Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Only days after Leon Weiseltier wrote a compelling and perfectly balanced post in the New Republic on the faux controversy over the Islamic center in lower Manhattan, Martin Peretz follows it up with a clumsy, incoherent and bigoted post wherein he decides that Muslims are not worthy of the First Amendment's protection. He begins by repeating the ridiculous notion that Muslims have not criticized the radicals among them who commit violence:
This intense epidemic of slaughter has been going on for nearly a decade and a half...without protest, without anything. And it has been going for decades and centuries before that.Why do not Muslims raise their voices against these at once planned and random killings all over the Islamic world?
The answer: They do, of course, you just pretend they didn't. Want a few dozen examples? Go here. There are many more. But the media rarely reports such things. Peretz pretends such people do not exist, and if they do, they do not merit the "privilege" of the First Amendment:
But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.
You mean like you've just done? If advocating against the principles of the First Amendment are grounds for not applying that amendment to speech, you've just put yourself in line for the very same treatment as those scary Muslims. Lucky for you, those of us who actually believe in the First Amendment don't place such casual limitations on its application; we'll defend your right to speak your mind even when you're being an idiot.
Politics
Comments
Would you allow a convicted murderer to have First Amendment rights? Islam is a collection of convicted murderers and those who are also condemned for being complicit. They are murderers; therefore they do not deserve the privileges of other citizens who are able to live in civil society.
Posted by: Canny | September 8, 2010 12:20 PM
Couldn't the same bullshit logic be applied to ALL religions? Not often do I see or hear of a christian minister or teabagger decrying abortion clinic bombings, or the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents in our 2 (or more) illegal wars.
Never saw any headlines about preachers denying manifest destiny either come to think of it.
Posted by: standing_damaged | September 8, 2010 12:20 PM
"we'll defend your right to speak your mind even when you're being an idiot."
*Especially* when you're being an idiot.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | September 8, 2010 12:23 PM
Canny, #1: Would you allow a convicted murderer to have First Amendment rights?
I would. But that's just me.
-
Islam is a collection of convicted murderers and those who are also condemned for being complicit.
Well, some people don't know the meaning of "convicted."
-
They are murderers....
Yes, every single one of them. Every single Muslim everywhere, without exception, murdered someone or was an accessory to a murder.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 8, 2010 12:28 PM
Re Canny @ #1
I am starting the think that Mr. Canny may be a Poe. Nobody could be as stupid as his comments suggest. If he is, he is far inferior to madtheswine.
Posted by: SLC | September 8, 2010 12:30 PM
SLC, please don't start with the whole "nobody could be that stupid" thing. Stop being naive. They can be, and are. Just look at the Teabaggers. Those folks aren't playacting. The sooner you realize that the world is full of people exactly as stupid as Canny, and even moreso, the sooner you'll be equipped to deal with them. Pretending bad people don't exist because it's more comforting doesn't make them go away.
Posted by: Martin | September 8, 2010 12:35 PM
Yes, Canny, converting to Islam is just like gaining membership to certain (fictional) gangs. You have to kill the person who flashes their high beams at you to let you know your headlights aren't on.
And then you have to turn yourself in to the police and plead guilty so you can be "convicted".
Posted by: Personal Failure | September 8, 2010 12:41 PM
SLC, of course they can. That's the whole basis of Poe's Law.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | September 8, 2010 12:42 PM
Yes. Moron.
Fuck, I'd even allow you to have First Amendment rights, even though every turd that comes out of your mouth makes the world a worse place.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 8, 2010 12:47 PM
I've been in a "Samson in the temple" mood these last few weeks, which means I'd like to not only embrace the anti-mosque hysteria but apply that principle everywhere in the world: no religious buildings may be erected in any vicinity where any member of said religion ever did anything evil. Meaning, among other things, no Christian churches anywhere in or near Jerusalem (modern Christians don't spend enough time criticizing the evils of the Crusades); no Muslim mosques in or near Jerusalem (dudes were assholes when they ran the city), and no Jewish synagogues in or near Jerusalem (they murdered animals in the Temple there, and also killed Christ).
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's temples might be all right, but only until some innocent child chokes to death on a meatball.
Posted by: Jennifer | September 8, 2010 12:47 PM
Canny, don't forgot Jews. They all killed our Lord and Savior Jeebus, right? Every single one of them, deicidal murderers. You wouldn't give First Amendment rights to a Christ-killer, would you?
Posted by: James Sweet | September 8, 2010 12:53 PM
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, unless it only applies to convicted murderers.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, unless it only applies to people who have been "convicted" of murder in some vague metaphorical sense.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, unless the speech being restricted is uttered by some scary furrners...
Hmm, still not right. Ah fuck it:
Congress shall make whatever laws the bigoted assholes on the Right feel like.
That's what the founding fathers intended. Duh.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 8, 2010 12:57 PM
And Israelis.
Goose, Gander.
Obviously not -- why, congregational fundraising goes almost exclusively to funding militant organizations in the Middle East, and surely the First Amendment can't have been meant to permit that.
I'm sure that Peretz will agree that the shoe fits, right?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 8, 2010 1:00 PM
standing_damaged #2
Bullshit--and one reason I have great sympathy for Muslims in this regard--we have to face the same stupid charges. Many Christians complain loudly and forcefully at hideous behavior among Christians. Then bigots--just like Pertez (and you) lie and say: "How come no Muslim/Christian voices are being raised in condemnation?"
How many links would you like of Christians condemning the murder of an abortion doctor? Or how many of Christians condemning the proposed "burn Qur'an day?"
You're the same as Pertez in this regard.
Posted by: heddle | September 8, 2010 1:05 PM
privileges of the First Amendment
The first amendment contains no privileges. A drivers license is a privilege, something grant by the government, subject to the governments terms and can be revoked by the government.
The first amendment list the basic rights of Americans and those living in territory under American control.
Why is it flag waving, restore the Constitution types are so unfamiliar with the Constitution. The freedoms that you shout so loudly about are really about protecting the individual from the government and the mob.
Posted by: Mr Ed | September 8, 2010 1:12 PM
And it has been going for decades and centuries before that.
Actually, I'm having a hard time finding it (murder & mayhem) at all between the middle ages and 1922. What happened in 1922? The Ottoman Empire was forcibly broken up by Western powers, who proceeded to feast on its carcass. The one area that was not turned into a candy shop for Western colonialists was Turkey. If you want to know what the Middle East might look like if it hadn't been royally fucked up by England, France, & the US (mostly), look at Turkey.
It is truly obscene to beat the crap out of someone, and then call him an uncivilized barbarian because he fights back.
Posted by: shargash | September 8, 2010 1:22 PM
Don't feed the trolls!
Posted by: Brandon | September 8, 2010 1:25 PM
Mr. Ed @ 15:
Old falsified canard. We have always reserved our right to travel; a court case during the civil rights wars also explicitly acknowledged that right. The government has delegated powers to regulate that right and even in some cases prohibit the exercise of that right, partly to protect the superior rights of others, e.g., my right to not be driving on a road occupied by someone with a history of drunk driving is far superior to their right to drive - therefore the government is obligated to regulate drivers' licenses to defend my right to be safer at the expense of the drunk whose demonstrated they have driven drunk.
We all need to remember government doesn't grant us our rights nor does the Constitution. Our rights are inalienable where we instead delegate certain numerated powers to government which limit or in some cases prohibit those rights. In that framework the government has the obligation to present a compelling reason why they won't issue a license to me to drive given my right to travel.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2010 1:34 PM
@Scott Hanley
Thanks for the tip to Poe's Law. I've been wondering what that phenomenon is called. I have seen too many people think that they are doing parody simply by typing some outrageous claim that I know is an actual belief of some nut somewhere out there.
Posted by: RickD | September 8, 2010 1:43 PM
I disagreed with some of Weisteltier's original thesis, but Martin Peretz's response is simply disgusting. Like, jaw-droppingly disgusting. What a shame that this kind of illiberal nonsense is a part of the popular discourse.
Posted by: Ewan/Rokkaku | September 8, 2010 1:50 PM
Peretz doesn't know what fscking 'privilege' is. The word's real meaning is 'private law', a law that'd only apply to or favour one part of the populace, and the Constitution is anything but.
(Cynical centres in my brain add the phrase 'no matter how much Peretz wants it to be' right after that.)
Posted by: AegisLinnear | September 8, 2010 1:54 PM
@heddle,
Jews should protest evil done by Jews.
Muslims should protest evil done by Muslims.
Christians should protest evil done by Christians.
The problem is not in the sentiment or even intent, the problem is one of definition. Evil is not the same to everyone everywhere or even to the same people in different circumstances. Most people I know from many religions condemned Scott Roeder's act of murder but more than one Christian loudly voiced support for the act. On TV. In public. Not only should Roeder be denounced but so should his supporters. I doubt many anti-abortion churches began their sermons with a denouncement of Roeder then or since.
