Disqus - Latest Comments for HalaFurst

Re: The Real Crime of Katrina

Hala Furst — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:03:37 -0000

Ok, even I will grant you that the confiscation of fire arms in private homes was a gross overreaching of police power. But, I do not see a logical through line between that argument and the mismanagement of other government services. Are you positing that an armed populace would have done a better job of addressing the needs of the citizens harmed by Katrina, or are you just getting in a 2nd Amendment jab while making collateral points?

Moreover, can you really, really argue that weapons in the Superdome would have been a good idea? Not arguing through hindsight, and saying that perhaps some of the people who were raped or mugged while there would have been protected by private weapons, but by putting yourself in the moment. Thousands of angry, confused, scared, and recently-homeless individuals are being pent up for God knows how long. Do you really, even in your most libertarian of hearts, believe that thinking people would have made any decision other than to keep guns out of there?

Re: A Vile Uniquely Human

Hala Furst — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:51:54 -0000

There is a tension between the first amendment and our legitimate societal desire for retribution. These crimes seem somehow worse than other violent crimes, because they grow not just out of the broken places in the perpetrator, as you put it, Rob, but out of a hatred that infects more than just that individual.

But as awful, as repugnant as hate motivated crimes are, there is an argument to be made that all crimes of this violent and brutal nature are motivated by some sort of hate. Not a hatred of a gender, or a sexual orientation, or a race or an ethnicity, but a hatred for humanity.

Instead of hate crime legislation, which to me and many other liberals feels a lot like thought policing, I would rather see legislation making homosexuals a protected class for civil rights suits. I would rather see marriage become legal for any two people (of the age of majority and not related to one another) that seek it. I would like to see our disgust at this sort of hate expressed at a time before it is allowed to fester and vent. I would rather we had protected Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. when there was still hope for them.

And as for the rape in Richmond, California. I could give some feminist reading of the situation, I could talk about failed parenting, or the glamorization of sexual violence, or the completely disconnected way in which teenagers (and even people our age) think about or have sex. But ultimately, all I can think about is this poor little girl. Hers was a hate crime too, but unfortunately the cause of 15 year old girls preyed upon in highschool is not a banner anyone has yet taken up. And no amount of legislation, no amount of prosecution is going to make it any better.

This is the essential problem with crime legislation. It presupposes that monsters like this think about the consequences of their actions before they commit these horrific crimes. But hatred usurps all ability to think clearly. A hatred that kills will not be stopped by the fear of prosecution. A hatred that kills will not be stopped by a second thought.

Re: No More NASA

Hala Furst — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:06:07 -0000

I don't care who does it, as long as we keep doing it. Private, public, whoever. If the private sector can do it better, so be it.

But the private sector isn't big on discovery for it's own sake- if they don't see a profit, they don't want that action. And that is a problem. I reject the idea that there isn't something valuable in the doing. Science doesn't always make sense at first- that is the nature of experimentation. Sometimes the ramifications (positive and negative) of our actions aren't realized for years. But we have to keep experimenting and exploring. I'm betting those MIT students would agree.

Re: Plaxico and the Police-Prison State

Hala Furst — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:28:42 -0000

Can we talk about the 2nd Amendment? Can we? Because I would really like to. Especially after spending the summer in the belly of the Federal beast as an intern, especially after researching the 14th Amendment's effect on our civil liberties in depth.

First of all, Burress was not charged or convicted of 'the “crime” of an unlicensed firearm' as you put it- he was charged and convicted of the CRIME of having an unlicensed firearm in a public place. He had no license to carry that weapon, at any time, anywhere. He had no conceal and carry permit. Even if he did, this establishment didn't allow them, as all private places are allowed to do. The man SHOT himself- which would indicate that he is not, as many responsible gun owners are, TRAINED. Which means he put others in harms way, the admitted limit of the even the most libertarian philosophy on freedom.

The Wars on Nouns have all failed, I'll give you that, but you cannot realistically argue that the state does not have a valid interest in protecting its citizens from armed idiots. None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights or the subsequent amendments are absolute. All of them are subject to encroachment under standards ranging from the merely reasonable to the most extreme of situations. The Second is no exception. It started out as a political right intended to keep the power and the vote where it belonged, in the hands of the people. It morphed, via the Civil War, the Black Codes, and the 14th Amendment (and the doctrine of incorporation) into a Civil right, one meant to aid the individual in protecting himself, his property, his family. Since then we have all been negotiating the divide.

But I will put money on the fact that none of the framers of the Bill or the 14th ever intended that to include some spoiled asshole bringing a weapon he had no need for and no working knowledge of into a crowded dance club. To place this person's actions and the subsequent rightful actions of the police into the framework of "liberty" and a "police-state" is dangerously under-informed, and casts a shadow on some of your otherwise valid assertions.

I'm from Kansas. I have no problem with guns. My family has owned guns. My parents have both, for various reasons and at various times, fired or been protected by guns. What I have a problem with is people. I have a problem with people like the ones most recently attending the Town Hall meetings armed to the teeth, asserting that their Second Amendment rights allow them to bring an automatic weapon into a confined space to meet the President. No. Just No. Those people have exactly enough knowledge to be dangerous. They know what the words in the Second Amendment mean, in terms of the dictionary, but they have absolutely no understanding of their legal significance, the trajectory of their history, or the intention of their writers. Plaxico Burress is one of those people. Just because a right exists, doesn't mean you get to exercise it everywhere, all the time, for any reason. We live in a society, one in which we all must participate, or all fail. I don't think it is too much to ask of one another that we don't accidentally go shooting off deadly weapons in public places.

Re: Bizarro World

Hala Furst — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:16:40 -0000

Then is really is the end of days! I've been away from the heartland too long to keep track of these things. Apologies.

Re: A Hundred Legendary Bands After 1975

Hala Furst — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:14:01 -0000

Posted at the risk of revealing my astonishingly different taste in music- the list above me being alarmingly un-fly-over-country-friendly.... There are some glaring absences in my mind....

1. Bruce Springsteen was around before 1975, but Born to Run debuted that year.

2. Are we counting Coldplay as rock?

3. I'm counting Dixie Chicks, I don't care what you or the Bible Belt have to say about it.

4. On that note, like him or hate him, Jimmy Buffet is a particular type of legend, and not one you can fairly say is purely country. For the record, I love him (absent his concerning affinity for Toby Keith). BRING IT.

5. Liz Phair, you big bunch of boys.

6. Sufjan Stevens.

7. The Pretenders.

8. Violent Femmes. Seriously.

It's hard to realize some of my favorite bands simply aren't legendary... *single tear*.

Re: Orwell’s Britain and America’s future

Hala Furst — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:04:02 -0000

Robert- I wrote about this phenomenon last summer when I was studying in Great Britain (see "An American Civil Libertarian in London", June 21, 2008). Orwell's home is on the walk to Portobello market, and what should be perched upon it, but a CCTV camera. The Brits are great fans of irony. The most disturbing thing about the cameras to me was that many citizens I spoke with there felt safer knowing they were being watched.

This was a notion that I, as an American, had a lot of trouble with. But the difference in our nations' feelings about government can be summed up with this story. While I was in London, I interned with a Judge. I was having lunch with my judge one day, and while we were out on the balcony for his post-meal smoke, we started talking about CCTV. I expressed my horror over the prevalence of these cameras, over their automatic admission as evidence at trial, the whole notion of being constantly and explicitly watched. He said to me, "You Americans are so distrustful of your government, not like us. We believe government is there to help." I looked at him squarely and said, "Your Honour, I wonder why it could be that Americans are less trustful of the government than you Brits?" He just laughed.

Re: The militarization of ‘Independence Day’

Hala Furst — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:57:19 -0000

I'm not sure from where you watched the Fourth of July festivities, but there wasn't a lot of warmongering happening in Bristol.

There are plenty of places in this country where the Fourth is met with at least a few moments of quiet reflection, at least a little discussion of how far we may have fallen from the ideals that your assign to Jefferson and Washington. To characterize the whole country as one consumed by a holiday-induced frenzy of bloodlust is unfair.

In Bristol, citizens took the parade as an opportunity to address their elected officials, hanging signs about the war, about the state's unemployment numbers, even the condition of the road upon which they were to walk, in the hope that their senators, congressmen, governor, and city council members would feel a civic call to duty. Yankees can't invite you anywhere without telling you how you've been screwing up.

To some of us, to many of us, the Fourth of July is sacred like Christmas, not because we blindly worship at the altar of our military-industrial state, but because the things the holiday stands for are still worthwhile, even if the institution itself is corrupt. The men and women of this town celebrate the Fourth of July as a memorial, a remembrance of the sacrifices it took to carve out this little harbor town- not just military sacrifices, but sacrifices due to long, cold winters, harsh seas, isolation, and the uncertain future of an unpracticed nomad.

Perhaps you were just referring to the events in DC for the holiday, or the government's pronouncements about it, but in cities and towns all over the US on Saturday you would have found individuals celebrating in a very different atmosphere. You would think that in the self-proclaimed "Most Patriotic Town in America" the sentiment would be "America, fuck yeah!", but it was far, far from it. These colonials know better, given the benefit of the long view.

Re: Gonzo Podcast #10: The Patriotic Ones

Hala Furst — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:41:17 -0000

Nice.

Re: Line in the Sand

Hala Furst — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:42:53 -0000

First of all, Providence? Really? You have yet to convince me, and I've lived here for two years now.

I don't really care what the headline would have been, not that I necessarily accept your premise. The point is that the administration gave absolutely no indication that they looked at the situation beyond "unions good, fire bad" -or, I guess in this case, "fire unions good." I'm not saying they should have crossed the picket line, but I more nuanced response would have been helpful. And it wasn't just one American constituency there that night, it was representatives from constituencies all over the nation. Either possible course of action would have been symbolic; all I'm asking for is a little more thought put into the symbols.

Re: Iced Coffee: A San Francisco Story

Hala Furst — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:55:28 -0000

Oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the beautiful sound of iced coffee being slurped by the bucket load on every corner of this lovely burgh. Perhaps I'll go have one myself now. Shall I use my neighborhood DD? Or perhaps the 87 other locations within a 1 mile radius. Hmm....

Re: Lady Lawyer

Hala Furst — Mon, 25 May 2009 12:18:00 -0000

Aw, future-thanks guys! Rob was fighting the future so hard he was ahead of the game by a whole year.

And don't worry. I'll be sure to keep my phone on vibrate and a bail bondsman on retainer.

Re: The Future of Journalism

Hala Furst — Fri, 08 May 2009 10:59:49 -0000

when was the last time you read anything that moved beyond commentary into actual reporting, even in the news giants you mention at the end? People aren't interested in the facts, they're interested in the gossip. I can't tell you the number of times i read something and realize at least two of the 5 big Ws they teach you in 1st grade (who, what, where, why and [w]how) are missing.

Which leads me to the real questions, one of which we asked a few months ago- does the free market dictate what we get at the expense of what we need? Is there an incentive to become the next Woodward, when most people don't seem to care about the story, but how it is packaged? Or to put it another way, if Woodward had found Deep Throat while working for a blog and not the Post, would there have been as much attention paid to the story at all? Where is the event horizon for online journalist legitimacy?

That many question marks is annoying, I know, but I really don't have the answers.

Re: Job Opening

Hala Furst — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:31:10 -0000

Again, I encourage you to not think of this as partisan or political bias, but as an interpretive position.

And yeah, we need more chicks on the bench. The Arizona school search case demonstrated that big time.

Re: Job Opening

Hala Furst — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:28:53 -0000

Ted: I agree wholeheartedly that a hard-core irrational liberal is as dangerous as a hard-core irrational conservative. But notice the use of "irrational."

There is a difference between liberal and conservative when used in the political arena, and when used to describe interpretive models for the Constitution and the laws of this nation. I referred to the later. Reasonable people can differ about the meaning of the Constitution, but I would posit that the meanings the conservative interpreters of the current Court are giving the Constitution are anything but reasonable.

I suggest you look at District of Columbia v. Heller for the latest example of this. Scalia, in the majority opinion, goes on for 50 pages about the meaning of the Second Amendment, eventually deciding, all evidence to the contrary, that the Framers simply didn't mean the right to bear arms was primarily for the purposes of "a well-regulated militia" when they said it. It is an ode to fallacy, an epic poem of revisionism. Then read the dissent, in which Breyer also spends far more pages than is necessary articulating the possible contrary historical evidence, but all the while equivocating, leaving room for the conservative position as well. But some things cannot be reconciled.

(Not that this is the place, but I should mention there is a valid argument that the Second Amendment permits and individuated right to bear arms for personal defense, but that right wasn't inherent or absolute within the Second when written; historically it was understood to be created via the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and actually separate from the Second Amendment right).

The point is, as Justice Marshall said, that "condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language." But the Right insists they are right, and the left, as the true moderates that they are, agrees to disagree. We need to stop agreeing to disagree. We need to disagree, vehemently, and without ceasing, or we will fail in this great and terrible experiment, trying to be moderate.

Re: Swine Flu Haiku

Hala Furst — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:53:25 -0000

I know... I mean, if we'd known all it would take to get universal health care would be a pandemic, we could have unleashed monkey pox years ago.

Re: Swine Flu Haiku

Hala Furst — Fri, 01 May 2009 12:26:49 -0000

My personal favorite neo-con reaction: that the swine flu hysteria was created by the Obama White House along with congressional democrats to foster quick and unopposed support for universal health care.

Re: Market Correction

Hala Furst — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:52:23 -0000

apparently all Smith's pictures are of money. Drawn with eyeliner.

Who knew the Cure was all about free market capitalism- and can't appreciate that art has an aesthetic value beyond that of base currency...? If I had to bet who on my high school CD shelf would be advocating music as commodity instead of art, I wouldn't have put money on them.

