LEGALIZE IT~!!

tribes.tribe.net/legalize_it

Not a "fun tribe" rather a tribe with an actual real life purpose that I'd like to see transform some laws and make some things happen.
Take a look. Join if you think you want to make a contribution.

Armageddon

Armageddon
Yes they are only deer
Nervous instinct fitted with hooves and horn
That foolishly stamp among these Christian Pines
Affixed like seals the legal foolscap of winter
Illiterately facing the line of snow plowed asphalt
Scrawled by a book learned hand among these hills
Cross to the red capped men

People who hate me ------- The Idiot

Rachel is an example of people who try hard to appear all warm, sweet, and fuzzy but when they snap they become the definition of mean, petty, and ugly.

I have not one clue why Rachel posted this here:
writingfiction.tribe.net/threa...049a4d
But she did.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff - You know you are an A-1 complete ASS and IDIOT. Everytime - EVERY SINGLE TIME - I find a tribe with an interesting discussion YOU come in on one of the threads with your grim and dim and absolutetly nihilistic attitude and ruin it all with your pessimistic, capitalistic, obtuse, granite headed thinking. I think you like to ruin things on purpose. What are you a lawyer? Satan? I usually end up leaving tribes you have weighed in on because I'm so disgusted with you. Normally, I just politely leave. This time, I'm going to say your shit stinks. You stink and you're an asshole. Tired of being polite around people like you.

There - now I'm leaving this tribe. I'm just so @(*&#(*&^%)(*&@# disgusted with that stupid bear icon of yours I could spit. (*&)(
OFF!!@!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm the tribes I drove her from?? Below is the list of the tribes to which she belongs:
DogsLoveCats, Dream skape, Errata©™®², [moderator] Happy Holidays and All That Stuff!, Incubus and Succubus, Tish's Tarot Tips, Tripe, ~Poetic Response~

I don't see myself in any of those.

It is Freedom of Association that some people don't get.

Andrew:
This shall be the last time I’ll address you. From now on I will see your moniker and my eyes will simply slide on by.

I don’t practice Censorship. I practice Freedom of Association.

The Federal Courts have stated that no internet forum chat list, list-serve etc., that has ever been presented to any court qualifies as a “Place of Public Accommodation.” If that sounds unfamiliar you can go pay a lawyer to explain it and then explain the court holdings on point. I am not going to give you free legal advice.

Those same Federal Courts have stated that because internet sites are not places of public accommodation that there are no civil rights issues under the various theories of law that have come before them,. They include: Freedom of Access, Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech.

The courts have stated most clearly (a rare thing for a federal court) that internet sites have no obligation to provide handicapped access in any way, that any form of discrimination is lawful, that any form of speech may be regulated in any manner and all of this is entirely at the discretion and control of the site ownership and their agents.

In layman’s terms you enter and exist in a forum at the pleasure of the moderators. Period.


I started my tribe - (which is merely one of the tribes the one you got yourself thrown out of ) for reasons that are at odds with the function to which you and you pack of pals tried to twist it.

I did not start that tribe so as to engage in quarrelsome bickering angry uninformed rhetorical platforms for your politics your views or your lack of education.

When it became apparent that you were ruining the tribe for everyone else I warned you, but you didn’t “get it.” You insisted that I spell things out.

It should not be necessary to tell an adult how to behave, how to conduct, how to fit in.
If you are unable to figure out how to behave like a person all on your own and then implement it, then you don’t have a place in any tribe I moderate.

It was because I was dissatisfied that you converted every single thing into a quarrel, a bickering angry brawl and that you proved yourself incapable of polite informed discourse that I threw you out.

I didn’t throw you out because you are a horrible person or because I don’t like your politics. I threw you out because you refused to conform yourself to the tribe as it was when you walked in the door. Instead you chose to introduce drastic changes to the tribe and its tone.
You were thrown out because you haven’t grown up enough to know how to behave because you insist on having everything your way and you have no regard for the people around you.

Have a nice day.

Kyoto: Good for the planet or a weapon of world dominion?

The conspiracy theorists have apparently missed the really big conspiracy.

Global Warming is not merely an environmental impact theory. It is a political boogyman intended to manipulate the uninformed, the unwise, and the disaffected for the purposes of establishing the world dominion of social communist governance.

It matters not whether there is any truth (to any degree) to the theory of global warming. The Social Communists would benefit by accuracy of the theory. So it is highly probable that the theory has many substantially solid elements. However, just as with any other politically motivated device used by power brokers to manipulate the masses, it has been rushed to the forefront before the theory is yet ripe.

Aaron Wildavsky called global warming alarmism the "mother of all environmental scares." He was right in ways he probably didn’t perceive.

The "Oregon Petition" had between 17,000 and 18,000 signatories (almost all scientists) where they stated with stunning clarity that the science on anthropogenic climate change was not anywhere near a settled science, declaring:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.”

Opponents of the Oregon Petition claim that some of the assertions therein are dead wrong that in fact temperatures have risen. They point to an almost (but not quite) one degree temperature increase in the last century. They show this almost whole degree change in Cartesian charts compressing time and expanding temperature so that the almost a whole degree looks like a dangerously sharp increase in temperature shooting straight up in a terrifying spike. But, it’s still not even a whole degree C.

Opponents of the Oregon Petition have consistently dismissed anything that disagrees with their Global Warming theory as somehow beneath their dignity. The eco extremists claim that the positional statements of the Oregon Petition are Myths basing their assertions on the mere fact that” Scientists Disagree.”

The Oregon Petition people says that global warming is not a proven fact saying that scientists disagree on it. The Eco Extremists say it is proven because scientists disagree.

This might need a moment to percolate: (Eco Extremists (EE) Oregon Petition (OP), Global Warming (GW)).
The EE say that OP is dead wrong when the OP asserts that a disagreement among scientists about GW is proof that GW is not a settled accepted science. The EE assert that that the OP statement is a myth, a falsehood, a lie. The EE support their position by insisting that scientists do not agree and therefore the OP position is a myth.

