Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (100448)	2/14/2005 7:02:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793762

Perhaps I should have picked a different example because picking the one I did gives the danger of this becoming a debate about abortion rather than a debate about judicial activism but so far that danger has not been realized. They did not expressly call any right "privacy" but they certainly discussed the right to be left alone from excessive government interference. The belief in "the right to be left alone from excessive government interference" is pretty close to what is now commonly called libertarianism. While I am a libertarian I don't think that we have a constitutional right to expect a government that strongly follows libertarian principles. It's a misnomer to say that Roe v. Wade created a "right to abortion." It found the right to not be prosecuted by the state for obtaining an abortion or performing an abortion during early pregnancy. That's the real crux of Roe v. Wade -- can the state prosecute someone for obtaining an early abortion? Or do women have a right to be left alone to make their own decision during early pregnancy? "Right to an abortion" is indeed less accurate than "the right to not be prosecuted by the state for obtaining an abortion or performing an abortion", but it is not a misnomer. Usually I would use the more accurate term but it is rather long for a term that comes up frequently. Also note I did not include "early pregnancy" as part of what I called the "more accurate term" since judicial decisions have not limited this right to early pregnancy. "The right to not be prosecuted by the state for obtaining an abortion or performing an abortion" is also not contained in the constitution, nor is privacy. Also "privacy" does not equal "the right to not be prosecuted by the state for obtaining an abortion or performing an abortion". The "right to be left alone" is often a good principle, but it isn't specified by the constitution, it would be unworkable as actual constitutional law, and I imagine it is something that you would not impose as a general requirement in all areas. Or do women have a right to be left alone to make their own decision during early pregnancy? The Founding Fathers would have said yes, because that was, in fact, the state of the law at the time the Constitution was enacted. Abortion prior to quickening (15 - 20 weeks gestation) was not illegal in any of the British colonies or in the states prior to about 1860. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. The unstated premises, which would be something like "If abortion was legal at the time of the writing of the constitution, than the founders would have considered abortion to be a basic right that should be protected by the constitution", and "If the founders considered abortion to be such a right but did not express anything about it in the constitution than it is still a constitutional right", are both highly questionable to say the least. Tim

To: Ilaine who wrote (100448)	2/14/2005 7:13:37 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793762

Iran wins Iraqi election! Boo hoo cries the Post Barnett Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 14 February 2005 Good article in Post ("Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision," By Robin Wright, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, February 14, 2005; Page A08), which loves to stick it to Bush. I found the analysis rather doofy, though. Usually expect better out of Wright. She's poking a straw man here (ah, what was it again? Yes! Jeffersonian Democracy flying right out of Allawi hind-quarters!). Here's the key paras: But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say. Yesterday, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S. role. In a statement, President Bush praised Iraqis "for defying terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom. And I congratulate every candidate who stood for election and those who will take office once the results are certified." Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq. Thousands of members of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-dominated slate that won almost half of the 8.5 million votes and will name the prime minister, spent decades in exile in Iran. Most of the militia members in its largest faction were trained in Shiite-dominated Iran. And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline. I don't know anyone who had his head on straight in DC who expected much better than this with the elections. Pretending the White House thought they'd end up with some secular regime hostile to Iran is just nonsense. Now the Post is just catching up to the reality that drives my logic in the Esquire piece: Saddam is gone, we have our Big Bang rolling, but let's be real about tabling our winnings with regard to Iran. Meanwhile, Friedman's rerunning his get-off-oil op-ed for like the 20th time. Really good stuff showing he's basically out of ideas since 9/11. He wants to be a serious thinker on security but he doesn't know how to be. So he shoots for the moon on economics, hoping it sounds really profound. It doesn't. It sounds like pie in the sky. How much you wanna bet his upcoming tome on geopolitics goes on and on about his "geo-green" strategy? Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 04:34 PM Tightening some screws on Kim Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 14 February 2005 Good article in NYT ("U.S. Is Shaping Plan to Pressure North Koreans," By DAVID E. SANGER, 14 Feb 05, pulled off web). Here is the opening paras: In the months before North Korea announced that it possessed nuclear weapons, the Bush administration began developing new strategies to choke off its few remaining sources of income, based on techniques in use against Al Qaeda, intelligence officials and policy makers involved in the planning say. The initial steps are contained in a classified "tool kit" of techniques to pressure North Korea that has been refined in recent weeks by the National Security Council. The new strategies would intensify and coordinate efforts to track and freeze financial transactions that officials say enable the government of Kim Jong Il to profit from counterfeiting, drug trafficking and the sale of missile and other weapons technology. China lining up, saying harshest things yet about Kim. Japan getting tough with effective reverse-blockade of North Korean ships. The Deadly Viper Assassination Squad is coming together. And they said I was crazy!