1423914796/index.html

I have not commented yet on the erroneous Newsweek story (since retracted) which claimed that US interrogators defaced the Koran, mainly because the sloppy and clearly biased journalism was so, well..., predictable. The main difference in this instance was that people lost their lives in the subsequent protests, which I guess should have prompted a blog post. This story makes a valid point about how Islamic extremists don't really need an excuse to kill. If it's not the Newsweek piece, there's always some other reason. This fact gives Newsweek an out, sort of. There's still the issue of which Islamic killings they choose to cover...


"The apparent Newsweek mistake was regrettable, but we should beware of allowing ourselves to mirror the emotional reactions of people who were by no measure justified in their response--even if the story had been proven true.

The same people foaming over a reported act of blasphemy didn't flinch while executing women for stepping outside sans burqa. I'm afraid my moral outrage in favor of the morally outrageous is tapped out.

While the world was reacting in righteous indignation to the Newsweek report, another story was circulating about Turkish women in Germany being executed by family members in "honor killings" sanctioned by certain interpretations of the Koran. Their offense? Acting like Western women. Or, in the pithy words of a 14-year-old Turkish boy who was justifying an execution: "The whore lived like a German."

Before the good Muslim world objects, let me assert what shouldn't need saying: Islam isn't the problem here. The problem is ignorance and the right-wing Islamist faction that will use the Koran for its purposes, whether to incite a riot or murder a woman who refuses to wear her headscarf. The enemy is extremism."

]]> Wed, 18 May 2005 12:24:05 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E1423914796/index.html http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E181234202/index.html

Our experience with Western Europe have been a little tense lately, to put it mildly. We may have a common ground on which to improve relations.

"Typically, the French refuse to accept what arrogant, overbearing monsters they are.

But now after the publication of a survey of their neighbours' opinions of them at least they no longer have any excuse for not knowing how unpopular they are.

Why the French are the worst company on the planet, a wry take on France by two of its citizens, dredges up all the usual evidence against them. They are crazy drivers, strangers to customer service, obsessed by sex and food and devoid of a sense of humour."

]]> Wed, 18 May 2005 09:54:23 -0400 http://homepage.mac.com/mazurs/iblog/C1548237657/E181234202/index.html