With the Roeder case, the definition of evil was flipped from murder of a doctor by Roeder to murder by the abortion doctor of unborn fetuses. In the US, the definition of evil mostly follows a legal one and Roeder and his supporters are clearly wrong. In other countries, their laws would define evil differently. Muslims in Saudi Arabia might rightly cheer Roeder as a hero. Each reacts according to his country's laws layered on top of his own sense of good and evil. Everyone in America should condemn Roeder. Not everyone did and they used their religion as the source of that error.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 8, 2010 2:09 PM
Wow. Very revealing, referring to a right as a "privilege."
Posted by: AL | September 8, 2010 2:25 PM
MikeMa
Of course. And more than one Muslim voiced support for the 9/11 terrorism. We all remember the celebrations in East Jerusalem. There are a helluva lot of Christians and a helluva lot of Muslims. It is easy to find idiots supporting murderous behavior--and those idiots have an easy time garnering media attention.
And how do you know this? I'd point out that every church I've ever been in--all of which are anti-abortion--the pastor has always taken the time in the wake of a high-profile clinic bombing or murder to condemn the actions. I would point that out, but then I'd be charged with: your anecdotes don't count. Our suspicions about what happens in evangelical churches trump your experiences every time.
Posted by: heddle | September 8, 2010 2:31 PM
YES. Next question?
Posted by: blf | September 8, 2010 2:53 PM
MikeMa:
I'd bet many did churches had some dialogue denouncing Roeder's act. However I pulled that out of my ass.
I'd also bet that while Roeder was denounced it was quick, passionless, and followed immediately by a passionate argument about the travesty of abortionists supposedly murdering babies and a society supposedly promoting this practice. I.e., Roeder's act was confronted and quickly dispensed with as trivial 'no true Scotsman' avoidance tactic in order to get back to the preferred paradigm - denouncing abortion rights and the enabling of the practice as if people like Roeder either didn't exist or had no little effect they were barely worthy of mentioning. If I accepted these peoples' premise regarding abortion than I wouldn't find this repugnant given the body count differential since Roe v. Wade, but I don't accept their premise and therefore find their approach repugnant - though arguable, just not convincing to me.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2010 2:53 PM
It's incredible that any one could be so stupid to think that 1 and a half billion people from 4 different continents
are all exactly the same.Not only is this bigoted but it's also proof that those spouting this nonsense are to damn lazy to learn anything real about the subject they are spouting rubbish about.
Unfortunatly this disease isn't limited to the right wing,
since there are fashionable atheists who think that anyone with any spiritual beliefs are unscientific morons while othere can't tell the diference between a thoughtful conservative and a raving wingnut.
Posted by: Paen | September 8, 2010 3:02 PM
heddle, you are right about my just guessing about the sermons. I haven't voluntarily sat through one in many years. However, I regularly pass a LOT of churches with their message boards and not one condemned Roeder's act. Not one of those 30 or 40 public platforms the churches use to send messages to the public used that platform to condemn a murderer in the name of christ.
You'd think they might want to distance themselves from murder in christ's name or clear their own collective names if not their consciences. Not precisely scientific but a bit less anecdotal.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 8, 2010 3:45 PM
Come now. Why must you be so dull when you play the part of a nut, especially when a real person holds far more radical beliefs than fake-you?
The sky's the limit when you spoof. Go nuts; for example, you could write a slobbering eulogy that Peretz is one of the foremost vanguards of human life, OR that he's involved in a conspiracy to suppress freedom by taking an inadequately hostile tone against the Islamists, and demand that he can only be considered sincere if he attempts to physically impede the construction of the Cordoba Project. You need to worry about jumping the shark when you spoof, but you also don't want to sound like a credible mainstream conservative when you do so.
Posted by: Objective Scrutator | September 8, 2010 4:04 PM
Yes, I would.
Especially because there's every chance that a convicted murderer might use his First Amendment rights more sensibly than you have.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 8, 2010 4:04 PM
But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims.
You just know that Peretz is moments away from blathering about his critics' "political correctness" or "playing the bigot card," if he hasn't already. The idea that the above statement crossed the line where he can even pretend he's not a religious bigot probably never occurred to him, probably never will.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2010 5:18 PM
For once I find myself in agreement with heddle. What a strange feeling. Makes me feel dirty all over.
Lest this go to your head, your holy book is still a mish-mash of bronze age mythology concocted by misogynistic, patriarchal, xenophobic, genocidal, etc, etc desert goat herders who didn't even understand germ theory.
Posted by: steve oberski | September 8, 2010 5:28 PM
Re D.C. Sessions @ #13
And among those MuslimsJews led by the Imam Raufin the United States there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood.
