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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (59257)	3/28/2005 3:43:52 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Altogether now: 'We apologize' March 28, 2005 Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which. News item: The world's highest Sunni Muslim authority has demanded an official apology from the pope for the medieval Christian crusades. The Morocco Times reported that Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf, president of the Interfaith Dialogue Committee of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, said his panel sent the request to the Vatican in February. ... Well ... OK. But as Pope John Paul II is unwell and cannot really speak for himself, let me apologize on his behalf. After all, the papacy was behind the crusades from the beginning, with Pope Urban II and popes Eugenius III, Gregory VIII and Innocent III urging Christian attacks in what we laughingly call "the Holy Land." (I have the feeling I'm leaving out somebody else, so let me apologize for them, as well.) And while I'm apologizing to the Muslims, let me also apologize to the Jews, because the Christian crusaders were rather hard on them. For that matter, I might as well apologize to all Christians, because while the crusaders – over the long haul – were failures militarily, they proved to be rather adept at sacking Christian cities, when the opportunity presented itself. However, the Muslim's also need to apologize. Maybe Sheikh Fawzi Zafzaf would suffice as overall spokesman for the religion and apologize for Islam's military conquests and subjugation of the Jews and Christians of "the Holy Land," as well as those territories now masquerading as Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. And let's not forget Turkey. The Turks should apologize for conquering the eastern Mediterranean and a swath of Europe, creating an empire so large that you couldn't move without tripping over an Ottoman. In fact, I tripped over an ottoman in my living room the other night while groping for the light switch, and an apology for this obstruction doesn't seem too much to ask. But back to the crusades: Pope Urban II wouldn't have been so agitated if Caliph al-Hakam hadn't prohibited Christian pilgrimages around the end of the 10th century. (This action likely contributed to al-Hakam's appellation, The Mad Caliph, though – as Grouch Marx might have said – he "wasn't mad, just terribly hurt.") Al-Hakam started picking on Christians, so guys with names like Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless whipped up the First Crusade. Their relative success led to the popularity of nicknames in other lawless circles that persists to this day. (Thus we have "Jimmy the Weasel," "Willie the Dip" and "Tommy the Clod," as well as their Levantine counterparts, like "Ali the Oily" and "Hakim the Handless," an epithet attesting his ineptitude as a thief.) After the Christians and the Muslims have finished apologizing, the Jews can apologize for taking over "the Holy Land" after their sojourn in the desert, the Assyrians can apologize for their depredations, and the Babylonians can apologize for enslaving the Jews. The Persians can apologize for antagonizing the Greeks, the Greeks can apologize for inventing the strigil, the descendants of the Khans can apologize for terrorizing Asia and eastern Europe, the Spanish can apologize for wiping out the Aztecs, the Aztecs can apologize for subjugating Mexico. The Japanese, Italians and Germans can apologize again for World War II, the United States can apologize for the fact everybody in the world doesn't live here, the Chinese can apologize for conquering Tibet, the Romans can apologize for becoming Italians, and Stephen Sondheim can apologize for "Into the Woods" and "Sweeny Todd." And if all of this apologizing sounds like meaningless nonsense, it is, and for that I apologize – except for the part about Sondheim. ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael P. Ackley has worked more than three decades as a journalist, the majority of that time at the Sacramento Union. His experience includes reporting, editing and writing commentary. Recently, he retired from teaching journalism for California State University at Hayward. worldnetdaily.com

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (59257)	3/29/2005 3:23:01 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

"The government has no business and no right to interfere with the judiciary and much less with the private affairs of its citizens." The legislative branch of gov't makes the laws under our constitution. The judicial branch has no right under the constitution to ignore any law, nor do they have the power to create any laws from the bench, as per our constitution. Please point out to me where Thomas Sowell is wrong here.... .....What the law just passed by Congress did was authorize a federal court to go back to square one and examine the actual merits of the Terri Schiavo case, not simply review whether the previous judge behaved illegally. Congress authorized the federal courts to retry this case from scratch -- "de novo" as the legislation says in legal terminology. That is precisely what the federal courts have refused to do. There is no way that federal District Judge James Whittemore could have examined this complex case, with its contending legal arguments and conflicting experts, from scratch in a couple of days, even if he had worked around the clock without eating or sleeping. Judge Whittemore ignored the clear meaning of the law passed by Congress and rubberstamped the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Nor could the judges on the Court of Appeals have gone through all of this material "de novo" in a couple of days after Judge Whittemore's decision. They have added to the number of judges that liberals can count but they have not followed the law -- which is what really counts. The federal judges have rushed to judgment -- in a case where there was no rush legally, despite a medical urgency. Terri Schiavo was not dying from anything other than a lack of food and water. These federal judges could have ordered the feeding tube restored while they gave this issue the thorough examination authorized -- and indeed prescribed -- by the recent Congressional legislation. As dissenting Judge Charles Wilson of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals put it, the "entire purpose of the statute" is to let federal courts look at the case "with a fresh pair of eyes." But, by the Circuit Court's decision, "we virtually guarantee" that the merits of the case "will never be litigated in a federal court" because Terri Schiavo will be dead. Never -- regardless of how many judges are counted as talking points. The liberal line, both in politics and in the media, is that Congress somehow behaved unconstitutionally. All federal courts except the Supreme Court are created by Congress. The Constitution itself gives Congress the authority to define or restrict the jurisdictions of federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Is the Constitution unconstitutional? The lessons of this tragic episode are as momentous as they are painful, if only because we should never want to see such a miscarriage of justice again. The issue is not only whether Terri Schiavo should live or die, important as that is. Another important issue is whether self-government in this country will live or die. Judges who ignore the laws passed by elected representatives are slowly but surely replacing democracy with judicial rule. Meanwhile, the media treat judges as sacrosanct and any criticism of them as almost blasphemy. All this adds more urgency to the need to put judges on the courts who will follow the written law, not their own notions. We can only hope that the Senate Republicans have the guts to do that. Message 21171155