Thursday, May 7, 2009

Not Racism and Segregation Again! (PARODY)

Can we just get over Racism, we are never going to get rid of it. In fact, why do we have discrimination laws. Plus could we just once, have a judicial nomination process that doesn't harp on whether or not civil rights legislation is considered constitutional by the nominee! I mean it is so exasperating. These laws won't even change one racist's heart. Can the Church stop pushing for political victories, leave the public square and just talk to the parishioners who happen to make it to Church about racism and how the Church thinks its bad and stuff. After all, the decision to be a racist is a "tragic moral choice" not an intrinsic evil no matter what. And who are we to make that choice for the racist. And really, by what principle do we decide to punish racists who actually discriminate and but not those who don't? Let's just give up and move on people. It's been more than 500 years and its not going to change anytime soon, get it!

Okay, enough parody. I am really against racism and think it can be stopped constitutionally under the 13th Amendment, but that is a discussion for another day. Here is yet another "deep" piece from Professor Douglas Kmiec, in America Magazine, which is unfortunately not a parody. On a side note, how many more times is he planning on slandering our Holy Mother Church in America for being nothing more than a soulless partisan hack that needs to get back to the business of making religion private rather than implemented in public policy but at the same time say that the current child torturer-in-chief is implementing the commands of the Prophet Micah in Holy Scripture?

[I've decided to through in some of my own comments in red]

"Not Abortion Again
For the past 30 years or so, abortion has dominated confirmation battles. It may have a role again, even though it is highly unlikely an Obama nominee will see abortion differently than Justice Souter. Yet empathy supplies insight here, too. Abortion is exactly what the president says it is: “a tragic moral choice.” [No what abortion is is an intrinsic evil] Conservative law professors helping GOP presidential candidates would insist that this choice be made criminal. [Yes, so does the Pope as you will recall from your Time Magazine piece flipping out after Nancy Pelosi got Catechised] After Originalism, this “reverse Roe” mantra has been the conservative litmus test for Court appointment. [Yes it is also the litmus test for all legitimate government, just check out the Declaration of Independence] Yet even to me, a defender of the idea that personhood begins at conception, the inadequacy of using abortion as a measure of judicial merit is obvious by its narrowness. [Clearly . . . Uh wait a minute, the inescapable logic has seemed to escaped me.] From the standpoint of empathy, is it really likely that if Roe is overturned, the states will criminalize abortion sending predominantly poor women and college co-eds to jail? [Ah, glad to see that specious straw man argument coming from a "friend" of the pro-life cause] And if compassion exempts these women from incarceration, what consistent principle then sends the doctors off to prison? [It is something that first year law school students learn about, it's called mens rea. The principle is that those who clearly and purposely chose, without duress to do evil get punished more than those in the type of mental state that women in crises pregnancies have. Plus the doctor who is in a position of responsibility and has the ability to nurture and protect both the mother and child instead takes advantage of the mother's weakened emotional and mental state to kill her child for a profit! Therefore, the more depraved the mental state of the actor, the greater the punishment. It is basic principle of ancient common law.] With these rather basic questions unanswered, questioning a nominee about Roe will tell us little that is coherent. Does empathy tell us anything important about abortion? It is not, as some religious conservatives claim, just a covert ratification of the practice. No, in ways far more subtle than the bloody images of dissected babies often thrust in the faces of women confronted with an untimely pregnancy, empathy reveals the limits of the law and the importance of giving a woman without insurance or the resources needed to sustain herself, the assistance necessary to allow her to complete a pregnancy. President Obama reaffirmed this point at his most recent press conference. Women, he said, do not make this decision casually. [No they make it with the full moral, financial and legal support of Barack Obama and after being fed the lies of Planned Parenthood. They are taken advantage of because they are in a vulnerable mental state by the current president and his political allies who fight informed consent laws! Does Obama's empathy know no bounds?] Indeed, his own very close relationship with his mother left him with the profound understanding that an expectant mother more honestly and plainly than anyone else understands and anticipates the needs not just of the infant in her womb, but of the child at 3, 12 and 28 years of age." [Yes unlike us pro-lifers who never had a mother nor empathy, Obama is in a perfect position to make the only meaningful statements on abortion that we must listen to. Plus, abortion was not legal when Obama's mom was pregnant so we don't even know if he would have had a chance to know his mom. But luckily for the grand empathizer Obama, abortion wasn't legal when he was conceived.]

Here is the link if you feel the need to look, though it isn't pretty and I wouldn't recommend it:


Another good Kmiec criticism can be found at

No comments:

Post a Comment