What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Judge Sotomayor is catching flack for having accepted, about one year ago, an invitation to join Belizean Grove, a small, (from one hundred and fifteen to one hundred and twenty five members), apparently intimate and rather exclusive, invitation-only organization which has only female members. According to its website, Belizean Grove is…
Article comments
76 - Cindy
Clav,
And this one, to a significant degree, places few restrictions on participants (as does, on a much larger scale, our society), which makes it an enjoyable (and ironically, more egalitarian) forum.
Indeed it is. It's the greatest thing. Believe it or not, there are so many rules on the most popular anarchist forum, that I never bothered to post anything there. The rules put me off. There are rules against one-liners, rules against saying you agree, rules that irritate me so much I'd rather not bother with the people who made them (anarchists or not).
77 - Jeannie Danna
Clavos, on #63 why nay to the second:(
RogerOf course I'm exerting my influence here. Me and Jeannie have a pact.Thanks:)
Cindy,I acknowledge your point and even said that is the reason why anarchy is a necessity. If all people everywhere simply naturally were fair, we wouldn't really need a system designed to correct unfairness.This is why we need a fair system of government. I admit President Obama is not GodHe killed a fly! but he is better than we've had for a looong time! :)
Dan, I'll pick you up some Guinness.:)
And now, like Irene, I have to go grocery shopping.
78 - roger nowosielski
Very good point, Clav, and that's regardless of what you think of my meddling.
Long live human interaction and its dynamic. I wouldn't have it any other way.
79 - Cindy
(as does, on a much larger scale, our society)
Those with power decide that their contribution is valued more highly than those without power. If you are never without any power, the robbery of your freedom in this way may escape you.
80 - Cindy
Jeannie,
This is why we need a fair system of government.
A fair system of government? That's easy--no government is good government. All gov't leads to abuse of power.
Which is not to say I don't make distinctions. Unlike at least one (and unfortunately probably more) of my anarchist friends with whom I am arguing on Twitter. As far as I see it, their arguments would lead to the conclusion that living under the Chinese gov't is exactly the same as living under the US gov't. I am disappointed that some won't stand in solidarity with the Iranians. They see it as supportive of gov't.
I see it as them standing aside and arguing from their comfy homes why a secular Democracy is bad (i.e. it's gov't and I agree all gov't is bad, just that some are worse than others.) and refusing to reach back, meantime their fellow people are getting their teeth kicked in and having their communications shut down by their theocratic gov't in the street.
It's an easy argument from a suburban living room in the US.
81 - Cindy
Addendum: To see so many anarchists who can't tell the difference between a human rights issue and an election issue, makes me realize how far the world has to go. Some of them haven't even bothered to get an informed opinion, so they won't choose solidarity (just in case it would be ideologically distasteful to them).
How do we change the world, when one of the most historically important events takes place and the people who are supposed to be changing things can't be bothered to be informed?
82 - Cindy
Here is an anarchist who does understand the meaning of what's happening in Iran.
83 - Jeannie Danna
Cindy,
I just watched the video in Denver. It makes me sick to see how much personal freedom we have lost in this country.
When I was a child I remember how nice police officers were to my family at our store. They seemed more respectful anyways.
Then in the seventies they weren't so nice anymore. All those hippies you know.
Now today we are all treated like criminals.You are guilty first and innocent second!
84 - Zedd
I don't think it's political correctness but political expediency. We know what a political football a judicial appointment is. I would think she resigned to remove any roadblocks or issues that would delay her appointment.
85 - Zedd
Roger,
You understood where I was going with my questions, perfectly.
86 - Jeannie Danna
Cindy look A fair system of government? That's easy--no government is good government. All gov't leads to abuse of power. If we had absolutely no government at all it would be like the wild wild west outside our doors! I don't like the way things are today either, but that's why we need to change it. Not tear it down altogether!
We know how many little children go to bed with out food or shelter now. Most of the homeless in this country in fact are women and children!
Just imagine your anarchist world then.
87 - roger nowosielski
I've got no choice, Zedd. Underestimating you is a mistake I dare not make. It could lead to disaster.
But seriously, now. I'll be checking out 'cause it's been a long day.
Adieu to all my female friends (and enemies).
88 - Zedd
Dan,
The most important word in Canon 2C appears to be the word "invidious" which means "Tending to rouse ill will, animosity, or resentment". The need for the judge to disassociate with the group is nullified by that distinction because the group does not appear to have an intent to rouse animosity against the males of our species.
However what I do see as an issue is her being a member of a group that has as its mission to better the aspirations of its members. What she would be admitting to is having a greater intent to better the position of these particular Americans more so than others.