Not only will I not raise a fuss about the casualties inflicted on the Palestinians by the IDF, I will state that the Government of Israel has been far too lenient with them, given the provocations. The Government of Israel would have been entirely justified in imposing Hama Rules on the Gaza Strip long ago in response to those provocations.
Posted by: SLC | September 8, 2010 5:40 PM
@Heath
Bullshit. There is no right to a drivers license. It is a privilege that can be granted and revoked for a variety of reasons. Many that have nothing to do with driving (not paying alimony or not having insurance as two examples). No one is restricting someone the right to travel by not granted someone a drivers license.
Posted by: tim | September 8, 2010 6:40 PM
SLC@33: Thank you for supporting my point (which was not about Israel).
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 8, 2010 8:06 PM
Oh no, SLC, not that BS again.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | September 8, 2010 8:22 PM
Martin Peretz has been a bigot for many, many years. This type of comment from him ias nothing new.
Posted by: Pacal | September 8, 2010 9:41 PM
tim @ 34:
Not very classy not blockquoting what you are attempting to rebut and then mangling the person's statements. I stated:
U.S. v. Wheeler 1920 is summarized in Wikipedia to what I perceive to be a sufficiently cited section; that case affirms via previous holdings that right is found in the privileges and immunities clause of Art. IV, Sec. 2:
As I noted in my previous comment, the states had the obligation to regulate driving, partly to protect the superior rights of others. This ruling also notes state power to regulate what is a right.
I couldn't easily find the civil rights era case I referenced in my original comment on this topic. However I also found a 1999 case where Justice Stevens writes for the majority finds the right to travel is also protected by the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment in Saenz v. Roe:
tim @ 34:
I even noted some reasons when it can be prohibited. Owning a right doesn't mean the government is obligated to always allow free exercise, it does have power to restrict and even prohibit rights, such as when I noted its power to rescind the driver's license of a drunk driver. However the government is obligated to prove a compelling interest when attempting to restrict or prohibit a right given our equal protection and due process rights.
You seem to arguing we have no right to a drivers license. Do you have citation supporting your notion you are so cocksure falsifies my general argument?
tim @ 34:
That's just plain idiotic and perhaps even delusional; therefore I won't be addressing your point. It reminds me of the blog post of ruminations by Victoria Jackson that Ed posted yesterday.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2010 9:49 PM
This has probably been said before here, but even if it has it bears saying again: It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.
Posted by: Elaine | September 8, 2010 10:53 PM
If a driver's license is a Constitutional right not a privilege, why do I have to take a test every time I renew?
Posted by: jwthomas | September 8, 2010 11:05 PM
jwthomas,
Governments have delegated authorities to regulate and in some cases prohibit the exercise of rights, especially when the discernably superior rights of others are also in play. It appears that in your state's case they take their obligation to defend the safety rights of your fellow travelers seriously enough to use relatively frequent testing as one aspect of an ongoing effort to monitor your ability to not risk others' life and health on the roads. Another would be highway patrol officers enforcing traffic laws).
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2010 11:37 PM
"Would you allow a convicted murderer to have First Amendment rights?"
Last timr I checked there were chaplains in prisons, you know allowing prisoners to exercise their first amendment rights to freedom of religion.
Also, there's this concept of due process that you're supposed to go throguh before convciting soemone.
But as a Jew I'm guilty of the murder of Christ so what does my opinion count for?
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 8, 2010 11:38 PM
"But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. "
Murder rate (per 100,000 people)
Brunei: 0.50
Morocco: 0.53
Lebanon 0.57
Saudi Arabia: 0.92
Idonesia: 1.05
Iran: 2.93
United States 5.4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 8, 2010 11:47 PM
"Of course. And more than one Muslim voiced support for the 9/11 terrorism. We all remember the celebrations in East Jerusalem."
Tell me, would it affect your views in any way if you found out that those particular East Jerusalemites were Christians or Druze?
Odds are they weren't but the approximately 10% of the Palestinian population who are Christians support the PLO just as strongly as the Muslims and therefore ten to view the US as their enemy because of its support for Israel.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 8, 2010 11:59 PM
Out of curiosity, have you slammed Sam Harris yet for repeatedly doing exactly this?
Posted by: Treppenwitz | September 9, 2010 12:42 AM
So how exactly does this collective guilt thing work anyway?
Are the Muslims born since 9/11 responsible for 9/11?
Is the guilt transmitted genetically or do you acquire guilt when you formally adopt the Muslim faith?
