For example, in 1942, Americans really were under mortal threats, but rounding up Japanese citizens and immigrants in California, stealing their property and immuring them in concentration camps was not an effective way of protecting anybody. It was racism.
Just so with Trump's idiotic motion against Muslims, on the grounds that some may be ready to attack Americans. It's true, some are. But then, so are some Christians.
The Supreme Cort decision (per curiam, but 6-3, showing that a minority of justices have not lost their heads), does nothing effective to protect anybody. The order reads, in relevant part:
The injunctions remain in place only with respect to parties similarly situated to Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii. In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be enforced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2.The Trumpeters interpret this vzgue order to mean, as close as your mother.
The flaw is obvious to anybody. Everybody has a mother, and everybody's mother lives somplace.
If she happens to live in the United States, that tells us exactly nothing about whether her child is or is not planning to attack Americans.
per curiam, but 6-3, showing that a minority of justices have not lost their heads ...
ReplyDeleteHave you lost your head?
Who were the minority of justices who dissented, and why did they dissent?
Let me help, since you clearly didn't follow my suggestion to read the decision to grant cert: the dissenters were Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch; Thomas writing the dissent:
I agree with the Court that the preliminary injunctions entered in these cases should be stayed, although I would stay them in full. The decision whether to stay the injunctions is committed to our discretion, ante, at 9–10, but our discretion must be “guided by sound legal principles,”
Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The two “most critical” factors we must consider in deciding whether to grant a stay are “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing
that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits” and “(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay.
This is entirely true. The 3 justices in the minority basically wanted to reverse the stay and let Trump's Muslim ban stand in its entirety. But then, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch will be the triumvirate of evil for years to come.
DeleteTaking a step back, what is surprising is how the mighty have fallen.
ReplyDeleteIt is very hard to shake the feeling that the kindergarten is ruling the country.
The point I am trying, with no apparent success, to make is that nothing the Trumpeters have done, and especially not the actions allowed by the Supreme Court, can do anything at all to forestall attacks by Muslims.
ReplyDeleteIt's theater for the ignoranti
Harry, the reason you aren't making your point is that you assumed who the dissenters were, and why they dissented. Consequently, you completely inverted reality; no wonder you were unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteAs to the point itself, you are also resting that on very shaky ground. First, as a practical matter, it is certain that to the extent the restrictions limit immigration from those six countries, the risk of an Islamist attack in the US goes down. Second, as a political matter, the restrictions the Trump administration put forward was the most they thought they could sustain (and they were very wrong the first time around, due to sloppy and rushed implementation).
The argument you and M need to make is why we should allow any Muslim immigration. Islam is intrinsically hostile to all Enlightenment derived societies. By our standards, middle eastern mainstream Muslim attitudes on a whole host of subjects are abhorrent. But please don't take my word for it, look at Pew surveys on the subject.
No one in Europe wants more Muslim immigration. Everywhere the consequences of a supremacist ideology that refuses assimilation are evident. I live in Düsseldorf. Last year, a major terrorist plot was disrupted. The year before that was mass sexual assaults in Köln, just 40 minutes down the road. The first two days of the Tour de France take place here, starting tomorrow. Care to take a guess as to how stringent the security measures are? Last weekend, there was a championship triathlon in my area of town, the Media Hafen. Many soldiers with assault rifles.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Islamism is an avowed threat to the West. We already kowtow to it by censoring cartoons and books. Europe tolerates things Americans don't have to, because we have vanishingly few Muslims in the US compared to Europe.
So the question you have begged, is why, given the nature of Islam, why the West in general, and the US in particular, should allow the immigration of devout Muslims in the first place.
Well?
[M:] But then, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch will be the triumvirate of evil for years to come.
That is a singularly disgusting and mystifying comment.
Unless, of course, you hate the US Constitution. Then it is at least no longer mystifying.
[Clovis:] It is very hard to shake the feeling that the kindergarten is ruling the country.
Funny how popularly elected government works sometimes.
And it is a shame how promiscuously political and journalistic elites, when their shibboleths get challenged, sling the racist and Islamophobe smears, instead of taking opposing arguments on board.
I am deeply disappointed that Trump hasn't stepped up to an historical moment.
But not nearly as disappointed as I am in those, particularly journalists, who have become completely unhinged. The shame they have earned themselves is beyond measure.
