21 October, 2005

Women's lib ain't what it used to be

"Look, Harriet. The details the Senate is
looking for are just over that ridge."

Harriet Miers, Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, can't fill out basic forms. In a recent stumble, Miers was asked by the Senate to fill out a basic form, often considered a formality, a second time, citing insufficicent detail in her first copy. The editorial in yesterdays New York Times covered her blunder well, saying, in part, the following:
"Ms. Miers had an opportunity to win over the skeptics this week with her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire. But her responses were so unimpressive that the top Republican and Democrat on that committee took the extraordinary step yesterday of instructing her to give it another try, this time with more "particularity and precision." She thus became perhaps the most important judicial nominee in history to be offered what amounts to a do-over on a take-home quiz...

...Either Ms. Miers is so underqualified that she cannot even go through the motions competently, or her sponsor, the president, thinks serious effort isn't necessary because once he gives his personal endorsement to a candidate, the Senate will silently fall into line."
Now, I'm not sure what to make of this. Either the woman is a complete idiot (probably) or she is part of some clever ruse to halp along the real, as yet unnamed, nominee (unlikely). Perhaps Bush is throwing her out there as bait, waiting for the Senate to tear her apart. Interestingly enough, he doesn't seem to be helping the case with his various quotes on Miers.

If her nomination is indeed a farce, I fully expect that after she is dismissed as highly unqualified (which she is) another mediocre candidate will be quickly named who appears overly qualified based on the recency of Miers's complete incapability. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

Another news item from today is very heartening, in a sort of twisted way. Kansas has had a law on the books for years, prohibiting
"...any sexual activity involving a person under 16, regardless of the context. The 1999 ''Romeo and Juliet'' law specifies short prison sentences or probation for sexual activity when an offender is under 19 and the age difference between participants is less than four years -- but only for opposite-sex encounters."
Which sucks for Matthew Limon, who has been in jail since 2000 for consentual experimentation with a 14 year old boy. The AP reported on Friday that

"Limon and the other boy, identified only as M.A.R., lived at a group home for the developmentally disabled. In court, an official described M.A.R. as mildly mentally retarded and Limon as functioning at a slightly higher level but not as an 18-year-old.

Limon's attorneys described the relationship with the younger boy as consensual and suggested that they were adolescents experimenting with sex.

However on Friday, the Supreme Court of Kansas ruled that Limon's homosexuality was no grounds for a harsher sentence (he is currently serving a 17-year term). As well, the court said that Limon is to be re-sentenced within 30 days, with the presumption that he will be freed at that time.
''Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest,'' said Justice Marla Luckert, writing for the high court.
While I do not feel that sex with a minor is by any means in the right, I do feel that giving a harsher sentence based on one's sexuality for such crimes is entirely in the wrong. Kansas definitely made the right call. They still voted to ban gay marriage this past spring, but at least this is a step in the right direction.

On another note, I think college students are the worst demographic when it comes to protecting themself from the elements. My personal thought process during times of inclement weather is as follows: "Oh, it's raining/snowing/hailing/etc. outside. I guess I should wear a hat." Then I put on a hat and go on my way the same as if it were a sunny day outside.

I only ever see a handful of people on such days with as much as an umbrella, and never anyone with a raincoat. I'm not sure why. I suppose it's that as a whole, college students don't particularly care about their apperance or level of self-comfort.


Blogger Meg said...

as much as i enjoyed this entry, this comment is to tell you that i have a new blog. http://chexinthecity.blogspot.com

8:08 PM, October 25, 2005  
Blogger Vinayak said...


Your notes and womens lib, this particular woman and the deaths sparked a few thoughts

Though I do NOT support all your views, I agree with you that women's lib has NOT MADE ANY major contributions OUR LIVES TODAY, other than women having a great advantage over men in terms of family laws :-(

All over the world women are in a win win situation while men loose. If normal life within marriage favours the wife, so do divorce, child custody and alimony payments

All around the world, women have a better chance of getting child support + child support payments and men are loosers

Situation in India


Do you know that many innocent young upcoming INDIAN professionals, their elderly parents & sisters have been arrested as WIFE FRIENDLY laws are MISUSED by some WIFES and un scrupulous lawyers - IN INDIA.

A good criminal justice system works on the principle that EVEN A SINGLE INNOCENT man / women should not be punished.

one is "..innocent unless proven guilty..".

However Sec. 498A of Indian Penal code (which deals with CRUELTY TO A MARRIED WOMAN) is directly against this principle and FORCES the accused to prove innocence. i.e. the accused is guilty until he proves himself innocent.

Anything from a simple verbal duel to a serious difference of opinion could be DEFINED AS CRUELTY lead to registering false complains

India has also passed a domestic Violence bill which makes marriage an un worthy proposition to men

The law that WAS SUPPOSEDLY meant to protect weak and establish justice has become a weapon in the hands of few un scrupulous wifes. Elderly mothers& sisters have been arrested. Unable to bear this some have died.

Many courts are aware of the misuse of law. Recently Chennai High Court (from a state in India - one of the Info Tech starts) has restrained police from arresting people on Dowry related charges under sec. 498A



HC restrains police on dowry complaints :

Chennai, Sept 28: The Madras High Court today restrained the city police from receiving complaints, investigating or filing charge sheets under the Dowry Protection Act 1961.


So please be aware + take necessary precautions

If you are an Indian and a victim yourself, please use one of the forums listed below to write to us











1:23 AM, October 30, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home