How about ex-Muslims? We don't give other murderers a free pass just because they change their religion so presumably ex-Muslims remain guilty, even the ones that are now actively campaigning against Islam.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 9, 2010 1:10 AM
Re: discussion further up about the 'right to travel.' I think some commenters are confusing the constitutional right to travel with the right to have a drivers license. The former is indeed a right under the US constitution. The right to drive a car is a privilege that can be highly regulated by the state. The 'right to travel' means you can leave town whenever you want. You don't have the right to exercise this
Right by
Posted by: Tom Coward | September 9, 2010 1:53 AM
Re: discussion further up about the 'right to travel.' I think some commenters are confusing the constitutional right to travel with the right to have a drivers license. The former is indeed a right under the US constitution. The right to drive a car is a privilege that can be highly regulated by the state. The 'right to travel' means you can leave town whenever you want. You don't have the right to exercise this right in your car until you have qualified for a driver's license.
Posted by: Tom Coward | September 9, 2010 1:55 AM
Some animals are more equal than others.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 9, 2010 2:06 AM
This comes so late in the day that I know nobody will read it, but this has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time—since I was sitting in Driver's Ed. in 1969, in fact. I knew then that that crap about driving being a "privilege not a right" was a load of dingo's kidneys, and I've never changed my mind in the ensuing 41 years.
It may very well have been a privilege and not a right when "motoring" was a very expensive hobby for a few rich playboys—essentially through the 1890s and the 19-aughts. Certainly this was no longer the case by WWI when the model T was liberating farmers from their medieval isolation. It certainly was not true in the society I grew up in—one in which a reliable car is an absolute necessity to work, shop, or do anything.
It's undeniably unfortunate that we've managed to create this trap for ourselves, but we've done it, and until the situation changes markedly, driving is a goddamn right, unless there's a very good reason for denying it to some particular individual, based on something they've done, or actual incapacity.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | September 9, 2010 3:12 AM
Speaking for myself, I wasn't aware that Sam Harris made this specific mistake, but frankly the general perception I've had of Sam Harris is a hostility to religion in general, and Islam in particular, that goes far beyond what can actually be justified.
Posted by: Mithrandir | September 9, 2010 6:21 AM
Obviously, the Republican strategy this time around is to make the entire Muslim world the new Willie Horton. Trashing American citizens because of their religion just to win some seats in congress in a mid-term election is about as contemptible a strategy as I've ever seen in American politics....
No, come to think of it, I remember the administrations of Bush II, Reagan, and even Nixon. This is par for the course for Republicans. Anything that will win an election, no matter how low, is A Good Thing. Never mind. Carry on.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 9, 2010 6:21 AM
Treppenwitz wrote:
He may not have named Harris specifically, but in the couple of years I've been reading this blog he has slammed a lot of people for this very thing.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 9, 2010 7:13 AM
Tom Coward @ 48:
I am the only one who made the claim we have a U.S. constitutionally protected right to travel and therefore a right to a driver's license while also noting the states have delegated powers to regulate licensing (made @ 38). I in no way confused the two, in fact I noted a case @ 38, U.S. v. Wheeler which precisely describes the right to travel while noting the state's power to regulate this right under the comity principle:
Tom Coward @ 48:
Since I'm the only one who made the argument that driving is a right, once again I must point out that I've repeatedly noted, prior to anyone's rebuttal for that matter, that states have the power to regulate that right but they must apply their regulations with both due process and with equal protection while having the power to prohibit the excercise of that right in order to protect the greater rights of others, e.g., public safety. In fact I even provided holding precedent noting that power. And like I asked the other guy, please provide a citation noting we don't have a right to drive a car given that is how you appear to use the word privilege. My understanding is that driving is a right.
When it comes to protection under the 'privileges or immunities' clause I have not encountered a case that distinguishes driving as a privilege but not an immunity while also noting this privilege is granted by the state rather than a privilege brought to the arrangement by the person. But please provide a citation supporting your argument.
If you consider the right to own and bear arms, gun ownership and carrying can be every bit as regulated if not more onerous than securing a driver's license, yet we don't hear people claiming it's not a right but only a privilege merely because we concede state power to regulate and in some cases prohibit certain ownership and carry terms.
Tom Coward @ 48:
You are arguing a strawman no one presented given I never argued you can drive if you don't have a driver's license. In fact and once again, I specifically noted that under the comity principle states have the power to regulate driving including prohibition powers though those are restricted by the comity principle and the due process and equal protection clauses.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2010 7:21 AM
The Very Rev - "...I knew then that that crap about driving being a 'privilege not a right' was a load of dingo's kidneys..."
