zipsix.com for America

3.13.2004

Nuclear war at Moritz: CLS Sues Law School/OSU

The Christian Legal Society has brought suit against the University even though the university actually extended and recognized the student group for the rest of the year before another determination can be made. According to the "Center for Law & Religious Freedom" website, "OSU is violating 1st Amendment rights ... by failing to exempt [the CLS] from a non-discrimination policy that prohibits selecting members and officers based on shared religious beliefs, including beliefs regarding homosexual conduct." Or, in other words, the lawsuit seeks to gain recognition that (my words:) "as long as you have a sincere religious belief that a certain class of people is worthy of discrimination, then the University HAS TO CONTINUE TO FUND YOUR ORGANIZATION because you have a right to be funded." Or, in other other words, your discriminatory-religious belief can not be discriminated against. Cute, huh?

But here's the money quote by Attorney Steven H. Aden, "If it insists on pursuing this course, OSU will end up destroying real diversity of thought in the name of a state-imposed form of groupthink about what is orthodox with respect to human spirituality and sexuality." Tolerance = groupthink. Love it.

And I ask, where is the present harm done to CLS that provides standing?! I see know injury-in-fact. The University has taken no adverse action. (In fact the lawschool went out of its way to appease the CLS even though their guidelines are clearly discriminatory. Their funding was not stripped. They still have meeting times, a bulletin board, and everything else all other student organizations have. The only change is that the university-wide policy will be re-reviewed at the end of the semester. Is that the harm? Being subject to review?

It's a crime that when the tuition is set to rise 10% next year due to rising costs a Student group would sue the school based on no cause whatsoever. And it's even more disgusting when you consider that they themselves are the one's who discriminate.
.. | @ 3/13/2004 10:54:41 PM » » (talkback)

They may hate me, but at least they're reading

Moderatio called me out because I'm "fighting the good fight against anonymous blogging." And because the fact that I'm not anonymous is because I'm vain. Did you catch that? All you authors and philosophers and people who have things to say, if you don't use a pen name or write anonymously you are "arrogant and self-aggrandizing." Or, maybe that's directly solely at me. Oh, moderatio, you shouldn't have.

Lucky numbers:
.. | @ 3/13/2004 10:40:00 PM » » (talkback)

After a deep breath.

Here we go again. In her continuing crusade to point out the fallibility of human kind, and by so doing, implicate civil liberties as enemy #1 to the Catholic theocracy she would no doubt rather have govern us, Irish Law delves into to the land of my-morality-is-better-than-yours and 'yes, that means I get to control your uterus,' by denying Roe and its progeny ever existed. She does this largely by making the same tired statist/time-stopped-in1789 arguments roundly (and more thoroughly) criticized elsewhere.

Maybe "Irish Law" is indeed some sort of counter-Constitutional subversive plot-deviser hoping to install Ireland's pseudo-theocratic semi-reign by the Catholic church. (Get it: it's issue advocacy for the actual law of Ireland.) Or maybe she's just pro-life to the point of blindness.

Before I get into the nitty and the gritty, I would like to state that I am for broad interpretation of the Constitution's rights-granting provisions and I believe that the sphere of privacy constructed by the Amendments to the Constitution grant the woman the choice of whether or not to abort her pregnancy. I believe South Dakota's law is unconstitutional and that this point has already been decided (Roe). And re-decided (Casey).

I also believe that it is not un-democratic to allow the protection of liberty and rights by a court when a majority would entrench on the rights of a minority. I'm not a "majoritarian," I believe in the autonomy of an individual. And I certainly do not believe that one's religious viewpoint should ever govern another's action. I believe that people do have the right to life, provided that they are actually born. And I believe that the Constitution protects those who actually are born from Governmental Intrusion into Their Own Bodies (or reproductive choices).

So don't let any one spin on you that the right to "life" trumps all. The right to life of those not yet born does not and should not trump the rights of actual citizens. And then once you've read that part of Irish Law, it's all the normal you should be ashamed of yourselfs for immoral conduct. And the whole my moral judgment is better than yours sort of thing. Basically its all catholic guilt. And if you want to spread that, I say go back to Ireland.
.. | @ 3/13/2004 10:26:30 PM » » (talkback)

Remember me not.

I am now anonymous. If you knew who authored this webpage before today you must forget this knowledge. I won't be "Steve" anymore on the internet; only "zipsix" or some other general pronoun. (Forget that I said my real name in that last sentence.)

If you run a blog that referred to me by name in the past please now refer to me in some other way. I am okay with "anonymous blogger #47," "K.L.Q.4T.i" or "that person." Please do not stop me in the hallway to talk about what I've written. I am now anonymous and you must not look at me as you pass by.

I just can't possibly be held accountable for what I'm saying. It's not fair to me and it's not fair to you.
.. | @ 3/13/2004 12:44:37 PM » » (talkback)

3.12.2004

I am not blogging because of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE), Sat. 9 am.
.. | @ 3/12/2004 02:56:35 PM » » (talkback)

3.10.2004

Irish Law responded in depth to my post on whether or not it was best to banter back and forth between our blogs. Though she responded in substance (about France and Tort Reform) but not in procedure (about whether its good to have cross-blog conflict.)

