Top 10 Letters
Catholics, Saudi oil, MagLev, and more.
8:55 AM, Aug 11, 2003
THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.
Kudos to Irwin M. Stelzer for The Oil Mirage. The more said about the spread between competitive vs. market price the better.
However, there was no quid pro quo for the Saudi agreement to "pump enough oil to keep prices from spiking when strikes . . . political unrest . . . and wars interrupt production." There was no deal at all.
The Saudis maintain high oil prices on their own behalf, not ours. Price shocks are bad for OPEC. They reduce GDP and force fuel conservation in customer countries. Following the price shock of 1978-81, for example, price fell 300 percent over four years to far below the pre-price shock level.
Another price collapse would be a mortal threat to the Saudi regime, whose power derives from oil wealth alone. Prince Faisal will add as much oil as it takes to prevent another price shock/collapse cycle. He will do this whether he hates or loves the United States.
I would ask Schumer, et al. if they would reject William Pryor if he had "deeply held" beliefs against capital punishment (of which the Catholic Church has deep reservations) given that the legality of capital punishment has been codified by law and Supreme Court decisions. (Hugh Hewitt, The Catholic Test)
Title VII civil rights legislation bans employment practices which subject employees to either disparate treatment or disparate impact. A disparate impact results when a facially neutral employment practice inadvertently works to disproportionately exclude a protected class.
For example, height and weight requirements for maximum security prison guards are illegal because, statistically, they exclude more women than men. Inadvertent discrimination is just as illegal as malicious discrimination.
Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, and religion. While Title VII does not cover judicial appointments, when it is read together with Article VI of the Constitution it is clear that the Democrats' behavior is wrong.
They are discriminating, whether they like it or not.
Hugh Hewitt's article on the impact of the new Democratic litmus test of religious beliefs was well-argued; however, he discounts too easily Professor Adler's statements regarding the disparate impact that the religious belief test will have on non-Catholic traditional religious groups as well.
No Orthodox Jew or scripturally committed Christian of any stripe could ever condone the killing of unborn children. Essentially, the Democratic party has finally revealed what anyone who has contact with the strident secular leftists running the universities knows: scripturally faithful Jews and Christians need not apply. The Democrats have long been driving the courts in the same intolerant direction. One can only hope that the judicial system will remain freer than our ideologically rigid universities. In any case, the discrimination is applied equally to anyone professing normative, traditional Judaism or Christianity--although that is small consolation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Senator Charles Schumer, the guy who grilled Bill Pryor on whether or not he really believed all that stupid Catholic stuff, get elected to the Senate in part by accusing his Gentile opponent of anti-Semitism after his opponent used a Yiddish term to describe Schumer in a speech before a Jewish group?
Democrats are good at uncovering "code words for racism," but protest if Republicans point out that they use religious tests for public office.
I have two words for the MagLev fans: Big Dig. (Rachel DiCarlo, Slow-Motion Boondoggle)
It went from a $2 billion project to over $14 billion and was never on time. Waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption were the norm.