About Me

Name: Josh Kon
Email: smartway24@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

The consent-for-abortion and statutory-rape contradiction.

Posted by Josh Kon on Friday, September 26, 2008 10:46:25 AM

         In a particularly unnerving turn of events, too many Americans seem ambivalent to Senator Obama’s stalwart opposition to a law that would allow a doctor to save babies born alive after a failed abortion.  Without this law, if the “mother” objects, a doctor must allow the baby born alive to die on the operating table. Clearly, this law represents this issue's most egregious violation of morality and decency.  

          Still, other abortion laws possibly saddle their proponents with an equal lack of moral clarity and consistency. This is clearly illustrated by the laws that neither require, nor allow, for parental-consent when a 12 year-old-girl seeks to abort her unborn baby. 

         In many ways, I do not bring this up to challenge the wisdom of such laws. To me, taking these positions -- some of which being even more pro-abortion than NARAL – should be, to any thinking American, self-defeating. So I only ask because I am genuinely curious what these pro-abortion people are thinking. (And yes, while not every "pro-choice" person is "pro-abortion," those that support laws like this clearly fit that description in any intellectually honest world.)

         Anyways, the current law in many states is that a 12-year-old is mature and wise enough to "choose" whether to abort her unborn baby even without parental notification -- let alone consent. Yet, statutory rape laws necessarily maintain that a 12-year-old is not mature and wise enough to "choose" whether to have sex with a 22-year-old even with parental consent. 

         So I ask: how is a 12-year-old always wise enough to choose to abort her unborn baby, but never wise enough to choose when to engage in sexual conduct with an older man? Conservatives have a great answer to this question, namely, she is not wise enough for either. But what do the pro-abortion people have to say? Really, what?
Tags: abortion  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Activist judges, plumbers and mother-in-laws.

Posted by Josh Kon on Friday, September 19, 2008 10:59:18 AM
One should think about a judicial-activist judge like you would your mother-in-law when she tells your plumber how to do his job. What?! 

Let me explain: People hire a plumber when they have a plumbing issue, not because they “feel” like it, but because a plumber knows how to do plumbing better than your mother-in-law. In fact, I bet a whole dollar – I am in a risky mood – that no one reading this would even let their mother-in-law give their plumber advice on how he should do his job. 

Yet, people do not apply this common sense idea to activist judges. That is, we elect representatives because most would – or at least should – agree that a democracy usually does a better job at governing than an oligarchy. Therefore, logic says that we follow this obvious fact and disallow an oligarchy from giving advice to – let alone, ordering – the elected representatives on how to do their job. The sad part is, this perfectly labels what activist judges do, and we let them; some even celebrate them. These “wise” judges tell the democratically-elected representatives that they must take certain actions – not because of something written in the Constitution – but because of these judges’ personal views on a subject. Why are people not screaming in the streets opposing this assault on democracy?
Examples of this would take me a lifetime to list. But possibly the most egregious is found where the courts forbid the democracy from putting to death the most vile among us. To do so, they invoke the constitution. Yet, any intellectually honest assessment must conclude that the constitution has nothing to do with their decision.  Indeed, it is beyond me how a document that explicitly allows for the death penalty can be seen by the courts as having implicitly evolved into a document that disallows it. 
I must admit, however, much of what the left does is beyond me. I sometimes feel like I live in a cartoonish world called “Backwards Land,” where up is down, false is true, and irrationally is a judgment handed down by our highest court.  Oh well. 
Tags: courts  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America: Great, greatest or none of the above?

Posted by Josh Kon on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:59:03 PM
I think many people -- we won't mention any names -- have to figure out what they believe. They say: "America is the greatest country in the world." But their rhetoric doesn't really allow for this possibility.

When you ask them: "Ok, so America is great. When? Throughout its history?" They answer: "Of course not! America was one of the most racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic etc… nations in all of history"—or what ever other one-word pejorative the intellectually lazy invoke.

In response, we comment: "Fine, so then even though it was all those bad things, it has become the greatest country, right?" They answer: "Well, no. Really, America was a beacon of hope and opportunity, but now it is a sexist, racist, homophobic, imperialistic, anti-environment etc...nation."

Thus, now a bit confused, we ask: "OK, so maybe you mean: it is the greatest country, but it is just not perfect. But it is still the best, or among the best, out there, right?" They answer again: "Well, maybe. But in truth places like Sweden with their moral relativism and socialism are far better at almost everything."

So in the end, really, in the eyes of many people on one side of the political/cultural spectrum, America is a mediocre country, at best. And that's fine. I have no problem per se with someone taking that foolish position. But please, be candid about it.  
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gay Adoption and the Courts.