But wait, they both said that scientists do not agree. Yet the EE insist that this disagreement is proof that they all agree?? Huh? Whaa?

Derision, misdirection, smoke and mirrors, and outright lies but not science is their best response to a challenge.

Why is it so terrible to say that GW is a theory and not a proven fact? Why is this so wrong when in fact the very Scientists upon whom we rely are in vigorous disagreement?
Calling GW a theory in no way changes the plain and simple fact that polluting is dangerous and can have no good long term result. It changes nothing except maybe the things that get addressed first and best.
OR - - - - - - - - does it?

What possible motive could the EE have for insisting that GW be the forefront of all international and national efforts? Is there anything? Well maybe there is.

Maybe if all we do is follow the money the money that isn’t now flowing but would be flowing were the principal nations were to sign the Kyoto Treaty.

Follow the money. Could it possibly be that stupid, that banal, so very tawdry as the subject of coin?? Could it? Could human greed be the primary driving force behind the theory of Global Warming??

Maybe it is. But there is more still in the pot for the greedy bastards. Power!!!
POWER (in capitol letters) is what’s in the pot. The Kyoto treaty isn’t just a money transfer program where rich nations pay poor nations to purchase their unused surpluses of greenhouse emissions. The treaty is also a pernicious power shifting agreement whereby member nations agree that they shall cede power over substantial portions of the Maritime and Aviation to some vague amorphous international entities.

The Kyoto Treaty is at its heart a device to bring the world under one single government thereby leading the path to annexation of sovereign nations.

The Kyoto Treaty is nothing more than an attempt to eliminate hurdles by politically aggressive expansionist social communists. Where it attempts to reduce pollution, it may have a good function but it is not in fact a pollution control device. Rather it is a pollution control device used by political entities to achieve a political end goal. That goal is World Dominion.

The things the Kyoto Treaty were designed to accomplish include impoverishing the USA and creating intense disaffection within the ranks of the working classes. The Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, or WEFA. According to WEFA economists, Kyoto would cost 2.4 million US jobs and reduce GDP by 3.2%, or about $300 billion annually, an amount greater than the total expenditure on primary and secondary education.
A standard tactic from the Stalinist terrorist play book is to create disaffection between the people of a country and their government. Stalin taught that this disaffection is necessary to topple the government. What better way to disaffect a population than to bankrupt them and make them hungry? What better way to accomplish this than to induce the unwise, the unwary, the uninformed of a nation to pursue a path that will bring about their own impoverishment and do it through the hands of their own government?? This is desired end result of the Kyoto Treaty.

Clinton didn’t sell us out by signing the Treaty but he knew that as a populist president he had to crawl at least part way in bed with the Treaty and its proponents. Clinton knew how hopelessly stupid people are. Many people from the Clinton administration have since renounced the Kyoto Treaty as a thing that might have wreaked Havoc on our economy. Even Clinton, who signed it, was cagy enough to refuse to have it ratified. Clinton was devious enough to give the appearance of being in league with the Treaty and its proponents while aware enough to fear its actual implementation so much that he refused to make it law.

Clinton and President Bush are aware the under Kyoto costs for basic necessities would escalate dramatically. Electricity would double in cost, fuel would skyrocket. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that “The price increases resulting from a carbon cap would be regressive -- that is, they would place a relatively greater burden on lower-income households than on higher-income ones." The CBO stated that "A cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions could impose significant costs on the economy in the form of welfare losses. Welfare losses are real costs to the economy in that they would not be recovered elsewhere in the form of higher income. Those losses would be borne by people in their roles as shareholders, consumers, and workers."
The Social Communists of course claim that government can simply redistribute income in the form of welfare programs thereby mitigating harms to the poor and working classes. However the CBO said that "government could use the allowance value to partly redistribute the costs of a carbon cap-and-trade program, but it could not cover those costs entirely." And further: "Available research indicates that providing compensation could actually raise the cost to the economy of a carbon cap."
The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC) informs us that if the U.S. ratifies Kyoto the result would "disproportionately harm America's minority communities, and place the economic advancement of millions of U.S. Blacks and Hispanics at risk." The USHCC found that Kyoto would eliminate more than 511,000 jobs currently held by Hispanic workers and 864,000 jobs held by Black workers; driving poverty among minorities dramatically higher. This increased impoverishment would induce disaffection in millions of people as their families suffered extreme privation and hardship.
However dangerous this economic hardship and subsequent disaffection would be the other side of the coin is shows other dangerous events playing out under a Kyoto Treaty. The USA would be paying billions to impoverished and communist nations thereby increasing their power and bargaining position at the world table . The USA would be enriching these nations at the direct expense of the working classes and the poor within the USA. These two facts would not go un-noticed. The result would be riots and rebellion within the nation.
The result is the Social Communist wet dream. A United States in utter turmoil impoverished paralyzed and feeding its enemies with mountains of cash.
The Kyoto Treaty is pure evil. The Kyoto Treaty is one of the most deadly weapons ever to be flung at the United States of America. It is little other than a device to lead the Social Communists closer to world dominion.

You call yourself a moderate Muslim?

Riot, burn, murder, take hostages, and generally prove to the world exactly what you are made of.

You claim to be moderate Muslims.
You claim that you aren’t supporting the psycho Terrorists.
You claim you aren’t among those who perpetuate terrorism.
Yet you – yes YOU - are doing not a damn thing to bring this insanity to an end.
You think that somehow your religion is superior to all others.
You think that your culture is somehow superior to all others.
You think it’s OK for you to parody other faiths.
You refuse to rebuke, censor and punish those who use the Quran as a license to conduct evilly and commit violence against innocents.
You refuse to rebuke, censor, and punish those who commit violence in the name of Mohommad.
You through your ignorance and weakness have made Mohommad and your faith and your god a central part of the terror problem.
You have made your religion subject to parody by your FAILURE to keep your religion out of the hands of the psycho terrorists.
You did this - ALL OF IT - by your complicity in placing your religion firmly in the hands of psycho terrorists.
You did this - ALL OF IT - by making your religion a Psycho Terrorist Religion you abandoned your faith to vermin.
You have enabled the psycho terrorists by allowing psychotic, ignorant, illiterate, racist intolerant, hate filled mullahs to propagate, teaching their poisonous filth to the weak minded among you.
You have created a world wide network of enablers and supporters of terrorism.
You daily support the psycho terrorists with your weakness, ignorance, and massive stupidity.
You have nothing about which to complain when you see your precious prophet parodied in the public press.
You did this – ALL OF IT – because you failed to act when you could have.