There's a lot in her post which I still disagree with, especially about Medical Malpractice Tort Reform which she claims creates, "a 'right' not to have a negative result from a medical procedure, even though good outcomes are never guaranteed and can occur in the absence of any negligence by physicians, can create a sense of entitlement to compensation for unfortunate medical occurrences." But maybe she's forgetting that in the absence of negligence by a physician, the claim is not actionable. What every patient should have the right to redress is action by a physician which falls below the applicable medical standard and results in damages. Consequences in the medical field are too severe, life-altering, or life-ending to not be regulated by the incentive-oriented goals of the civil liability system. Tort actions simply simply provide all too needed incentive to guard against negligently-made mistakes and reckless conduct. This is where we disagree.
.. | @ 3/10/2004 04:11:22 PM » » (talkback)

3.9.2004

Helping children will get you mentioned in a school-wide email

Melissa Jackson Callais is featured on the Moritz Web Site, and since she's my buddy I will post her picture. There are more pictures of M.J. nurturing children in the article.

.. | @ 3/9/2004 01:00:41 PM » » (talkback)

Conservative Bias

MSNBC.com's opening graphic shows President Bush in a nice blue tie speaking to people (presumably eloquently, and with a hint of nuance for these troubled times) emblazoned with the headline: ERODING SUPPORT. (Clicking the picture takes you to this article.)

I take issue with this headline as another bit of Conservative Bias that pervades our media. President Bush would lose an election, if held today because according to the poll only 44% of the votes cast would be for him. Such a poor polling number conveys something other than "support," don't you think? Whether or not the "support" is eroding, it very clearly constitutes only a minority of Americans. Why would MSNBC give the impression that this president is supported, even if this support is now eroding?! The headline should more properly read: SOON TO BE TWO-TIME PRESIDENTIAL LOSER.

I consider this to be a clear example of Conservative Bias and will probable use it in my next book: NO, REALLY DELIVER US FROM EVIL: Defeating Bin Laden, W, the Conservative Movement, and Other Religious Freaks.
.. | @ 3/9/2004 11:50:59 AM » » (talkback)

To fight with Irish Law, or not to fight with Irish Law

Moderatio, whose blog name was deceptive,¹ is missing from the web, but I suspect s/he² is somewhere collecting donations from NewsMax or Town Hall or the Heritage Foundation or Jerry Falwell or something ready to relaunch with some more blather about "Hanoi Kerry."

Unfortunately we have not been altogether ridden of conservative idealogues. They still walk amongst us. IrishLaw has a wonderful reason to vote for W today, and that reason is: Annoy France. Putting aside the fact that France fought with us in our effort to gain independence, and without them we'd still have to wear wigs when we graduate from this law school, annoying a fellow NATO and Security Council member is probably not your best reason to pick amongst Presidential Candidates. And also, but more personally, I like France. I liked visiting there, I like the way they don't assume that GOD put them on Earth to rule other peoples (or spread manifestly across a continent) , I like their language, I like the whole thing.

And then we get the tort reform post, in which she jokes that only mean-Republicans would say we have too many rights,³ and then concludes that we have too many rights!⁴ Why would anyone in law school besmirch the availability of persons to gain redress of their injuries in a court of law?

Now obviously this is all very silly. And all I'm doing is publicizing her silliness. But I just disagree with it so much I can't help but post about it. So there you go, the question of the week, to fight with IrishLaw or to not fight with IrishLaw.

¹ "Moderatio" confused Geidner into postulating that s/he was in fact politically-moderate. In a comment to Geidner's post, s/he explained that s/he was merely against political "EXTREMES," then in one post s/he declared John Kerry to be a traitor to his country.
² Shout-out to all NON-ANONYMOUS Moritz Bloggers who don't make me pronoun-guess. Stevie Podraza, Mr. Mike Shecket, Chris Geidner, et moi.
³ "Who, after all, would be in favor of restricting rights? (Only those mean Republicans ;)"
⁴ "Obviously I take issue with the current expansiveness of the "right" to sue (our culture conceives of far too many "rights" these days)."
.. | @ 3/9/2004 11:37:00 AM » » (talkback)

take a break

row, row, row your boat

gently down the stream
(row, row, row your boat)

merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
(gently down the stream)
((row, row, row your boat))

life is but a dream
(merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily)
((gently down the stream))
(((row, row, row your boat)))

row, row, row your boat
(life is but a dream)
((merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily))
(((gently down the stream)))
.. | @ 3/9/2004 11:06:19 AM » » (talkback)

3.8.2004

Dance.

Here's how the dance went: I picked Lisa up at 6:50, the time we mutually arrived upon, but she was still "beautifying" until 7:15. We took a few pictures in front of the small tree of the living room and left out the back door. I was wearing my grayish three piece suit with all the buttons done except the lowest button on my suit coat. I like being all snug in my business attire. I had my red and black "City of Paris" tie. Lisa had on a strapless two-piece dress which was black and had magenta/red flowers and she was all sparkly from her earrings and a smattering of ~~body glitter~~ golden body shimmer. Her dress was long and "elegant."

We made it to the ballroom at 7:22 after taking a wrong turn past the front desk and into the mall annex. Thankfully we made it to the escalator, up to the dance and started in on some libations and chit chat. Melissa, Mike and I kibbitzed about the over/under on the amount of time it would take Mike to tell "the story," but I don't know what became of that. We sat down at Table 25 in enough time to watch everyone else be served dinner. I thought the table was too big so it was hard to talk across. Anyway, they introduced the nominees for the Quid Pro Quo Award, which I don't think anyone other than me actually knew existed. Some how Professor Brudney won the award even though he wins everything, and there were much better nominees!!!! (Hi Professor Brudney!!) At least his speech was this really erudite condemnation of the current administrations policies and a clarion call to those in the room to work for change. I thought it was uplifting.

And after that there was dancing.

Lucky numbers: 1, 15, 19, 23, 39, 40. 14.
.. | @ 3/8/2004 01:42:00 PM » » (talkback)

mail to: steve atzipsix DOT com