Hey! I resemble that remark! (Or at lest bits of me do).
My pet peeve - not Bronze Age; Iron Age Goat
Fuckers- oops wrong thread - I meant Herders, of course. :) - Dingo----
Nice to see the Prof. got to wheel out his ol' favorite: 'No Snow!'
Posted by: DingoJack | September 9, 2010 8:04 AM
DingoJack:
What is it with you and goat fucking? : )
Posted by: Coryat | September 9, 2010 8:30 AM
Coryat - see thread here. Enjoy [as much as you dare!]
Bwhahahahahahhahaa!!! ;)- Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 9, 2010 9:15 AM
Jennifer @10 The Flying Spaghetti Monster's temples might be all right, but only until some innocent child chokes to death on a meatball.
No more temples to His Noodle Waving Holiness may be constructed in London! Or Hertfordshire!
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Second+child+dies+after+choking+on+a+meatball.-a0139656183
Or Houston, Texas:
http://texaslawyer.typepad.com/texas_lawyer_blog/2008/03/spaghettios-mak.html
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | September 9, 2010 10:18 AM
Paen "Unfortunatly this disease isn't limited to the right wing, since there are fashionable atheists who...can't tell the diference between a thoughtful conservative and a raving wingnut."
That's easy. Thoughtful conservatives are the ones who are no longer in the Party.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 9, 2010 12:36 PM
Michael Heath @54. If I have misunderstood you, I am sorry. However, you say "we have a U.S. constitutionally protected right to travel and therefore a right to a driver's license." I think this is a non sequitur. The right to travel is one of the essential rights of citizens under the US Constitution, right up there with free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on. The 'right' to a driver's license is not in this league, nor does it flow from the right to travel.
To obtain a driving license, one must demonstrate knowledge of driving and proficiency in the operation of an automobile. For certain types of licenses one must also be able to demonstrate robust good health. The State may also revoke a driver’s license administratively, without Court action, and without a prior hearing. None of this would be permissible if possession of a driving license were a 'right' in the sense that the right to travel is a 'right'.
An equivalent claim would be that one has the 'right' to pilot an airplane.
Conflating possession of a driving license with the right to travel trivializes the constitutional right and obscures the question more than it clarifies it.
Of course, there are certain constitutional protections, such as due process and equal protection, that restrain states in the administration of licensing programs for drivers (or pilots), but these apply in all areas where the government runs programs that allocate goods or services. For instance, there is no constitutional 'right' to receive welfare benefits, but if the government establishes such a program, it must be administered in a way that is consistent with due process, equal protection, etc.
Once again, if I have misunderstood your argument, please let me know. I am not trying to set up a straw man; I am only succumbing to SIWOTI.
Posted by: Tom Coward | September 9, 2010 2:09 PM
Tom Coward:
And once again I must request a citation supporting your assertion. I'm remain confident in my citation of U.S. v. Wheeler since it remains binding and discusses state power to regulate travel.
Tom Coward:
Tom you seemed to have completely ignored both the holding principle I cited (the comity principle from U.S. v. Wheeler which is still a binding precedent) and my example of how states regulate and prohibit guns in the same analogous way you just described here for regulating driver's licenses. Possessing a right in no prohibits government from regulating, restricting, or even prohibiting the exercise of that right if properly exercising their powers. I cite Barnett below where those pages below provide a tutorial on this concept using driving as an example.
Tom wrote:
We do have a right to pilot an airplane for the very same reason we have to drive, but the fact we possess that right doesn't preclude the governments right to regulate or prohibit that activity just like they do all other activities that limit or in some cases prohibit the exercise of our rights.
Tom - government does not grant us our rights except positive rights which aren't discussed here. We reserve our rights, especially since there is no valid approach to even define and then list rights. When a claim is made in court for redress arguing a right has been improperly infringed upon, courts seek to understand whether the government is obligated to defend and protect that right, whether the government has the necessary powers to restrict/prohibit that right, or an obligation to defend the superior rights of others even if it infringes on the free exercise by the plaintiff.
Tom states:
I'm not conflating the two - I'm distinguishing how a right is exercised while revealing the powers and limitations of states to regulate that right. I backed that up with holding precedent, U.S. v. Wheeler, that clearly notes the right to travel but also recognizes and accepts the power of the state to regulate travel - which is what states do with driver's licenses or concealed weapons permitting when it comes to guns.
I'm claiming that we have a right to travel. That right doesn't change in spite of the fact the mode of travel changes over time - horses, vehicles, boat, jets, etc. Government has powers to regulate travel but can't prohibit our travel or our method of travel by violating our due process and equal protection rights unless it's in defense of the greater rights of others (public safety) or because of some numerated power extended to the government. For example, if Michigan's legislature and governor passed a law that prohibited driving in the state because they were no longer going to maintain state roads, any individual could easily seek redress in a federal court that Michigan had encroached on their right to travel by way of prohibiting the use of vehicles - which is the primary method people currently use to travel.
Tom Coward:
Welfare benefits are an example of a positive right, totally inapplicable when it comes to a negative right like driving. Wikipedia does a nice job distinguishing between the two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights
Besides the precedent I presented, my general point can be validated in Constitutional Scholar Randy Barnett's book, Restoring the Lost Constitution (I wrote one of the 10 reviews at this site under the name I use here).
While the purpose of Barnett's book is to make an argument that extends beyond current binding precedents, driving is not one of those arguments that requires precedent to be overturned. Barnett discusses the relationship of owning a right relative to government powers having legitimate powers to regulate that right using driving as an example, he also used the gun right/regulatory model in his comparison like I did last evening though that's coincidental since I haven't read this book in years. Barnett's validation of my point can be found on pages 349 - 350, which can be viewed in Amazon's 'Search inside the book feature' (We can't select, copy, and paste search results which is why I don't blockquote the relevant text here.)
I highly advise purchasing the book, it's the best book on the Constitution and rights I've ever read. Another great book on rights is Akhil Amar's The Bill of Rights though it doesn't refer to travel rights or driving.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2010 5:50 PM
And it is evil like this (suggesting justifications for crimes against humanity against civilians, which is what this commenter is referring to), regularly spewed by the pro-Israel people, that makes me not really surprised when the Palestinians commit violence against enemy civilians. After all, you can't blame Hamas, given the murderous "provocations" of the Israeli occupation forces.
Given that the Israeli government and people appear to have increasingly become more right-wing and insane, to the extent of electing people who can only be described as fascists in their government, I am tempted, aping Peretz, and say that Israelis are not "worthy" of human rights protections.
Then I remember that I am not evil, like Peretz or this commenter.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | September 10, 2010 1:24 AM
Re Woody Tanaka @ #62
Given that the Israeli government and people appear to have increasingly become more right-wing and insane, to the extent of electing people who can only be described as fascists in their government
Of course, the actions of the Palestinians relative to homicide bombings of pizza parlors, Qassems fired across the fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel, etc. have nothing to do with this attitude of the Israeli electorate. Not a bit of it, perish the thought. I agree with former Secretary of State Shultz, the Palestinian terrorists who commit these acts are not even people.
Posted by: SLC | September 10, 2010 6:17 AM
SLC - "Of course, the actions of the
Palestinians[Israelis] relative tohomicide bombings of pizza parlors, Qassems fired[White Phosphorus fired into residential areas] across the fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel, etc. have nothing to do with this attitude of theIsraeli[Palestinian] electorate. Not a bit of it, perish the thought."That's completely different, right?
(The 'he started it' school of diplomacy, nice to see us six-year olds getting a voice on this thread.* [eye-roll])
"I agree with former Secretary of State Shultz, the Palestinian terrorists who commit these acts are not even people."
I bet ol' SLC would approve of the Israelis rounding them up into a small area (how 'bout we call it a 'concentration camp') and gassing these rats, these dirty immoral undermenschen... oh wait. - Dingo
----
* just to be clear here:
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO STARTED IT; IT'S GOTTA STOP - NOW.
Sadly, with the attitudes in the US similar to those expressed by SLC, is it any wonder that the Palestinians feel that the negotiations are not being held in good faith, are a sham designed to allow Israel to do whatever the hell it wants, and are simply a way of forcing them into a ghetto ready for their 'final solution'?
That way everyone in Israel and the US can point their fingers at the 'right set of bad guys' when the truce breaks down, (no matter who breaks it) and call for even worse restrictions 'teh eviiil A-rab ter-rists'.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 11, 2010 3:39 AM
"Of course, the actions of the Palestinians relative to homicide bombings of pizza parlors, Qassems fired across the fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel, etc. have nothing to do with this attitude of the Israeli electorate. Not a bit of it, perish the thought."
Yes and I'm sure those actions were completely and totally unprovoked.