You may be a post modernist if:

You may be a post modernist if:


You believe that all ideas are equal and no hierarchy of truth can exist - except yours.

You expect others to not merely accept all available ideas and philosophies and lifestyles but to embrace them as co-equal with the person’s.

You believe that a speaker who mentions anything regarding homosexuality, women, minorities etc must include a tone and preferably verbiage to indicate the speaker’s approval of said subjects to ensure that no one hearing might think that somehow there could be anything negative in the proffered speech.

You excoriate anyone who fails to accept your idea of truth as the only real truth ostracizing calling names and using hate to coerce submission to your thinking.

You excoriate anyone who dares to voice thought that disagrees with your own.

You believe that it is right and just to replace historical fact with propaganda.

You are utterly dogmatic about dogmatism and absolute in your opposition to absolutism

You believe that if a person is against racially based admissions policies, she is racist.

You believe that if a person holds to religious convictions concerning homosexuality, he is homophobic.

You believe Western civilization is the cause of all evil in the world.

You believe that multiculturalism is better than racial identity unless the identity is one of a recognized minority in which event you believe it is superior to others and must be preserved.

You believe that persons who express politically incorrect thoughts are intolerant, fanatics, bigots, racist, prejudiced, hate mongers, phobic, etc., and you don’t see how that makes you a fascist.

You brand anyone who dares to stand for objective truth and absolute standards as an intolerant bigot who has no right to speak, a fanatic who must be silenced in order that progress might continue.

You excoriate people who prefer to avoid homosexuality in their lives as evil bigoted and phobic.

You think that a crucifix suspended in a jar of urine is art but would rage at the notion of an artist suspending a Kwanza candle, a feminist or gay symbol in a jar of urine.

You think parental rights are entirely subordinate to your desire to re-educate other people’s children to your way of thinking.

You attack the Judiciary for enforcing the law preferring to impose your noisy howling idea of what is good for everyone.

You are willing to
(i) sacrifice achievement for self-esteem.
(ii) sacrifice substance for style.
(iii) sacrifice history for propaganda.
(iv) sacrificing fact for fiction.
(v) sacrificing freedom for “political correctness”.
(vi) sacrificing parental rights for government authority.
(vii) sacrifice the good of the many for the good of the one.

You believe that deconstructionist revisionism should not apply to:
(i) Karl Marx
(ii) Foucault
(iii) Lacan
(iv) Derrida
(v) Barthes
(vi) Malcolm X
(vii) Martin Luther King
(viii) women.

You believe that a person is somehow “less than” and patently inferior unless they are identified as:
(i) pro-feminist,
(ii) pro-gay rights,
(iii) pro-minority,
(iv) pro-preferential treatment for the above
(v) mistrustful of tradition,
(vi) scornful of historically important white European males
(vii) skeptical toward the idea of a "masterpiece,"


You think Elisabeth Burgos-Debray effectively speaks for all the Indians of the American continent in her fictional work where she posits a main character a Guatemalan woman who hated capitalism, rejected marriage and motherhood, became a feminist, a socialist, and finally a Marxist, then went to Paris to argue politics with fellow communists. This makes sense to you?


You think it makes sense that a University should require courses in ethnic studies without any requirement for even a single course in Western civilization.



You fail to understand that insisting on the above makes you an Orwellian neo-Fascist.

Samuel Alito's Infamous Dissent

Samuel Alito's Infamous Dissent
Quoted below is the exact text of Alito’s dissent in that 3rd circuit case as he wrote it in his own words.

Here is my challange:
If you can find a personal opinion here you call me on it. I've read it. I've alse read all the caselaw he cites to. The guy is a technical legal genius. He's not hot to trammel Roe, he's interested in legal prefection of thought and logic.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALITO, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the court's judgment except insofar as it holds that 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. ? 3209 (Supp.1991) (spousal notice) is unconstitutional. I also join all of the court's opinion except for the portions concerning Section 3209 and those interpreting Justice O'Connor's opinion in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 110 S.Ct. 2926, 2949-51, 111 L.Ed.2d 344 (1990), to mean that the two-parent notification requirement without judicial bypass imposed an "undue burden" and was thus required to satisfy strict scrutiny.

I.
As the court suggests, the crux of this case concerns the identification of the constitutional standard that the lower courts must now apply in cases involving laws regulating abortion. For the reasons carefully explained in the court's opinion, I agree that Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 109 S.Ct. 3040, 106 L.Ed.2d 410 (1989), and Hodgson changed the law that we are bound to apply and that the test set out in Justice O'Connor's opinions now represents the governing legal standard.

My disagreement with the majority regarding a single provision of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. ? 3201 et seq. (1983 & Supp.1991), results from disagreement about the portion of Justice O'Connor's two-part test that must be applied to this provision. Under that test, as the majority explains, a law that imposes an "undue burden" must serve a "compelling" state interest. By contrast, a law that does not impose an "undue burden" must simply be "rationally" or "reasonably" related to a "legitimate" state interest. The majority holds that Section 3209 constitutes an undue burden. The majority therefore applies the first prong of the two-part test and strikes down Section 3209 on the ground that it does not serve a "compelling" interest. I do not believe that Section 3209 has been shown to impose an undue burden as that term is used in the relevant Supreme Court opinions; I therefore apply the second prong of the two-part test; and I conclude that Section 3209 is constitutional because it is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" state interest.