Posted by Josh Kon on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:21:56 PM
Obviously, a child is best served with a mother and a father -- and all the unique, and generally irreplaceable, strengths that both sexes bring to parenting. When faced, however, with the choice of a foster-home/orphanage to a loving parent who happens to be homosexual, the child's best interest likely lies with the latter.

  Yet, one should note that no where in this argument do I make mention of the Constitution. That is because -- as the liberal intelligensia loves to say  -- "understood properly," the Constitution says nothing about this issue. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the states are clearly free to make a so-called "gay adoption ban," despite how irresponsible such a policy would be.

And that, my friends, is the crux of my complaint . It seems that many movements, including this one advocated by the same-sex special-interest groups, know they may never get their policies enacted at the ballot box. So they seek to usurp our democratic process and impose them via some power-hungry judges.

Granted, historically, judges on both sides have invoked the Constitution to do their dirty work -- albeit, recently, the left has used it far more often. But as they say, "two wrongs don't make a right." Thus, even though Democracy has its shortcomings, societies have tried oligarchies -- they have far more. So, when we think about what types of judges we want appointed, let's pick those that bring some integrity back to the judiciary and wipe this misguided power-grab from this branch's otherwise honorable role.
Tags: culture  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great Orators usually have nothing good to say.

Posted by Josh Kon on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:12:17 PM

Why do we need to prioritize what we hold dear in this world? Because if we don't, someone else will do it for us.

Great orators usually have nothing good to say, because if they did, they would not need to be great orators. In other words, people can make an argument for anything; and more troubling, persuasive people can make a persuasive argument for anything. Thus, if we are not grounded in any pre-set value system, valuing some things over others, then we doom ourselves to a life as pawns of some more principled and ideologically focused leader; one who can make what seems to be a compelling argument. Without any prior anchors, what stops a good orator from fashioning new values for us to fret over, all the while forgetting the important values, like human life?

Following this, it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of people that were willing to stand up to the dictators of history had some pre-existing value they were appealing to—be it scientific progress in the case of Andrei Sakharov of the U.S.S.R. or belief in a loving God in the case of the many Christians that risked their lives for Jews in the Holocaust.

Tags: values  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Does the judicary need some checking and balancing?

Posted by Josh Kon on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 8:52:24 PM
People say "judicial activism" is not so bad -- in fact, it may be great -- as it checks and balances the other branches.

I agree, "checks and balances" are a great thing. But who checks, and who balances, the judiciary? When they decide to make use of the more elastic terms in the constitution like "privileges," "due process" or "equal protection," who can balance them short of a constitutional amendment that they can interpret however they like anyways? 

Listen liberals: call it what you like, but be candid about the fact that when the judges so broadly use "judicial review" (a mechanism not democratically instituted, i.e. in the Constitution), they are becoming a modern day version of Plato's Philosopher Kings. They are telling the democracy that it is too stupid to figure out these complicated issues for itself, so the self-proclaimed oligarchical courts will do it for them.

This assault on self-governance -- a notion that our nation was founded under -- should not be tolerated.

I suggest reading "A Country I do not Recognize." It expounds on these issues far more eloquently than I can. Conservatives should read it as it is a nice re-buff to the one-sided, liberal version of law we are fed by the mainstream media and liberals should like it, if for nothing else, because it will give you a glimpse into what the other side is thinking so that you are more prepared to combat it in the marketplace of ideas.

http://www.hooverpress.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=1110
  
Tags: courts  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Judges use torture all the time!

Posted by Josh Kon on Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:31:35 PM

No one really, I mean really, thinks that torture cannot help one obtain credible information – or at least I hope not. We use it all the time. When we obtain testimony via a plea agreement – testimony used in a court of law – we acquire it using force or the threat of force – in other words, torture. We either threaten them with prison, and all the pain and suffering associated with it, or we actually put them into prison until they decide to become more helpful. So if it’s always good enough for a judge with all his rules of evidence, how is it never good enough for an intelligence operative who is trying to keep us safe?

Now, of course, this should not lead one to condone torture or even coerced interrogation (i.e. water-boarding) at every possible chance. We must still use it rarely because of a zealous officer's inevitable abuse. Yet, little integrity attaches to  the odd claim that threatening or using force cannot, at times, acquire valuable information that polite cajoling will not. Sure, there will be times when force gets us information of little use. But surely no one can seriously argue that civilly asking a murderer questions will not leave us with information that is of no use as well. Therefore, for all those with even a shred of intellectual honesty, let’s get rid of this odd and utterly untrue talking point that force does not obtain credible information – it can, and clearly, it does.

 

Tags: courts  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »