About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Various Interlocking Things

And Also: Sometimes, there is a bit of justice in the world. A bit, you know. Like Paris Hilton -- drove while under the influence, got caught, loss her license/went on probation, got two warnings for driving anyway, was late to her hearing, and finally ran out of chances. Is the twenty odd days that she appears to have to serve really too much for such things?


There is sometimes debate over what exactly "religion" means. Some do not wish to use the word, even if they discuss matters of "conscience" or morality. My Random House Dictionary notes that the word "religion" originated with word meaning to tie/bind to something, also some meaning that generally meant "conscientiousness" or "piety." One often hears of a "freedom of conscience," and "morals" legislation often has a religious context. Justice Stevens repeatedly made the point in abortion and right to die opinions, e.g., Webster and Cruzan.* Simply put, defining "religion" narrowly seems off -- in many ways.

On that question, we have the somewhat strange case of Prof. Marci Hamilton, conservative leaning, but quite suspicious about mixing church and state. In fact, he recent Findlaw column largely focuses on the matter, when talking about the Justice Department (one finds it hard not to use quotes). As some note, the level of concern shown by Republicans and conservatives -- including John Ashcroft (!) -- shows how bad things have gotten. Hamilton, leaning right, says it fairly well:
It says something unfortunate about the Attorney General's character that he himself has not chosen to resign, because, given what is now known, there is little doubt that at least some of the firings were improper. Moreover, as I will explain, this is hardly the only instance in which this Justice Department has improperly politicized the enforcement of the law. ... The sycophants for the Administration have defended what happened as business as usual. ... Interfering with U.S. Attorneys' prosecutorial discretion for political ends demeans the job. If they are political hacks first, and enforcers of federal law second, none of us is served.

As Talking Points Memo and so forth have discussed, "voting fraud" is a major factor in the purge scandal. Consider this item, in which the state of California investigated a letter sent to fourteen thousand Spanish speaker voters during a House election warning:
"You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."

Tan Nguyen, a Vietnamese immigrant and Republican, was trying to unseat Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez. The Orange County Republican Party called for Nguyen's resignation and he was criticized by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other local candidates and politicians. The case was also turned over to the U.S. Justice Department, but there was no response. The state could find no criminal intent. The state senior assistant attorney general noted:
'If you're a lawfully registered voter, we encourage you to vote.' A lot of people missed that," Schons said.

Exactly. Who knows what "lawfully" means? The Bushies technique suggests that even clear case of reasonable mistake can get you jail time. Better safe than sorry ... don't vote, right? Well, those who did in '06 clearly wanted a change. But, that would be going against the troops, right? Well, one conservative in particular who was against the war surely didn't think so ... his son was serving. Unfortunately, he had a bit of a Cindy Sheenan moment. For the Republican candidates gung ho about war and torture, is he a traitor too? You know, like Ron Paul, anti-war/occupation guy?

Traitor to the cause, perhaps ... sometimes, lack of faith in something is a positive thing ... depends on what we are supposed to believe.

---

* "As I have already suggested, it would be possible to hypothesize such an interest on the basis of theological or philosophical conjecture. But even to posit such a basis for the State's action is to condemn it. It is not within the province of secular government to circumscribe the liberties of the people by regulations designed wholly for the purpose of establishing a sectarian definition of life."

As suggested here, calling something "philosophical" also is at times a thin line from "religious," especially if we concern ourselves with broader matters of conscience, which again, clearly seems to me to be a subset of "religion" in some sense. Often, it is an easy call, most definitely.