Although the majority and I apply different prongs of this two-part test, I see no indication that we disagree concerning the conclusion produced when either prong is applied to Section 3209. If the majority is correct that Section 3209 must satisfy heightened scrutiny, I agree that its constitutionality is doubtful. Similarly, I do not interpret the majority opinion to mean that Section 3209 cannot satisfy the rational relationship test. Indeed, the majority acknowledges that Section 3209 serves a "legitimate" interest. See majority opin. at 715, 716. Thus, my major disagreement with the majority concerns the question whether Section 3209 imposes an "undue burden," and I will therefore turn to that question.

II.
A. Justice O'Connor has explained the meaning of the term "undue burden" in several abortion opinions. In Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. at 464, 103 S.Ct. at 2510 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), she wrote that "an 'undue burden' has been found for the most part in situations involving absolute obstacles or severe limitations on the abortion decision." She noted that laws held unconstitutional in prior cases involved statutes that "criminalized all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother," inhibited " 'the vast majority of abortions after the first 12 weeks,' " or gave the parents of a pregnant minor an absolute veto power over the abortion decision. Id. (emphasis in original; citations omitted). She suggested that an "undue burden" would not be created by "a state regulation [that] may 'inhibit' abortions to some degree." Id. She also suggested that there is no undue burden unless a measure has the effect of "substantially limiting access." Id. at 463, 103 S.Ct. at 2509, quoting Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 688, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 2017, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977) (emphasis added in Justice O'Connor's opinion).

Justice O'Connor reiterated the same analysis in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 106 S.Ct. 2169 (1986). She wrote (id. at 828, 106 S.Ct. at 2214 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), quoting Akron, 462 U.S. at 464, 103 S.Ct. at 2510 (O'Connor, J., dissenting)):
An undue burden would generally be found "in situations involving absolute obstacles or severe limitations on the abortion decision," not wherever a state regulation "may 'inhibit' abortions to some degree."
She also criticized the majority for taking an approach under which "the mere possibility that some women will be less likely to choose to have an abortion by virtue of the presence of a particular state regulation suffices to invalidate it." Id. 476 U.S. at 829, 106 S.Ct. at 2214 (emphasis added).

Justice O'Connor's application of the undue burden test in several cases further illustrates the meaning of this test. In Hodgson, 110 S.Ct. at 2950-51, Justice O'Connor found that no undue burden was imposed by a law requiring notice to both parents or judicial authorization before a minor could obtain an abortion. Justice O'Connor reached this conclusion despite statistics adduced by Justice Marshall to show that mandatory parental notice may inhibit a significant percentage of minors from obtaining abortions (id. at 2953-54) (Marshall, J., dissenting) and despite the district court's finding, noted in Justice Marshall's dissent, that the judicial bypass option "so daunted" some minors that they felt compelled to carry to term (id. at 2959, quoting 648 F.Supp. at 763).

Justice O'Connor has also suggested on more than one occasion that no undue burden was created by the statute upheld in H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398, 101 S.Ct. 1164, 67 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981), which required parental notice prior to any abortion on an unemancipated minor. Instead, she has stated that this statute merely inhibited abortions to "some degree." Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 828, 106 S.Ct. at 2214 (O'Connor, J., dissenting); Akron, 462 U.S. at 464, 103 S.Ct. at 2510 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). In dissent in Matheson, Justice Marshall argued that the statute would result in substantial interference with abortions sought by minors. He wrote (450 U.S. at 398, 101 S.Ct. at 1164) (Marshall, J., dissenting) that "the minor may confront physical or emotional abuse, withdrawal of financial support or actual obstruction of the abortion decision." These harms are almost identical to those that the majority in this case attributes to Section 3209. See majority opin. at 711-12. See also Planned Parenthood Association v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 505, 103 S.Ct. 2517, 2532, 76 L.Ed.2d 733 (1983) (O'Connor concurring and dissenting) (statute requiring parental consent or judicial authorization "imposes no undue burden").

Finally, Justice O'Connor has concluded that regulations that simply increase the cost of abortions, including regulations that may double the cost, do not create an "undue burden." See Akron, 462 U.S. at 434-35, 103 S.Ct. at2494-95 (maj. op.); at 466-67, 103 S.Ct. at 2511-12 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). Justice O'Connor reached this conclusion even though it seems clear that such increased costs may well deter some women.

Taken together, Justice O'Connor's opinions reveal that an undue burden does not exist unless a law (a) prohibits abortion or gives another person the authority to veto an abortion or (b) has the practical effect of imposing "severe limitations," rather than simply inhibiting abortions " 'to some degree' " or inhibiting "some women." Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 828, 829, 106 S.Ct. at 2213, 2214 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), quoting Akron, 462 U.S. at 464, 103 S.Ct. at 2510 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). Furthermore, Justice O'Connor's opinions disclose that the practical effect of a law will not amount to an undue burden unless the effect is greater than the burden imposed on minors seeking abortions in Hodgson or Matheson or the burden created by the regulations in Akron that appreciably increased costs. Since the laws at issue in those cases had inhibiting effects that almost certainly were substantial enough to dissuade some women from obtaining abortions, it appears clear that an undue burden may not be established simply by showing that a law will have a heavy impact on a few women but that instead a broader inhibiting effect must be shown.

In this case, the plaintiffs, who made a facial attack [FN1] on Section 3209, did not prove that this provision would impose an undue burden. Section 3209 does not create an "absolute obstacle" or give a husband "veto power." Rather, this provision merely requires a married woman desiring an abortion to certify that she has notified her husband or to claim one of the statutory exceptions.

FN1. Because the plaintiffs made a facial attack on Section 3209, they could not rely on a "worst-case analysis" (Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 110 S.Ct. 2972, 2981, 111 L.Ed.2d 405 (1990)) or on proof showing only that the provision would impose an undue burden "under some conceivable set of circumstances" (United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2100, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987)). Thus, proof that the provision would adversely affect an unknown number of women with a particular combination of characteristics could not suffice.

