Axis of Right

Three Native Rhode Islanders Commenting From the Right on Politics and Anything Else

Archive for March 2nd, 2006

A Fine Line

Posted by Ryan on March 2, 2006


Parsippany is a nice, quiet town in a pretty woodsy conservative area of Jersey. Like all blue states, New Jersey is a red state with blue streaks around the highways and in the urban areas. Yet, a teacher out there has decided to put President Bush on a mock war crimes trial for his classes to debate.

Debate is fine, but it’s the stench of agenda that reeks from this teacher’s classroom. He had a lesson to impeach President Clinton back in the 1990s by having his kids debate that topic. While these students will research and come up with conclusions, I am a little suspicious. Judge for yourself by reading the article, but something isn’t sitting right.

As a history teacher myself, I know there’s a fine line here. In my classroom, current events are always discussed in a controlled atmosphere where the debate is not won or lost, but the sides are exposed and the kids form their own conclusions. I guess that’s my response to having a bunch of self-obsorbed narcissistic, biased, agenda-laiden Boomers as my HS history teachers, who automatically inferred that Republicans were for the “rich” and the Democrats were for “real” people even if it didn’t even relate to the subject at hand. They didn’t necessarily want me to have my own point of view without an unhealthy dose of their own.

Clinton was actually impeached for clearly committing the crimes of perjury and obstructing justice. War crimes, however, are a much higher level of accusation (no one has charged Bush with anything like that in a real, substantive manner, and no trials have taken place) and I think, given NJ’s natural inclinations, this seems a bit biased against President Bush. Why not try Milosevic or Saddam, who actually committed war crimes, etc., and have the students learn the process better since an outcome is evident in both those authentic cases? Is this teacher inferring a moral equivilency? Blaming Bush without actually saying so? I don’t know, but as I said before, something’s not quite sitting right.

The pict came from www.sinomania.com

Posted in Politics | 3 Comments »

Oscar Predictions, Coulter Style

Posted by Mike on March 2, 2006

Today’s Annie C. column is a gem. Applying Hollywood standards rather than those of normal people, Coulter predicts who will win various Oscars. I like her reasoning. My favorite quote from the column concerns “Paradise Now,” a movie about suicide bombers:

“How good is it? Al-Jazeera gave it 4 1/2 pipe bombs. It’s Air Syria’s featured in-flight movie this month — go figure! I don’t want to spoil the ending for you, but let’s just say there won’t be a sequel.”

Classic.

Posted in Pop Culture | Leave a Comment »

The Path to Protecting the Unborn

Posted by Mike on March 2, 2006

This abortion debate among pro-lifers emerged on the Axis of Right recently. Although this debate will probably lack the passion which exists in debates between the pro-choice and pro-life sides, it is nevertheless crucial.

Protecting the lives of the unborn is a top priority for me. All pro-lifers applaud the merits of recent proposed abortion bans in South Dakota and elsewhere. The question of whether efforts to ban abortion are occurring too soon is a tactical question of how to achieve our common goal. I admit it. I’m torn.

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

NARAL to Save the Day?

Posted by Mike on March 2, 2006

Former NARAL President Kate Michelman is considering joining the Pennsylvania Senate race as an independent. This would certainly split the liberal vote to some degree. The question is, how much? If enough pro-choicers jump ship, Santorum could pull it out. RUN KATE RUN!

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

If you can’t stay awake, it’s time to quit

Posted by Sal on March 2, 2006

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments in the Texas redistricting case yesterday. During the arguments, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dosed off. Now, if a Supreme Court justice did not stay awake for the arguments, should she not recuse herself? I think it’s time to wish Justice Ginsburg a long, happy, restful retirement, and bring in an Originalist to replace her.

On another note, the case itself is troublesome. The Constitution strictly gives the power of drawing congressional districts to the State Legislature. The only time when the court has traditionally challenged this right is the use of gerrymandering for racial purposes (drawing weird district lines that exclude a specific racial group, in violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause). In this case, the districts are fairly logical, and favor Republicans in a state predominately Republican. The worrisome factor, however, is that Justice Kennedy seemed to say that the redistricting was racially-motivated.

One of the major themes of the Axis of Right, and one of the more important issues of the Conservative movement in general, is to restore the balance of power between the three branches of government according to the Constitution. I hope the court gets this one right. If they don’t it will be one more usurpation of power of a select group of “Philosopher Kings” in black robes from the democratically-elected legislatures of this country.

And any justice who can’t stay awake should retire.

Posted in Politics | 3 Comments »