Re: Octuplets

Hala Furst — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:08:00 -0000

Oh come on. It's fun to be pointy and judge-y. Obvious emotional and social problems aside, she's such an easy target for all spectrums of society. The left hates her for creating her own little population boom, the right hates her for making them look like loony-birds obsessed with birthing their own individual societies. And moderates just shake their heads and think about the massive diaper issue.

The only thing that would make this story any better would be Sarah Palin getting involved. Which, if you think about it, might be right up her alley.

Re: The Geriatric Ostrich Party

Hala Furst — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:57:22 -0000

I thought I was hallucinating last night while I was watching Obama speak. Like an abuse victim, I had forgotten that the sight of the President addressing congress could have any effect on me except irrational fear and anger. I had forgotten what it was like to have a Democrat in that office, and not just a Democrat, but an actual Progressive. To hear someone discussing health care without a mention of tort reform, to hear a call to civic duty without a companion homily about the beneficence of corporate citizens, to hear the President actually say, "This is what I'm doing, this is how I'm doing it, and this is why I'm doing it" in clear, un-stuttered English was so goddamn refreshing I thought my hearing had gone squirrelly. To hear a man stand up and say the US does not torture and not have to roll my eyes, that was a proud moment.

Like you say, Obama's first month wasn't without its missteps, and I know he'll have many more. Perhaps he isn't even all that capable, the bar was just lowered so significantly by W. that we have lost the ability to calibrate greatness. Even so, what we heard last night was the most honest and human statement we've heard from a President, or really any politician, in longer than I have been able to vote.

Re: God’s Law School

Hala Furst — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:35:19 -0000

The question isn't really whether or not the individual lawyers who come out of the school do end up being activist judges, the issue is that the school stands for that principle. I would imagine that most lawyers who leave Regent are capable, even remarkable attorneys. Certainly everyone I met there was intelligent and articulate, and many of them have gone on to impressive careers. My beef is not with the students, it is with the idea of the school, with the idea that a legal education should be attached to a moral and political code. Other law schools aren't predominantly liberal because the schools teach them to be that way (although I'll admit some do), it is because a legal education naturally leads to the belief that the freedom to is greater than the freedom from.

This isn't your daughter's Catholic school. The Ten Commandments, the Banners, these are not just empty signals of a private faith. They are a call to arms. I don't know how far into the website you got, but when you look at the curriculum page, for instance, you will find a required first year course entitled "Christian Foundation of Law". The speaker invited to give the keynote address spoke to a captive audience for an hour about how abortion and atheism threatened the democracy envisioned by our founders when they created the pledge of allegiance. He wasn't only wrong, he was insulting. I would never invite someone to what is essentially my home, then use it as a platform to preach to them, and inaccurately at that. I understand that many conservatives would be offended by what they might hear at my law school, but the difference is that we invite people of all views to speak, and debate, and find common ground.

Re: The Serial Shitter Arsonist of San Francisco

Hala Furst — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 07:04:48 -0000

I haven't looked at the statute, but those sentences are likely to run concurrently. And if he's caught, he's going to plea out, so we're probably looking at closer to 5 years, total. Plus a "structure" has certain statutory connotations that probably aren't meant by a port-a-potty... permanence is usually a prerequisite.

Sorry, but in the overcrowded prison system of California, poo burner doesn't rank too far up there.

Re: Why War on Gaza Is Bad For US

Hala Furst — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:42:40 -0000

I'm not sure the men, women, and children of gaza can appreciate his subtlety or etiquette.

Re: Why War on Gaza Is Bad For US

Hala Furst — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:01:24 -0000

But what do you make of Obama's reticence to even comment on Gaza. He trots out new initiatives every day, but mention Palestine and it is the whole "one president at a time" line. While I credit his adherence to protocol, I'm nervous about what he will actually do about Gaza when he takes office. I'm afraid he isn't saying because it is the one place Change in American policy will not take hold.

More than anything the possibility of the US putting boots on the ground to defend iIsrael scares the beejeezus out of me. We cannot, cannot continue this full-throated defense of a nati that opposed to our own national security. Blatantly, arrogantly so. A fictional president once moved to put American peacekeeping troops in Palestine to help broker peace. What are the chances, do you think, of Obama doing something like that? Would it even make sense, would it even be worth it? To a certain extent it is our mess, but would that action help to clean it up.

Re: Live Blogging From SF Gaza Protest

Hala Furst — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:55:44 -0000

We may still die without smelling any olive trees, mostly because Israel has seen fit to tear them from the ground.

I agree that it is up to our generation to move beyond the guilt and the anger to work towards peace. But I worry that we do not have partners who feel the same way on the Israeli side.

And I worry that the guilt never really leaves.