The plaintiffs also failed to carry their burden [FN2] of proving that Section 3209 if enforced would have the kind of broad practical impact needed to establish an "undue burden" under the opinions discussed above. Clearly the plaintiffs did not substantiate the impact of Section 3209 with the degree of analytical rigor that should be demanded before striking down a state statute. Cf. Akron, 462 U.S. at 463, 103 S.Ct. at 2510 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (citation omitted) (courts should exercise " 'deliberate restraint' " before finding an undue burden " 'in view of the respect that properly should be accorded legislative judgments' "); id. at 465, 103 S.Ct. at 2511.

FN2. In Thornburgh, Justice O'Connor made clear that a party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must bear the burden of proving that the law imposes an undue burden. After arguing strenuously that the case should be sent back to the district court for "additional factual development" (476 U.S. at 827, 106 S.Ct. at 2213 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), Justice O'Connor repeatedly stated that the appellees, who were challenging the statute, had the burden of proving that individual statutory provisions would impose an undue burden. She discussed whether "appellees could succeed in making the threshold showing of undue burden" (id. at 831, 106 S.Ct. at 2215), whether "appellees [could] establish that the abortion decision [would be] unduly burdened" (id.), and whether the appellees "could succeed in establishing an undue burden" (id. at 832, 106 S.Ct. at 2216).

At the outset, it is apparent that two factors imposed a low ceiling on any showing that the plaintiffs could have made. First, as the district court found, the "vast majority" of married women voluntarily inform their husbands before seeking an abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 744 F.Supp. 1323, 1360 (E.D.Pa.1990). Indeed, in the trial testimony on which the district court relied, the plaintiffs' witness stated that in her experience 95% of married women notify their husbands. App. at 701. Second, the overwhelming majority of abortions are sought by unmarried women. [FN3] Thus, it is immediately apparent that Section 3209 cannot affect more than about 5% of married women seeking abortions or an even smaller percentage of all women desiring abortions.

FN3. Since 1973, abortions on unmarried women have consistently exceeded 70% of the national total and at times have surpassed 80%. United States Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1990 at 71.

The plaintiffs failed to show even roughly how many of the women in this small group would actually be adversely affected by Section 3209. As previously noted, Section 3209 contains four significant exceptions. These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her. If Section 3209 were allowed to take effect, it seems safe to assume that some percentage of the married women seeking abortions without notifying their husbands would qualify for and invoke these exceptions. The record, however, is devoid of evidence showing how many women could or could not invoke an exception.

FN4. The form prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Health for use in implementing Section 3209 requires a woman to certify that she has not notified her husband "for the following reason(s)...." (744 F.Supp. at 1359). Moreover, a false statement is punishable (as a third degree misdemeanor) only if the woman did not "believe [the statement] to be true" (18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. ? 4904(b) (1983)).

Of the potentially affected women who could not invoke an exception, it seems safe to assume that some percentage, despite an initial inclination not to tell their husbands, would notify their husbands without suffering substantial ill effects. Again, however, the record lacks evidence showing how many women would or would not fall into this category. Thus, the plaintiffs did not even roughly substantiate how many women might be inhibited from obtaining an abortion or otherwise harmed by Section 3209. [FN5] At best, the record shows that Section 3209 would inhibit abortions " 'to some degree' " or that "some women [would] be less likely to choose to have an abortion by virtue of the presence" of Section 3209. Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 828, 106 S.Ct. at 2214 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), quoting Akron, 462 U.S. at 464, 103 S.Ct. at 2510 (O'Connor, J., dissenting). [FN6] And even with respect to these women, the plaintiffs did not show that the impact of Section 3209 would be any greater or any different from the impact of the notice requirement upheld in Matheson. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to prove that Section 3209 would impose an undue burden.

FN5. In considering whether Section 3209 would impose an undue burden, I do not take into account a fact that seems glaringly apparent, i.e., that Section 3209 would be difficult to enforce and easy to evade. Section 3209 does not require a woman to provide any proof of notification other than her own unnotarized statement. Thus, if a woman claimed that she had orally notified her husband in private (the mode and place of notification to be expected in most cases), it would be exceedingly difficult in most cases for the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she had not done so.
Proving that a woman violated the law due to a false statement concerning one of the exceptions would also be hard. As noted (see footnote 4, supra ), the Commonwealth would have to prove that the woman did not "believe [the statement] to be true" (18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. ? 4904(b) (1983)). Consequently, if a woman certified that she did not notify her husband because he was not the father, the Commonwealth would have to prove that she subjectively believed that the husband was the father. Or, if a woman certified that she did not notify her husband because she had reason to believe that this would lead to the infliction of bodily injury upon her, the Commonwealth would have to prove that the woman subjectively believed that she would not be harmed. It seems likely, therefore, that Section 3209, if allowed to take effect, would be widely evaded and infrequently enforced and would consequently be less likely to produce either the good or bad effects that the opposing parties claim.

