President Bush Names Samuel Alito To the Supreme Court

President Bush has named as the next Associate Justice to the

Some judicial opinoins, from Wikipedia:

* Alito wrote the opinion for ACLU v. Schundler (1999), holding that a holiday display on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it included secular symbols, such as a large plastic Santa Claus, in addition to religious symbols.
* A dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld. As JudgeAlito reasoned, “[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands’ knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion.” Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito’s dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito’s reasoning.

and from Outside the Beltway:

For a unanimous panel, upheld a lower-court order requiring a school district to allow a Bible-study group to set up an information table at an elementary-school back-to-school night. Reasoned that by preventing the group from displaying its literature, the district was discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. (Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Township School District, 2004)

Dissented from a ruling by the 3rd Circuit as a whole that an elementary school did not violate the First Amendment rights of a kindergartener by taking down (and then putting back up) a Thanksgiving poster he’d made that said the thing he was most thankful for was Jesus. The majority decided to throw out the case on a technicality; Alito protested that the child’s claim should go forward. (C.H. v. Oliva, 2000)

Dissented from a refusal to grant police officers immunity from a civil suit brought by a mother and her 10-year-old daughter who’d each been strip-searched because they lived in the home of a suspected drug dealer. Alito felt the police had behaved reasonably because the warrant led them to conclude that there was probable cause to search everyone in the house for drugs. (Doe v. Groody, 2004)

So a good guy. Alito is also a Catholic, which means that Bush has now replaced a Lutheran (Rehnquist) with a Catholic and now an Episcopalian/Anglo-Catholic with a Catholic. This should ease some of the criticisms of evangelical bias

The Volokh Conspiracy expands:

A Catholic Majority on the Court?:

There will be, if Alito is confirmed. This is an extraordinary development. It was, let’s recall, only forty-five years ago that JFK’s Catholicism was a major issue in a presidential campaign. As Ken Kersch and Philip Hamburger have shown, anti-Catholic sentiment played a large role in the development of modern establishment clause jurisprudence (in part through the influence of that old KKKer, Hugo Black). The leading separationist group after WWII was known as Protestants [now, Americans] United for the Separation of Church and State.

Captain’s Quarters says:

Of course, the Democrats blew their one opportunity to get a moderate on the bench during the Bush administration by waiting until Miers withdrew before defending her. Prior to that, Charles Schumer and Pat Leahy took great pains to call her questionnaire response “insulting” and echoing conservative complaints that her resume seemed too lightweight for a nomination to the Supreme Court. Had they pledged to support her, Bush likely would have allowed her to coast through the hearings to a floor vote despite the dissatisfaction on the right.

(For the curious, Tom Barnett predicted this.)

To make it better, the one criticism CQ came up with is that he may be too libertarian!

DrumWaster has an even simpler formula for liking the pick:

I also heard Harry Reid is unhappy about this pick….makes me happy just to hear that. Heh.

Michelle Malkin notes that Confirm Them “if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, ‘the filibuster will not stand..'” tdaxp has written about Conservative judge victories in a strategic perspective, before.

TMH Bacon Bits links to Blogs for Bush‘s Confirm Alito Coalition

confirm_alito_coalition_md

Thank you, President Bush.

Update: tdaxp‘s Washington correspondent Catholicgauze has two words to charges of a coming Catholic judicial theocracy: “Faster, please”

curia_catholic

Update: Because of spam, I have ended trackbacks for this post :-(.

The People’s Republic of China v. tdaxp

Well, it happened. No sooner had the brave little blog tdaxp cricized President Bush


Bush: Not Always a Friend of tdaxp

… than the Texan used his ChiCom neocon cronies to censor tdaxp:

tdaxp is being blockaded by “cyber-safety software” in the People’s Republic of China!

What’s next — a ChiCom knock-off — tPRCxp?

tdaxp_prc2
Red tdaxp Rising?

Therefore, I have no choice but to defect to the paleocons and advocate the dismemberment of China The Han Tyranny:

The Han Tyranny, and her Colonies
Free East Turkestan!
Free Inner Mongolia!
Free Tibet!

Update: Perhaps “The Han Tyranny” is too kind a word — perhaps I meant The Cruel Empire of the Tsan-Chan!:

There was a mind from the planet we know as Venus, which would live incalculable epochs to come, and one from an outer moon of Jupiter six million years in the past. Of earthly minds there were some from the winged, starheaded, half-vegetable race of palaeogean Antarctica; one from the reptile people of fabled Valusia; three from the furry pre-human Hyperborean worshippers of Tsathoggua; one from the wholly abominable Tcho-Tchos; two from the arachnid denizens of earth’s last age; five from the hardy coleopterous species immediately following mankind, to which the Great Race was some day to transfer its keenest minds en masse in the face of horrible peril; and several from different branches of humanity.