I have a question in reverse: why are we not expelling devout Christians? They commit more terrorist attacks in the US than devout (or any other kind of) Muslims.
ReplyDeleteTrue fact, that.
Christianity, as practiced at, eg, Liberty University, Hobby Lobby or Ave Maria, Florida, is as inimical to western values as any variety of Islam.
Stepping back a little, the world has become more porous than it was. You cannot seal a border against cyberwarfare or germs. Better devise methods of getting along.
[Harry:] I have a question in reverse: why are we not expelling devout Christians? They commit more terrorist attacks in the US than devout (or any other kind of) Muslims.
ReplyDeleteTrue fact, that.
I don't believe you. Moreover, even if it is true in an absolute sense you betray astonishing innumeracy.
The population of devout Christians in the US is at least 50 times that of devout Muslims: N(Christian) >> N(Muslim). So unless the number of terrorist attacks -- and dead, and grievously wounded -- is 50 times greater for Christians than Muslims, you are parading as true fact that which is nothing more than an astonishing incomprehension of even basic statistics.
(You are not alone, the NYT has several times made that same mistake.)
Christianity, as practiced at, eg, Liberty University, Hobby Lobby or Ave Maria, Florida, is as inimical to western values as any variety of Islam.
That is hateful nonsense, Harry. I swear, in that regard you are worse than a white supremacist.
A core western value is freedom of conscience. They are entitled to theirs, I don't recall them trying to deprive you of yours.
Stepping back a little, the world has become more porous than it was. You cannot seal a border against cyberwarfare or germs. Better devise methods of getting along.
Let me get this straight. Because we can't stop cyberwarfare, we shouldn't stop anything? Really?
As for the last sentence, if there was ever something that qualified as empty twaddle, that is it.
Islamic terrorism.
ReplyDeleteChristian terrorism doesn't even register in comparison.
(BTW, how about acknowledging that you got the premise for this post completely backwards.)
Hobby Lobby is the reverse of freedom of conscience.
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to blather about western values -- and I know you are -- then it would be handy to know which western values you mean.
Harry:
ReplyDeleteYou have failed to acknowledge you completely gooned up the SCOTUS's grant of cert for Trump's immigration policy. You have also failed to acknowledge that what you cite as "true fact, that" is, as a matter of true fact, an assault against numeracy and logic.
That's bad enough. You say "Hobby Lobby is the reverse of freedom of conscience."
Prove it.
Because so far your pronunciamentos are stinking your own blog to high heaven.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be, in the 19th century, that western values included the right of an employer or owner to insist that his employees or slaves adhere to his cult. In post-western values, we got over that.
ReplyDeleteUntil the atavistic decision of a reactionary court.
Harry, explain precisely how Hobby Lobby is the reverse of freedom of conscience. In your world, that must mean their refusal to submit.
ReplyDelete(I guess we can take for granted your factual inadequacies and childlike innumeracy.)
I just did.
ReplyDeleteNo, Harry, you explained exactly nothing. Just as you completely failed to acknowledge your stunning ignorance underlying your post, or your innumeracy so profound it is beyond caricature.
ReplyDeleteSorry you didn't understand. Or perhaps you don't want to understand.
ReplyDeleteI was clear enough
Harry:
ReplyDeleteHere is what you haven't explained:
- How you got the grant of cert so epically wrong
- Why you don't comprehend basic statistics
- Why people must be forced to pay for something they find morally repugnant, and the fact there is no such thing as free.
- And, finally, why Hobby Lobby employees aren't free to exercise their own freedom of conscience by working somewhere else.
That is a lot of fail for one thread.
People are forced to pay for things they find morally repugnant all the time.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDelete----
But not nearly as disappointed as I am in those, particularly journalists, who have become completely unhinged. The shame they have earned themselves is beyond measure.
---
In which way said journalists are more unhinged, presently, than any other member of your society? In particular, your President?
[Clovis:] In which way said journalists are more unhinged ...
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a competition.
Here is just the latest example. CNN has put itself in the position of being charged with blackmail. The NYT has put itself in the nearly unprecedented position of giving a political figure a reasonable case for defamation. I could go on, but there is no need.
Whatever Trump says or does does not provide an excuse for any significant media organization to completely abandon all journalistic ethics in pursuit of their political goal. (Just as it doesn't give Harry to license to lie nearly full stop.)
What's worse, should Trump need impeachment, the MSM has by now completely shredded its collective credibility.