FN6. The plaintiffs' proof may be separated into five categories. First, they offered testimony that a spousal notification requirement would sometimes delay an abortion or necessitate an extra trip to the abortion provider (see 744 F.Supp. at 1360). But as the majority properly concludes in rejecting identical objections to the 24-hour waiting period required by Section 3205(a) (see majority opin. at 706-07), these potential effects do not amount to an undue burden. See Akron, 462 U.S. at 472-74, 103 S.Ct. at 2515-16 (O'Connor, J., dissenting).
Second, the plaintiffs offered testimony that the exceptions in Section 3209 would not cover a case in which a woman did not want to notify her husband for fear that he would retaliate in some way other than the infliction of bodily injury upon her, such as by subjecting her to psychological abuse or abusing their children (see 744 F.Supp. at 1360- 62). The plaintiffs, however, do not appear to have offered any evidence showing how many (or indeed that any actual women) would be affected by this asserted imperfection in the statute.
Third, the plaintiffs introduced general evidence about the problem of spouse abuse (see 744 F.Supp. at 1361). They offered widely varying statistics concerning the dimensions of the problem, as well as evidence that battering occurs in all socioeconomic groups and is sometimes fatal. This proof, while documenting the existence of a broad national problem, provides no basis for any estimate of what is relevant here--the impact of Section 3209.
Fourth, the plaintiffs offered evidence that "mere notification of pregnancy is frequently a flashpoint for battering" (see 744 F.Supp. at 1361). This proof indicates when violence is likely to occur in an abusive marriage but provides no basis for determining how many women would be adversely affected by Section 3209.
Finally, the plaintiffs offered the opinion of one of their witnesses that most battered women would be psychologically incapable of taking advantage of Section 3209's fourth exception, i.e., the exception for cases in which the woman has reason to fear that notification will lead to the infliction of bodily harm upon her (see 744 F.Supp. at 1363). However, the plaintiffs failed to show how many of the women potentially affected by Section 3209 (married women seeking abortions without notifying their husbands) are victims of battering. Thus, the opinion offered by their expert, even if taken at face value, merely describes the likely behavior of most of the women in a group of unknown size. Clearly, then, this evidence does not show how many women would be inhibited or otherwise harmed by Section 3209. I cannot believe that a state statute may be held facially unconstitutional simply because one expert testifies that in her opinion the provision would harm a completely unknown number of women.

Needless to say, the plight of any women, no matter how few, who may suffer physical abuse or other harm as a result of this provision is a matter of grave concern. It is apparent that the Pennsylvania legislature considered this problem and attempted to prevent Section 3209 from causing adverse effects by adopting the four exceptions noted above. Whether the legislature's approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards. The first step in this analysis is to determine whether Section 3209 has been shown to create an undue burden under Supreme Court precedent, and for the reasons just explained it seems clear that an undue burden has not been established.

B. This conclusion is not undermined (and may indeed be supported) by the portion of Justice O'Connor's opinion in Hodgson regarding the constitutionality of the two-parent notice requirement without judicial bypass. The majority in this case interprets Justice O'Connor's opinion to mean that this requirement imposed an undue burden and did not serve a "compelling" interest. Majority opin. at 696. I interpret Justice O'Connor's opinion differently. I do not read her opinion to mean that the two-parent notice requirement without judicial bypass constituted an undue burden. Rather, I interpret her opinion to mean that this requirement was unconstitutional because it was not reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. Thus, I do not believe that her opinion (or the Court's holding) supports the majority's conclusion in the present case that the spousal notification requirement in Section 3209 imposes an undue burden.

In Hodgson, Justice Stevens wrote the lead opinion discussing the unconstitutionality of the two-parent notification requirement without judicial bypass, and Justice O'Connor joined most of Justice Stevens' opinion (see 110 S.Ct. at 2949 (O'Connor, J., concurring). Thus, in interpreting Justice O'Connor's position, it is helpful to begin with the relevant portions of Justice Stevens' opinion.

Two portions of Justice Stevens' opinion, Parts III and VII, are most important for present purposes. In Part III, Justice Stevens discussed the applicable constitutional standard. Nowhere in this portion of his opinion (or indeed in any portion of his opinion) did Justice Stevens make reference to "strict," "exacting," or "heightened" scrutiny or any of the terminology associated with that level of review. Instead, he concluded that the statute failed to satisfy even the least demanding standard of review. He wrote (110 S.Ct. at 2937): "Under any analysis, the ... statute cannot be sustained if the obstacles it imposes are not reasonably related to legitimate state interests."

In Part VII of his opinion, Justice Stevens explained (id. at 2945) why the two-parent notice requirement did not "reasonably further any legitimate state interest." Thus it seems clear that Justice Stevens' opinion concluded that the two-parent notice requirement without judicial bypass was unconstitutional because it failed some variant of the rational relationship test.

In my view, Justice O'Connor's opinion in Hodgson did not subject this requirement to a more exacting level of scrutiny. Although Justice O'Connor did not join Part

Where have all the jobs gone?

Where have all the jobs gone? It’s like this.


The Flight of jobs is not the result of any one presidency. Hell, it probably isn’t all of ‘em combined. Short of starting or ending a major war, Presidents don’t make jobs, economies do. Our current plight is the result of a combination of several factors culminating over many years. The Future of employment in America is still rolling along in some unknown ultimate direction because it, like the economy, is fluid and evolving. However, it is logical to opine on where we are headed in the short term. The picture, I fear, is not pretty. I expect we will lose jobs steadily producing an angrier and more helpless population incapable of understanding why they have fewer opportunities until some cataclysmic event such as a major war or an Islamic bomb brings dramatic change. It’s hard to see such change being very good.

Way back during the big war W.W.II thousands upon thousands of little companies sprang up doing things like stamping metal cans out or stitching insignia on things or putting boiled peeled potatoes in those stamped cans or making buttons, gimlets for boots or stamping out metal eating utensils – etc., ect., on and on etc. You get the picture. Those little ma and pa firms are all gone now, swallowed up in the first of a long series of consolidations and mergers. Of late, the consolidations have included the tech industry. NASDAQ is largely just the recent high tech survivors. Before that there was Marco Polo and spice trading and the English Navy with its seagoing merchant clientele etc.. It’s been like that just about forever. Companies grow up around a market or technology. Then the larger ones eat up the smaller ones or drive them out by consuming the market. Of course, sometimes the market just goes away. Not a lot of call for hand hammered iron body armor or phrenology maps these days.