I talked with the mind of Yiang-Li, a philosopher from the cruel empire of Tsan-Chan, which is to come in 5,000 A.D.; with that of a general of the greatheaded brown people who held South Africa in 50,000 B.C.; with that of a twelfth-century Florentine monk named Bartolomeo Corsi; with that of a king of Lomar who had ruled that terrible polar land one hundred thousand years before the squat, yellow Inutos came from the west to engulf it.

I talked with the mind of Nug-Soth, a magician of the dark conquerors of 16,000 A.D.; with that of a Roman named Titus Sempronius Blaesus, who had been a quaestor in Sulla’s time; with that of Khephnes, an Egyptian of the 14th Dynasty, who told me the hideous secret of Nyarlathotep, with that of a priest of Atlantis’ middle kingdom; with that of a Suffolk gentleman of Cromwell’s day, James Woodville; with that of a court astronomer of pre-Inca Peru; with that of the Australian physicist Nevil Kingston-Brown, who will die in 2,518 A.D.; with that of an archimage of vanished Yhe in the Pacific; with that of Theodotides, a Greco-Bactrian official Of 200 B.C.; with that of an aged Frenchman of Louis XIII’s time named Pierre-Louis Montagny; with that of Crom-Ya, a Cimmerian chieftain of 15,000 B.C.; and with so many others that my brain cannot hold the shocking secrets and dizzying marvels I learned from them.

The Shadow Out of Time by H.P. Lovecraft (courtesy of the Lovecraft Timeline).

End Of Daily Savings Blogospheric Links

I’m currently reading Dr. Barnett’s Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating and finishing up a literature review. While Mark’s got that done already and has moved on to other books, some of us are slower… So expect light blogging for the next few days. In the meantime…

End Of Daily Savings Blogospheric Links

Marc Shulman’s American Future looks at British moral weakness, (perhaps self-hate?), Andrew Sullivan‘s Iraq War jubilation, and the New York Times acting like the State Department (they’ve done this before).

Simon notes that Chinese Communists weren’t that kind to Korean War POWs. At least they are now vowing to crush the Maoists. Also some fear-mongering about a Chinese economic crash I criticized elsewhere.

TavoLoco, who along with Stuart Berman has been active in tdaxp‘s “Acquiring Network Address” thread, expands his GeoCities presence.

Slashdot links to Forbes‘ attack on blog swarming (hat-tip to Boing Boing, Zombie attacks (a type of net attack, like Hastert’s), as well as the most ignorant criticism of Creationism I have ever heard: “Among the most significant forces is the rising tide of anti-science sentiment that seems to have its nucleus in Washington but which extends throughout the nation”. (Creationism is a mass movement, not one of the political elite). I have done some work in evolutionary science, by the way.

MyDD continues the netroot response to Beinart’s A Fighting Faith. Somewhat relatedly, Daily Kos celebrates Bill Clinton’s “fight or find something else to do” comment, and misses the point completely. It’s about ideas.

Blogospheric Saturday

Bill from Dawn’s Early Light looks at Japan’s Asia strategy (twice). He also links the beautiful blog and Westphalian religious peace while trying to send Bill Roggio to Iraq.

Chirol and Curzon from Coming Anarchy looks at Iran’s Threatened Destruction of Israel – er, make that Iran’s Eternal Peace with Israel. Overlaps with Iran treating Syria like a pimp treats an old whore..

Josh from One Free Korea notes that the Uri (Our Open Party) -dominated South Korean government leaked the personal information of thousands of defectors. No wonder Hillary Clinton is upset. Happily, Uri was bitch-slapped while North Koreans still risk their lives for freedom.

Mark from ZenPundit looks at a lot of smart stuff, including America’s relationship to China, America’s relationship to France, good blog reading. Don’t forget a 5GW post from Small Wars Journal with a response from Caerdroia… these led me to dream about pedophilia laws.

Some good posts at tdaxp too: King Solomon and blogospheric redundancy, Clausewitzian insurgents, and Republican leader intenet attacks.

The Failure of Global Guerrillaism: Democracies Withstand Economic Pain

Economic Chaos and the Fragility of Democratic Transition in Former Communist Regimes,” by Raymond M. Duch, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 1. (Feb., 1995), pp. 121-158, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816%28199502%2957%3A1%3C121%3AECATFO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5.

A Halt to Iraqi Oil Exports,” by John Robb, Global Guerrillas, 23 October 2005, http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2005/10/journal_a_halt_.html (also at Strategy Unit).

Under the rubric of systempunkt, John Robb has been pushing the idea that successful guerrillas will go after the schwerpunkt (center of gravity) of Western countries and their allies: money.

The combination of a bad weather and a storm have halted all Iraqi oil exports. Guerrillas hit a systempunkt — a pipeline gathering point for four fields — of the northern Iraqi oil network today with four bombs. This has totally shut down production from northern Iraq and the repairs will likely take a month to accomplish. In parallel, bad weather has shut down loading at the Basra offshore oil terminal completely shutting down the only remaining export point for Iraqi oil. It is important to note that not all damage from system disruption occurs as a direct result of attacks. Much of it happens when a stressed system is confronted with additional system perturbations. This incident a classic example of this (so was Katrina on a stressed US oil system).

Not only is this bad strategy generally: wise leaders go after their enemies’ weaknesses, not their strength, it is statistically unlikely to produce regime change (bold mine, italics the author’s, footnotes removed for clarity):

In the early reform period, perceptions of a declining economy promoted support for both free markets and Democracy in the former Soviet Union. And while there is some evidence in Latin America supporting the association of economic crisis and coups d’etat, the recent wave of democratization in Latin America during a period of economic crisis challenges this economic determinism argument). Political experience of the 1980s indicates that, even in Latin American countries facing serious economic and political crises, citizen attachments to democracy institutions are not undermined by acute economic crisis. Also challenging conventional wisdom, Zimmerman in Sallfeld present European historical evidence for the 1930s suggesting that economic chaos had little direct or indirect effect on the survival of democratic regimes in that period. And while many students of Eastern and Central European democratization have argued that political and economic reforms are seriously threatened by the economic chaos that has accompanied the reform process, the reforms are proving resilient.

Certainly countries with corrupt governments that do not reform might see their public turn against them, but “systempunkt”-style attacks would not be the cause: pre-existing general government paralyze would be.

Global Guerrillaism is the application of 3G ideology to guerrilla wars. It is built to fail.

Speaker Hastert Attacks Oil Company Record Profits (Blog Network Attacks)

Welcome to my Blog,” by Dennis Hastert, Speaker’s Journal, 27 October 2005, http://www.speaker.gov/journal/051027_firstblog.shtml.

Speaker of the House Denny Hastert has a new blog. But that’s not the news: an attack in three paragraphs from his first post is.

The attack:

Speaking of the Hurricane season, renewed attention has been brought to the way we refine gasoline in this country. Today, energy companies started reporting their 3rd quarter earnings, and while Americans paying were record prices at the pump, energy companies were making record profits.

That’s odd… a Republican leader attacking oil companies for making too much money? What’s going on?

Visually:

hastert_0
The Republican Party (blue) attacks Oil Companies (red) — but why?

But this isn’t a legislative attack — which Hastert could launch, if he wanted to. He is using a blog, so it is an attempt to convert at least some members of the public. This just deepens the mystery — why launch a pseudo-attack to get people mad at oil companies?

hastert_1
The Republican Party (blue) rallies the People (Dark Grey) Against Oil Companies (Red) — the mystery deepens

Hmm… let’s take a look at the remaining two paragraphs that mention oil companies:

This is America. And Republicans don’t believe in punishing success. But what are these oil companies doing to bring down the cost of oil and natural gas? They haven’t built a refinery here in America since the 1970’s. They’ve built refineries overseas, but nothing here at home.

We want some answers and you folks out there in the blogosphere do too. When are new refineries going to be built here in America? When is the Alaska pipeline deal going to be signed so we can get natural gas to consumers quicker? Conoco Phillips has reached an agreement with the state of Alaska on the pipeline. Exxon Mobil and BP need to do the same. These companies need to invest in America’s energy infrastructure and resources. Until they do, we’re going to be asking some tough questions.

Ah ha! It becomes clear: Hastert is upset that new refinaries haven’t been built, and the force stopping this is the environmentalists. Clever of the Speaker not to mention them by name — learning is better remembered when the learner has to do some thinking himself. So like a teacher that makes his pupils think so they will remember the lesson better, Speaker Hastert is counting on the reader to figure out the enemy is the environmentalists:

hastert_2 The Republicans (Blue) launch a pseudo-attack on the Oil Companies (Red), while encouraging the People (Dark Grey) to be hostile to the Environmentalists (light grey)

Of course, the Republican-led attack on environmentalists is not unprovoked. The reason it is needed in the first place is that the Environmentalists have been hostile to the oil companies for years, preventing them from fully serving the people

Visually

hastert_3
The Republican-led attack on the oil companies forces the Environmentalists to fight a two-front war

This is very clever. The heart of war is reinforcing your strong points, not your weak points The oil companies already have little popularity, so instead of foolishly trying to bolster them directly, he transforms public hostility to oil companies into public hostility toward the enemy of the oil companies. Master strategists like Sun Tzu and John Boyd would be proud.

So what is the goal? What is the Republican/Oil Company “future worth creating” — their “happy ending”? Simple: the neutralization of the environmentalists so both the oil companies and the Republican Party can fully interact with the People without that interference. Visually:

hastert_4
A Harmonious Internet

I have written about net attacks and counterattacks before. And also real-world internets, also called seas of friction.

Local Government And Democracy

Everything is Meaningless [Chapter 1:3,8-11],” attributed to King Solomon, The Book of Ecclesiastes, circa 300 BC, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201:3,8-11;&version=31;.

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued) [The Federalist No. 10],” by James Madison, New York Packet, 23 November 1787, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm.

Environmental Influences on Democracy: Aridity, Warfare, and a Reversal of the Causal Arrow,” by Manus Midlarsky, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 39, No. 2. (Jun., 1995), pp. 224-262, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0027%28199506%2939%3A2%3C224%3AEIODAW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2 (from tdaxp).

Local Government and Democratic Political Development,” by Henry Teune, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 540, Local Governance around the World. (Jul., 1995), pp. 11-23, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28199507%29540%3C11%3ALGADPD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V.

Democracy and openDemocracy,” by Isabel Hilton and Anthony Barnett, openDemocracy, 12 October 2005, http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-opening/barnett_hilton_2792.jsp.

Dangerously Naive,” by Mark Schulman, American Future, 18 October 2005, http://americanfuture.net/?p=637.

Agitating for a Hermetically Sealed “Democracy”,” by Mark Safranski, Zen Pundit, 18 October 2005, http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2005/10/agitating-for-hermetically-sealed.html.

Debating our debate,” by Anthony Barnett, oD Today, 23 October 2005, http://opendemocracy.typepad.com/wsf/2005/10/debating_our_de.html.

What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?

All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.

Ecclesiastes 1:3,8-11

In spite of my occasionally griping about the leftist, closed-minded, economically dubious, and intellectually redundant nature of the University, sometimes it is useful for blogging. Consider the evolution of a debate on globalization and democracy. Hilton and Barnett of the Sorosistically named openDemocracy journal first attack the idea that globalization helps democracy:

The end of the cold war in 1989 opened the way for the extension of democratic government to many countries around the world. Now, terrorism, fundamentalism and the imposition of the neo-liberal form of globalisation threaten to halt and even reverse this process. Democracy is under attack from without, and, even more insidiously, from within.

The way in which globalisation has undermined peoples’ belief in democratic self-government is familiar. This is the age of democracy, yet the democratic claim of universal equality of worth is mocked by the intensification of global inequalities that marked the end of the 20th century.

The reach of multinational corporations; the influence of a few powerful states and of opaque international financial institutions; the weakness of the United Nations as a force for positive government; the remoteness of the governance of the European Union; the mendacity, cynicism and populism of the global media; the awesome threats of climate change – all combine to undermine the citizens’ faith in the efficacy of democratic government.

Globalisation as part of the everyday experience of life has been part of human history since the16th century, when the marketplace that was the Netherlands stretched to the Spice Islands of what we now call southeast Asia. Historically it has sharpened differences rather than creating homogeneity. The development of markets across the world and the separation of law from the state permitted hideous exploitation under colonial empires, but also laid the groundwork for independence and national democratic constitutions.

Sadly, Schulman has no true response to these claims. He accuses Barnett and Hilton of blaming America first. He does accuse them of selective reporting of evidence, and the best he throws is mentioning that the anti-War protests are put on by some bad people.

No mention is made of the anti-democratic organizers of these demonstrations: ANSWER and the British Socialist Workers Party. Nor is mention made of the absence of demonstrations against the tyrants of our day.

Barnett seems to grant Schulman’s concrete criticisms…

As for the leadership of the anti-war demonstrations, I agree.

…because they do not effect his major point: globalization is bad for democracy.