Smart move, idiots.
[Harry:] People are forced to pay for things they find morally repugnant all the time.
ReplyDeleteIn the process of not explaining your manifest buffooneries, you have added another to the pile.
By all means read Hobby Lobby, then get back to me how your statement is in the least relevant.
Many people find the USAF morally repugnant for its doctrine of terror bombing yet they are forced to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteHarry, many people find you morally repugnant for serial lying.
ReplyDeleteAnd for willful ignorance. And more lying.
By all means, read the Hobby Lobby decision, so you can, perhaps, although there the odds are very long, that you will understand the difference between Hobby Lobby and the US government.
BTW, Harry, how is it you got that grant of cert so epically wrong?
ReplyDeleteAnd failed to correct the post, or, even better, retract it?
Oh, wait, I know: you were a journalist.
So the Greens are able to overcome their feelings of moral repugnance when there's something in it for them. Got it.
ReplyDeleteSkipper,
ReplyDelete----
Whatever Trump says or does does not provide an excuse for any significant media organization to completely abandon all journalistic ethics in pursuit of their political goal.
-----
Why not?
If you are fine with unethical behavior from the president you voted for, why should any other person/organization be held over higher standards?
[Clovis:] If you are fine with unethical behavior from the president you voted for ...
ReplyDeleteThat's called the "rhetorical if", which is very close to the begged question fallacy.
If you can find any example where I am fine with the Trump's behavior (never mind the pre-judgment that the behavior is unethical) you confine the conclusion to a realm where it doesn't belong.
The MSM should be held to a higher standard, first, because that is the standard they proclaim for themselves; and, second, if they hope to have any weight at all in the future, then they bloody well need to be adhering to those standards now.
Skipper,
ReplyDelete---
If you can find any example where I am fine with the Trump's behavior (never mind the pre-judgment that the behavior is unethical) you confine the conclusion to a realm where it doesn't belong.
---
Well, we need to only read your posts and comments from one year ago up to now. What is the frequency we find of complaints about Trump's ignomy? A very rare event.
But complaining about the Media? Well, often enough I barely can take notice anymore. And since you do not strike me as looking for some fairness here, why should I?
The MSM will keep having the weight they already have - the people who don't give a damn about them won't change minds any soon. Financially, they are setting the obvious right path, which is to cater for the public that wants the menu they are serving. Changing the menu won't give them new customers, yet would easily cost them the present ones.
Foxnews had a great run while Obama lasted. The other networks are poised to have their turn now.
[Clovis:] Well, we need to only read your posts and comments from one year ago up to now. What is the frequency we find of complaints about Trump's ignomy? A very rare event.
ReplyDeleteI am quite certain that I have at least several times lamented Trump's failings; not only that, I am even more certain that I have also asserted that if Trump's failings become overwhelming, the MSM's hideous hypocrisy will stand in the way of doing something about it.
When the subject is the MSM, then Trump's failings aren't the point. Contrary to your assertion, I am demanding that the MSM display the fairness that they proclaim for themselves, not only regardless, but especially because, of Trump's behavior. CNN doesn't get to make up sources, the NYT doesn't get to get history wrong again, etc if they want to have any expectation of people outside their bubble taking them seriously.
Harry, in this very thread, is a perfect example: from the get go he got everything completely bassackwards because of expectation bias, and the utter inability to consider that he might, must might, not understand what is going on.
Now that is easily bad enough, but Harry is also the MSM in microcosm: incurious and certain. So just like the MSM, he has both destroyed any credibility he might have had, he also has completely lost all ability for self-criticism.
That is the road to failure.
The other networks are poised to have their turn now.
Not on current form. Most journalists are baby-boomers. They came of age in a time when the national networks essentially controlled information.
And now they are too old to adapt.
Well, you have defended Trump's unethical and unconstitutional ban on Muslims
ReplyDeleteHarry:
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should quote me directly on exactly what I said. Then, while you are at it, try and provide some coherent argument as to exactly why the ban on immigration into the US is unconstitutional.
There's a reason SCOTUS unanimously granted cert. Perhaps you should take a few minutes to wonder why that might be. Of course, that would require taking on board how epically wrong the OP is.
And would also require reading the decision to grant cert.
ReplyDeleteNot that you would ever do such a thing, of course.
Just like a progressive, you scarper when confronted with reality.
ReplyDelete