"the Palestinian terrorists who commit these acts are not even people.'
yes there vile subhuman scum, that's why it's okay to kill them all. And if a few hundred thousand or a few million others die with them well screw it, they're only Arabs.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 11, 2010 4:32 AM
Re Ian Gould @ #65
I assume that Mr. Gould is unrelated to the new British ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=187744
Posted by: SLC | September 11, 2010 6:22 AM
Or the late Stephen J Gould* for that matter. :) - Dingo
----
* practitioner of that arcane Jewish fraud called paleontology, according to are new village idiot, Canny.
Perhaps we can get Canny and SLC in the same thread together. My money's on SLC though, (s)he can manage to construct an real argument, something I doubt the village idiot could manage even if (s)he could find a friend to phone.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 11, 2010 6:45 AM
sorry - the footnote shouldn't read 'are village idiot'; it should read 'our village idiot'. That's what you get for typing when indignant. - temporary V.I. Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 11, 2010 6:52 AM
Re Dingojack @ #67
The late Prof. Stephen Jay Gould was a native born American. It is my understanding that Mr. Ian Gould is British, as is the newly appointed ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould.
By the way, it's he and it's Dr. SLC.
Posted by: SLC | September 11, 2010 8:52 AM
"It is my understanding that Mr. Ian Gould is British,"
Not so much.
I'm a rinky-dink, fair-dinkum citizen of Godzone.
Too right, I am.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 11, 2010 9:16 AM
Re Ian Gould @ #70
1. My sister visited New Zealand many, many years ago and was favorably impressed with the place.
2. A former colleague of mine, Prof. Graham Bullen, formally of the Un. of Pittsburg, was originally from New Zealand and had a low opinion of Australianders. According to him, this was a widespread view amongst New Zealanders.
Posted by: SLC | September 11, 2010 10:06 AM
SLC, the relationship between New Zealand and Australia is a complex one.
People on both sides of the Tasman know that it was only an accident of history (and the racism of my Australian forebears who didn't want to give Maoris the vote)that led to us being two countries rather than one).
We joke about and belittle each other, as siblings will, but that's all it is, jokes.
The bottom line is, Australians and New Zealanders shed blood together in both World Wars, if either country was in danger now, the people of the other would do the same again, without question.
There's an old Irish expression "as close as teeth and gums" which summarizes our relationship, which is as close as two countries can get and still be two countries.
Don't let our criticism of each other and our rivalry and bravado fool you into thinking different.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 11, 2010 10:49 AM
My dear Dr. SLC,
a) What is your Doctorate in? (I'm curious)
b) 'Gould' is a fairly common name.
c) Q:Why do Kiwi's graze their sheep near cliffs?
....A:They back-up harder.
Ozlanders have the same generally disdainful attitude to Kiwi's, as they to us. - Dingo
----
Since most of the NZers are over here (to get work) the old gag goes: The sign in the NZ airport reads "Will the last person to leave, please turn-off the lights."
Posted by: DingoJack | September 11, 2010 10:50 AM
"By the way, it's he and it's Dr. SLC."
And yet you have no difficulty in assuming it's "Mr." Gould".
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 11, 2010 10:52 AM
Uh Ian - NZ was offered a place in the Australian Federation; they turned it down. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 11, 2010 11:02 AM
Yes, and a major reason for doing so was that the Australian delegates didn't want to give Maoris citzenship and the vote because of the precedent it would set regarding indigenous Australians and Pacific Islanders.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 11, 2010 11:04 AM
Re Ian Gould @ #74
If it's Dr. Gould, I apologize.
Re Dingojack @ #73
Elementary particle physics.
Posted by: SLC | September 11, 2010 11:23 AM
Dear Dr, SLC - what, was the the advanced particle physics too hard for you? :)
Dear His Royal Highness, The Totally Honourable and Absolutely Narlily Fantastic Ian Gould - I never knew that. - Mr. Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 11, 2010 11:33 AM
Re Dingojack @ Ian Gould
Sounds like the relationship between New Zealand and Australia bears has some similarities to that between the US and Canada.
Posted by: SLC | September 11, 2010 8:18 PM
"Of course, the actions of the Palestinians relative to homicide bombings of pizza parlors, Qassems fired across the fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel, etc. have nothing to do with this attitude of the Israeli electorate."
And I'm sure the Zionist invasion of Palestine and the fact that these Israelis have shown themselves to be nothing more than barbaric bloodthirsty monsters and murders of Palestinian children also had nothing to do with the Arabs engaging in armed resistance.
"I agree with former Secretary of State Shultz, the Palestinian terrorists who commit these acts are not even people."
So? That just makes you an evil pig.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | September 15, 2010 2:01 AM