Mark from ZenPundit joins in by defending globalization’s effects on liberty, but let’s the claim that globalization attacks democracy go uncontested:

I have to add that there is a definite incongruity between advocating political freedom to make choices in terms of one’s government while wanting to preclude or restrict the economic freedom to make choices in every other area of one’s life – work, lifestyle, access to information, travel, religion and culture. Denying people the latter ultimately makes a mockery of the former; a farmer chained in perpetuity behind his water buffalo by the state casts a ballot only to decide which hand is going to hold the whip over his head.

” In the general course of human nature, A power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will. “

What’s interesting is that the original article makes two claims, globalization hurts democracy and lack of local power hurts democracy, that have been discussed for decades. On inequality and the origins of democracy, Manus Midlarsky writes:

Although the impact of land inequality on democracy was discovered independently, this relationship is consistent with that implied in Wittfogel’s work. He emphasized the contrast between early modern Europe and despotic hydraulic civilization. As Wittfogel (1957) put it,

In late feudal and postfeudal Europe the state recognized a system of inheritance for the landed nobles which favored one son at the expense of all others. And in the modern Western world the state by and large permitted the individual to dispose over his property at will. The hydraulic state gave no equivalent freedom of decision either to holders of mobile property or to the landowners. Its laws of inheritance insiseted upon a more or less equal division of the deceased estate, and thereby upon a periodic fragmentation of property. (pp 84-85).

Thus, as a result of continual subdivision, a basic land inequality was prevented from emerging in hydraulic society. A nobility with large holdings and, in consequence, an independent power base to challenge despotic authorities could not come into being, in contrast to the Northern European experience.

Midlarsky then goes on to cite some conflicting literature. To sum up, Barnett and Hilton are oversimplifying a complex subject.

Ditto for the words on local control and democracy. Barnett and Hilton essentially echo Teuene from 1995:

The linkage between local government and democracy is based on the proposition that political participation if meaningful insofar as it deals with the familiar, a tenet of the Federalist Papers. Another aspect of tis argument is that the incentives for participation are stronger locally than nationally in that visible consequence are more visible and immediate on the local level. There are two supporting propositions for this part of the argument: the larger the political unit, the longer it takes to form a democratic political coalitions; and the larger the unit, the greater the diversity of eeh groups and individuals required for compromise, the less likely decisive action will be taken at all, frustrating the collective aspirations of the many.”

Here, the refutation is more than two hundred years old

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

So to correct Mr. Schulman, Barnett and Hilton aren’t anti-American: only anti-Federalist. (Of course, those arguments have been made before, too).

As some man of old said, there is nothing new under the Sun. Or something like that.

The Future That Might Have Been

Geography and Foreign Policy, I,” by Nicholar Spykman, The American Political Science Review, Vol 32 No 1, February 1938, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554%28193802%2932%3A1%3C28%3AGAFPI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9.

I’ve always loved past predictions of the future. I remember watching shorts on the Disney Channel in the early mornings, presenting the potential of America and California in the 1950s. An article in Wired years ago with the phrease “I Remember San-San” still strikes my heart, even if I can no longer find that article, or the book it reviewed.

So imagine my delight when I came across this passage from an article by Dr. Spykman from 1938

The same lack of systems of communications, coupled in the case of China with a complete absence of industrial technique, has so far kept both Brazil and China from effectively integrating their vast territories. There is little escape from the conclusion that size means potential strength, and that with the diffusion of Western technology great size plus time and a will to power will almost inevitably mean actual strength. Unless the dreams of European Confederation should materialize, it may well be that fifty years from now the qudarumvirate of world powers will be China, India, the United States, and the U.S.S.R.

While the Russians for a time secured an Outer Empire, both that and the Russian Middle Empire have sinced faded away, while the Inner Empire dies. Still…

  • An emphasis on connectivity
  • A combination of old (US, European) and new (Indian, Chinese, Brazillian?) powers
  • A focus on spreading technology

That was (and is) a future worth creating.

Update: Chirol goes back even further in time to the era of Prime Minister George W. Gladstone:

Remember the rights of the savage, as we call him. Remember that the happiness of his humble home, remember that the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan among the winter snows, are as sacred in the eye of Almighty God as are your own. (Loud cheers). Remember that He who has united you together as human beings in the same flesh and blood, has bound you by the law of mutual love, that that mutual love is not limited by the shores of this island, is not limited by the boundaries of Christian civilisation, that it passes over the whole surface of the earth, and embraces the meanest along with the greatest in its wide scope