WHEN MANUFACTURING CONSOLIDATES ONE RESULT IS THAT FEWER WORKERS ARE NEEDED TO MAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PRODUCT

The great consolidations began just after W.W.II. After the war there arose hundreds of companies that named themselves with words like “Consolidated this” “Consolidated that” or “Amalgamated” or “Universal.” Those were the great beginnings of a movement that has only lately seems to have slowed. It slowed only because the big companies have gobbled up just about all the little companies. Of course, the Technology changes of the 1970’s and 1980’s fueled an new spate of small corporate development and attendant consolidations but that’s chicken feed compared to the years prior. However, the ugly fact remains that when manufacturing is consolidated actual man hour requirements is reduced. Often it’s the workers from the facilities being bought that go out in the cold. The effect of this is substantially greater than merely assuming that a wagon wheel maker (cartwright) can make more wheels if all the wheels are made in one shop because he only needs one set of tools. When companies consolidate the resource (money) that make manufacturing possible is also consolidated. When the physical process of producing a product is streamlined by making it more robust, efficient, and sophisticated it takes fewer actual man hours to get product out the door.

So first, examine the thesis that: When manufacturing consolidates one result is that fewer workers are needed to make the same amount of product. Big Companies employ fewer people than all the little companies they ate up.

TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES HAVE DECIMATED THE JOB MARKET

Then the technology boom was astounding in its effect. In the 1950’s – 1960’s a telephone or calculating machine was made up of hundreds and even thousands of metal parts all of which had to be designed, engineered, drilled, spot-faced, machined, bent, stamped and otherwise worked on by skilled and semi skilled tradesmen. The machines those tradesmen used were similarly produced. The drills, end mills, files and other appurtenances were also manufactured by countless skilled tradesmen all comprising a fabulously huge web of production manufacturing industrial companies employing countless millions of people.

Now the modern versions of those items and millions more are produced in “lights out” fabrication facilities and made up of embedded technology with almost no machined or worked up parts. Those facilities are built and run in the cheapest places possible making the plastic housings and the populating the circuit boards then sending the parts for assembly in the cheapest places possible. This transformation is a mere couple of decades old. That means all the engineers and trades persons who once had full employment are living among us today with no jobs. The lucky ones are retired. A precious few have retrained to do something else that can keep up with the trends. Going back to school and learning a whole new field is a very difficult thing. One must simply turn one’s back on one’s past and say “I am starting all over as though I were a 19 year old in a 45 year old body.” It’s tough. Often it’s the only option.

So examine the thesis that technology alone has decimated the job market by simply eliminating whole trades and industries rendering them useless and obsolete. The countless millions who have been eliminated from the job market is staggering. In short the great majority of worthy jobs haven’t gone to India or China. They were out-sourced to history, No one does them any longer because the way things are done has changed so radically.

THE HIGH SCHOOL GUIDANCE DISASTER

The next damming factor was the “High School Guidance Disaster that dragged on through the 1960’s into the 1970’s. This massive act of malfeasance and misfeasance was largely the result of several elements combining in a result. One element was the excellent research underwritten by the Congress, which produced the resultant thesis that there would not be adequate technically educated people in the USA to see the nation through the 21st century. At the time, and given the then extant state of the economy, our technology, and the predicted foreseeable advances in technology this was exactly correct. The problem was that no one seemed to contemplate that technology can advance at alarming rates under certain circumstances. We were experiencing a set of circumstances that could have reasonable - and did – cause technology advances to snowball. We were changing technology from hammers, cutting tools and iron to electronics and manipulation of unique forms of high yield energy. All in all, Congress did a good job. Then, with said research results in hand, Congress reacted with exceptional responsibility and courage. Using taxpayer money Congress built the Crown Jewel of technical education on the planet. The American Education system became the best place to go to get the world’s best technical education. High school guidance counselors, never short of ignorant arrogance, dutifully guided every young male who could count his fingers without help into engineering and sciences. Young females were steered into nursing and education. Later with the success of the woman’s movement those same guidance counselors steered the young women into sciences such as biology and medicine. Sadly and due in large part to population, job flight, immigrant students, and technological developments those fields were to become hopelessly over-populated with job seekers in a shrinking job market that is flooded with applicants bearing Ph.Ds. Another element was the baby boom. So many children were born during the 1950s and 1960s that they alone could have flooded the market. Almost all of those young people were steered into fields that were to undergo devastating and unforeseeable changes. It didn’t help that just about every family from every underdeveloped nation in the world worked themselves to death to get one or more of their children in a school in the USA. Our universities became crowded and then job market flooded with candidates from other poorer nations who were willing to work hard for less. Many never went home. Those that did became the backbone of a growing trend of highly educated technical people in poorer nations where American businesses wanted to place factories.

So we have consolidation of manufacturing creating reduced labor demands, technology changing manufacturing reducing the number of hands on laborers, and now too many children directed into fields that have become overcrowded and largely obsolete; combined with immigrants flowing into the same job market. One more ingredient is needed to complete the disaster. That is, for corporate entities to have the money and political power to take their manufacturing and marketing anywhere they want: Globalization.


GLOBALIZATION OF THE ECONOMY BY LARGE COROPATIONS MEANT THAT JOBS WOULD LEAVE THE USA FOR UNDERDEVELOPED NATIONS

Then take the concept of Consolidation and technology advances and apply those thesis to the concept of GLOBALIZATION. NAFTA was a drop in the bucket. With the fall of the Soviet empire and the slow but sure opening of China, American corporate entities found themselves on the cusp of a whole new era. With no restrains based on national security or warring nations they could go anywhere and produce products at staggeringly cheap rates while still charging high prices for them. Currently the globe is divided into “Trading Zones.” Therefore, a company can make a product in Malaysia or India or China where it is cheap. The low cost of production allows the company to sell the product using different pricing structures depending on where it is sold. The same toaster of pair of sneakers that sells in USA for $30 sells in zone 9 (possibly Afghanistan?) for $3. The company making the items makes money no matter where it sells its product.

Production facilities are built wherever it’s cheapest. When the local economy picks up and new cheaper technology evolves to produce product cheaper companies abandon facilities moving into other poorer areas to produce products in new facilities at cheaper rates. I call it “riding the poverty train” around the globe.

So now examine the thesis I call the “poverty train,” which is the flight of jobs to where it’s cheaper. There are more millions of jobs lost to foreign cheap labor than one can imagine. Even where a poorer nation sees an initial benefit that benefit is often lost as soon as that nation’s economy begins to get rolling. This is because the corporations simply leave to find cheaper labor. Interestingly the jobs in question aren’t all that great. They are menial, tedious and unlikely to lead to higher pay ever. The great high skilled production trades are as dead as the dodo. The few holdouts are found for the most part in custom manufacturing such as hand made vehicles, custom components, and vanity products. Some corporations have learned that the poverty train is a staggered system. BMW makes cars in the USA because German workers are too expensive, slow, and the Chinese and Indians are too incompetent. Americans apparently remain good workers at a rate the luxury class can afford. A very few industries are almost immune to these trends such as parachute manufacturing where product is sold to the military and civilians alike on a quality over cost bases.

TAX SCHEMES TO ENCOURAGE USA FIRMS TO EMPLOY AMERICAN WORKERS CANNOT WORK BECAUSE THEY CANNOT COMPETE

The Democrats have proposed “tax incentives” to encourage American companies to keep jobs here.
WERE THAT NOT SO SAD AND CRUEL IT WOULD BE FUNNY.
Politicians can propose and pass such legislation giving American employers tax breaks and shelters for hiring American workers but the legislation won’t have any meaningful effect outside those small firms that couldn’t go global in the first place. This is because no program or tax scheme can offer a better deal than that which is available by going global following the poverty train. Politicians are either hopelessly out of touch with reality or they are just plain cruel heartless bastards eager to garner votes by proffering “feel good” legislation that is doomed to failure.

What tax scheme could possibly compete with a Ph.D. level Indian Engineer earning $100.00 a month in an India based facility overseeing workers earning less than $40.00 a month producing fabulous amounts of product.

The American engineer wants somewhere between $60 to $120 thousand a year and the workers want $50 to $60 thousand. Then, they want benefits, federal and state government mandate working conditions, and buildings must be built and maintained to codes. In India and China there are no rules, no insurance, no benefits. There are no building codes or labor laws. Employees are happy to labor under any conditions and for miserable wages. No tax scheme can make up that difference. Tax schemes can’t help. However, they make for good political fodder.

Many economists will tout the wonders of the above factors. They will talk about new horizons and new possibilities. Yet they fail to address the fact that there remain countless of Americans who daily become marginalized because the thing they have trained all their lived to do is fast evaporating and they can’t flex enough to find a new niche. I hear about increases in productivity. However, only the corporation benefits when five Indians or Chinese can produce five thousand telephones in a single day compared to 30 years ago it used to take hundreds of Americans to produce a thousand telephones a day. The consumers think they benefit but their joy lasts only as long as the cell phone manufacturing company remains in their town.

Really, I have no clue how to solve this mess. We can’t simply isolate ourselves as we were in the 1800’s. We can’t wipe out the Constitution and criminalize making or buying stuff that is made in or sold to anywhere but here. It’s a BIG problem and the angry people who are hurt by these changes want a quick fix to happen within their lifetimes and that’s not going to happen. It is way too big for that. Politicians capitalizing on those wounded people are vile and mean because they can’t help them.

Some economists think outsourcing is a good thing. Apparently all of Congress thinks so irrespective of political persuasion. Clinton was a NAFTA fan, Bush has signed a NAFTA look alike treaty with the Islands like Trinidad and Haiti. It’s hard to say where things will end up. However, our politicians (all of ‘em) are not at all interested in down-sizing Globalization. They can’t figure out how because the global economy is bigger than any one nation. Instead they survive. Life is a juggernaut sink or swim but do it on your own steam.

My use of generalities

I have been called to task on a few occasions by persons who, for some reason, can not get their minds around the idea that generalities in general are very useful conversational tools and that not all generalities are alike.
ERGO this entry:

What to tell you about generalities:

Generalities are not in and of themselves intrinsically wrong.

They may seem to some to be sweeping and all inclusive but, in point of fact generalities can never be all inclusive. They are “general” not specific. To get to the concepts of “sweeping and all inclusive," the offended hearer must impose that concept on them. Such an imposed meaning is, I think, unwarranted and serves a dialog poorly. It is a forced thing and it’s ugly. After all it tends to alarmist overreacting.


A generality is nothing more than that: a generality. All generalities are based on fact. The value of the generality is always going to be limited to the extent that the fact upon which it is based on is pervasive. When I use a generality, I will have already found the underlying facts very pervasive. However, that said, the fact upon which any given generality is based can never be all inclusive.

Many generalities are about humans and human nature. What facts about human nature can be all inclusive? I submit so few as to be statistically insignificant.

ERGO: The generality and its use in dialog. It is a very useful tool so long as people take for what it is and not make more of it than it merits.

Regarding the underlying fact giving rise to a generality:
The fact may not be flattering. It may suck being painful for the party experiencing the effect of the fact and it may not be true for any one individual, or the person standing next to him/her, or even the next one in line.

Hell, it may not be true for anyone in the hearer’s circle or anyone the hearer has ever known. However, that is an anecdotal circle and is statistically insignificant compared to the substantial populations sampled over the years by psychological researchers.

So I guess the best thing to say is that some people find generalities non-PC and others find them to be very useful.

What is one to do? Insist that people don't use 'em on the sole thesis that some hearers impose upon them meanings they never merited in the first place and then find them troubling? That’s not a good result. That is nothing short of PC fascism. I am disallowed a perfectly reasonable form of thought and expression for what, someone’s idea of how the world ought to be ordered?

Some forms of generalities give generalities in general a bad name. It’s an unfair rap. Just because some expressions are rooted in fear hatred and racism is no reason to paint all generalities with the same brush of “unacceptable.” That’d be as illogical as banning kitchen knives because some limited number of psychos use ‘em for evil ends.

Am I making sense?
Anyway If I used a generality and you (whoever you are) found it troubling, try to consider the foregoing. If you can’t then don’t converse with me ‘cause I’m unlikely to change on your account.