This morning's Washington Times reports that the Democrats have dropped Stephen Dujack as a witness for the Alito hearings.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Dujack Dropped:
This morning's Washington Times reports that the Democrats have dropped Stephen Dujack as a witness for the Alito hearings. |
ContactSubscribeFeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates Sources on the Second Amendment BlogrollArchivesThe Volokh Conspiracy uses and recommends: |
Dujack is not a crank, but he only has hearsay knowledge of Alito. Dujack worked for a magazine that competed with the CAP magazine, and has bad things to say about CAP.
All Dujack was going to do was to pull old quotes from CAP members to make CAP look bad. They probably weren't even going to be quotes that Alito even knew about. If he wants to play that game, then he should realize that the game could be used against him.
Alito is in good shape if CAP is the worst that the Democrats have on him. Princeton was wrong to kick ROTC off campus, and Alito was right to complain about it.
It is not a highly defensible bunch, but I hardly think that membership in the organization is a big negative.
Twenty one years ago, Alito wrote on an application that he belonged to an organization. And Democrats are going to call someone to testify that other people -- but not Alito -- in this organization (which disbanded twenty years ago) said some stupid things? That's the best they have? He has been a federal judge, he has worked in the DoJ, he has an extensive track record -- and yet they're going to call someone to say that he was associated with politically incorrect people a few decades ago?
"The Holocaust happened because ordinary people chose to ignore the extraordinary oppression and abuse being inflicted on innocents. My grandfather often said that this mindset, whether it manifested itself as the oppression of animals or of people, exemplifies the most hideous and dangerous of all racist principles. The Jewish philosopher and Holocaust survivor Theodor Adorno said, “The Holocaust begins wherever one looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks, ‘They’re only animals.’”
The fact that an intelligent, dedicated person with a heightened compassion for animals is dismissed so readily as a "wingnut" by callous people on the Right and the Left is nothing short of tragic. I guess those same people think Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer, who had those same views, were also wingnuts.
Here's a quote from Albert Schweitzer:
"Out of such heart-breaking experiences that often shamed me there slowly arose in me the unshakeable conviction that we had the right to bring pain and death to another being only in case of inescapable necessity, and that all of us must feel the horror that lies in thoughtless torturing and killing. This conviction has become increasingly dominant within me. I have become more and more certain that at the bottom of our hearts we all think so, and simply do not dare to admit it and practice it, because we are afraid that others will laugh at us for being sentimental, and because we have allowed our better feelings to be blunted. But I vowed that I would never let my feelings get blunted, and I would never again fear the reproach of sentimentalism."
I have been a nurse for over 25 years and have devoted my life to helping people. When I see someone in pain or discomfort it's my instinct to try to alleviate that pain. That is the reason I became a nurse and it is also the reason I became vegetarian. I had always loved animals and rescued many cats, dogs, and birds. In the 80's I saw the Animals Film by Victor Schonfeld and Myriam Alaux. In it the horrors of factory farming, stockyard and slaughterhouse abuse and animal experimentation were exposed. I became a vegetarian overnight and have remained one since.
Many members of my mother's extended family (who weren't lucky enough to escape from Europe in time) were killed in the Holocaust. When I read Stephen Dujack's comparison, I was not offended. In my opinion, there are parallels we cannot deny. Suffering is suffering. Compassion is compassion. It doesn't matter what particular species of sentient being one is discussing. People need to evolve and to start to look outside their little cubicles and begin to develop compassion and respect for all forms of life. Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, civil rights activist Dick Gregory, George Bernard Shaw, Isaac Bashevis Singer, and Alice Walker are just a few of the people who also promoted this concept.
Philosopher Jeremy Bentham put it best: "The question is not: 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'"
All animals can suffer and therefore deserve to be treated humanely.
Recommended reading: Eternal Treblinka by Charles Patterson and The Dreaded Comparison by Marjorie Spiegel
Rina Deych
http://www.rrrina.com/
At the time, hard as it may be for younger readers to imagine it, the feminist revolution was extremely incomplete (and had not entered the stage of eating its young). The idea that women simply didn't belong at elite private institutions of higher education was not off the wall, as it may seem now. [Link]
Clear?