89 - Jeannie Danna
Goodnight Roger...
90 - Zedd
Dan/Clavos,
I do understand that clambering against political correctness has been what in vogue for the past 20yrs or so, especially among Reps. However now that we all have become more politically savvy, it must dawn on you that the climate that has been created by politicians or political play book makers actually forces what you just expressed disdain for. Being thinking men, surely you must acknowledge that what is even most interesting is that it is the Reps who have become the party of word play and minutia; the party that forces the over correcting that would force what you call political correctness.
What we end up with is a false indignation by many in your party against PC when they actually purposely create the nervous climate which requires the over correcting.
It simply had to be said. I just wonder if you notice it. You must though.
91 - Zedd
all Dan's refered to on this thread were Dan(M). I forgot to make that distiction
92 - Cindy
If we had absolutely no government at all it would be like the wild wild west outside our doors!
Well, at least you didn't say we couldn't live in houses (no private property = no houses some people think, I guess) or drink champagne or have roads in an anarchist society. (people have told me those things)
Zanon Factory of the people
That link is for a workplace consistent with anarchist principles. No government doesn't mean no rules, just no rulers. The rules come directly from the people instead of from representatives. From the bottom, not the top (there is no top) No wild west repeats :-)
93 - Jeannie Danna
Ha Ha If we had absolutely no government at all it would be like the wild wild west outside our doors! I stayed up late just to see if you would read these words.:)
I will have to read your #92 in the morning OK?
Now, I really have to go to sleep!
goodnight Cindy
94 - Baritone
Considering the amount of attention that Ms. Sotomayor is getting, as would be expected, it's probably unfair to judge her decision to relinquish her membership. Currently, she is kind of our version of Susan Boyle. Keep in mind that the harsh public scrutiny she is currently enduring is hardly similar to the much more private endeavors of a sitting jurist.
If membership in various clubs and other organizations became a prohibitive issue for anyone entering the public sphere, few people would be able to serve in any capacity. How about fraternities and sororities? They are gender specific, are they not. Invidious? Maybe. Stupid? Definitely.
I don't see how her belonging to that little club has any relevance regarding reverse descrimination or anything else. It simply serves as one more nit picking distraction from what is important regarding Ms. Sotomayor's judicial record.
As just a side note, I must concur with Zedd. Who has been making absolute fools of themselves over the last several months? Democrats? Mmmm, not so much. Republicans? Ah, the answer there would be yes! It is as if any Rep who has even a modicum of common sense or real intelligence has taken the year off or hidden in the woodwork. All that are left are frankly, idiots spouting off with a whole host of inane statements. Who, you may ask, am I refering to? Well, let's see:
Leading the pack IMO is Michelle Bachman, then in no particular order come Eric Cantor, John Boehner, good ole Sister Sarah, Indiana Congressmen Stephen Buyer, Mike Pence and Dan Burton, John McCain, Michael Steele and neither last nor least (but all I can think of at the moment) that great sage of the GOP "The Newt" Gingrich.
Since they aren't "official" spokesmen for the Reps, I'll just mention the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh, etal as being perhaps even more egregiously culpable.
All of these people and many more have gone out of their way to say and do really stupid stuff over the last few months. Most Dems have had the good sense to keep their mouths shut since they currenly hold the keys to the kingdom. Yeah, I know, our VP has come up with a few doozies, but given his track record, it's hard to have expected otherwise.
But Dan, suggesting that Dems are the "stupid" ones is at best way off the mark given the recent spate of idiotic drivel flowing from the mouths of the pachyderms.
B
95 - Dave Nalle
But does it have raging orgies with gay prostitutes like the (similarly named) Bohemian Grove? Let's check with Alex Jones. Maybe he can dress in drag and infiltrate it.
Dave
96 - Clavos
@#90:
Actually, zedd, I prefer to inveigh against PC, rather than climb on it.
97 - Cindy
goodnight Cindy
Nite nite Jeannie...er..or good morning probably. ;-)
(Going to NYC in my pajamas today. It's the anniversary of John and Yoko's Bed-In for world peace. 21 June ‘09 NY Central Park Bed-In for World Peace by The World March for Peace & Nonviolence. Walking around in NYC in a bathrobe should be fun :-)
98 - Baritone
Cindy,
My son's in Brooklyn, give him a call. Although, I don't believe he owns a bathrobe.:)
B
99 - Baritone
Oh. One person I meant to mention, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of NC who publically stated that Matthew Shepard wasn't killed because he was gay, that it was simply a robbery, and saying that the "hate crime" aspect was a hoax. This while Shepard's mother sat in the audience. Foxx is a complete ditz!
B
100 - Jeannie Danna
IMAGINE PEACE
“Imagine all the people living in peace”
- as John said.
Remember, each one of us has the power to change the world.
Power works in mysterious ways.
You don’t have to do much.
Visualise the domino effect
And just start thinking PEACE.
The message will circulate faster than you think.
It’s Time For Action.
The Action is PEACE.
Spread the word.
Spread PEACE.
I love you!
Yoko Ono
21 June 2009
I Wish we could meet you in the
park, Say hi to Yoko:)
peace Cindy
101 - Jeannie Danna
Happy Father's Day!
It's Sunday morning and time for my weekly apology to the right wing...:)
102 - Cindy
Morning Jeannie,
Oh well, we can't go. My husband doesn't feel well (I think he's faking :-). But, it's been raining forever and driving to NYC to lie around in the wet grass with sheets and pillows--I can see why he doesn't feel well. lol
103 - Dan(Miller)
Baritone, you say
But Dan, suggesting that Dems are the "stupid" ones is at best way off the mark given the recent spate of idiotic drivel flowing from the mouths of the pachyderms.
In the context of the article, I was expressing a hope that the current minority party would not engage in the same sort of degrading stupidity about which it complained when it was the majority party. I seem to recall a bit of silliness from the Democrats when Bush the Younger Evil One nominated Federal judges and justices. See, e.g., the silliness when Judge Smith was nominated to the Third Circuit, noted in the article. My point was that senseless obstructionism on the part of the Democrats then is no excuse for the same thing from the Republicans now that the Democrats have a majority.
As to whether the Democrats or the Republicans are currently providing the greater spate of idiotic drivel, there seems to be enough from all sides that who gets first and who gets second prize is a tough call.
Dan(Miller)
104 - roger nowosielski
I would say the article was evenhanded except for the following paragraph:
"That Democrats sometimes do silly things should not be an excuse for Republicans to do those same silly things; silliness begets silliness, and the selection of a Supreme Court justice is too important for that sort of nonsense. And, of course, by not acting silly, the Republicans can help the Democrats look silly by comparison."
I suppose you just couldn't help yourself, Dan (Miller), but to expose your bias. Even when claiming the high ground.
105 - Dan(Miller)
Roger, please see my comment #103.
As to my claiming the high ground, that's your perception, not mine. Obviously I have "biases;" I readily acknowledge them, see my bio here. I would suggest that anyone who pretends to have no "biases" is disingenuous, insufficiently introspective or at least rather dull. The best that the rest of us can do, I think, is to recognize our biases and try to neutralize them. That is probably more necessary for judges than for the rest of us.
Dan(Miller)
106 - roger nowosielski
I wrote it in light of #103 as well, Dan.
I suppose the point I was making is that "taking a high ground" is more effective when keeping biases at bay and not tarnishing the motive. Especially in the present case, there's nothing to be gained by the dig, "[to] help the Democrats look silly by comparison," even if your onlyconcern was that the Republicans don't look silly.
I happen to think that the point of your article was to go beyond mere admonition against silliness (from either side of the aisle); but that point is somehow lost or rendered ineffective by the unnecessary reference.
107 - Dan(Miller)
Roger -- clearly (I hope), I wanted to present the view that the nomination of Judge Sotomayor should not be opposed frivolously. I have also tried to make that point in other articles. Were I in a position to nominate Supreme Court Justices, I doubt that she would have been my choice. There are quite probably others whom I would consider better suited to the office; I would prefer a "conservative" (which she seems not to be) with substantial experience (she has quite a bit) as an appellate court judge. However, that is hardly relevant, and my criteria are very likely quite different from those of President Obama; It's his job, not mine.
As to the rest, I sorta kinda maybe hoped that a few "conservatives" might read the article. As a "conservative," I would very much like to see the Republicans provide a good, rather than bad, example on how best to deal with Presidential nominations. Optimist that I am, I don't see that as a lost cause.
Dan(Miller)
108 - roger nowosielski
I believe I understood your intent all along, which you express in the following:
"I would very much like to see the Republicans provide a good, rather than bad, example on how best to deal with Presidential nominations."
And that's "taking a high ground" as far as I'm concerned. Which is the only reason why I posted #104.
109 - Baritone
Dan (M),
Currently, I believe the Reps have a clear edge on the Dems for dumbdiddy dumb.
After I hit the hay last night I suddenly realized that I hadn't mentioned tricky Dick Cheney, nor his even less enlightened daughter who have been making the cable news rounds with the goal, I presume, of keeping him out of jail.
B