| (no subject) |
[Sep. 14th, 2008|11:18 am] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  annoyed | ] |
It amazes me that some people can't grasp that "it's unconstitutional" isn't a valid argument for why the government shouldn't do something. Constitutional and unconstitutional aren't right and wrong. They aren't good idea, bad idea. They aren't even legal and illegal. All "it's unconstitutional" means is that the government can't legally do something without a whole lot of hassle and popular support. In short it's a delaying tactic. Maybe the statement shifts the debate to what is the proper interpretation of the Welfare clause, the constitutional basis of a right to privacy, or the relationship of the phrase "well-regulated militia" to the individual's right to own a gun. Maybe it transforms the debate into a question of whether or not there should be an amendment rather than just a law. And maybe the debate drags on long enough to kill the issue. Or maybe it just drags on indefinitely.
Argue against the idea on it's merits. Argue against it's economic impact. Argue against it's contribution to the common good. Explain the potential for abuse. Or that it isn't God's will. Tell us how it will destroy the country's international reputation. Or contribute to social decay. Demonstrate how similar ideas have failed in other countries. Or how implementation would increase national debt. Point out how it's a first step on the slippery slope to socialism. Or that it will stifle innovation.
Just please recognize constitutionality for what it is: the very last point of opposition within the law. The rallying point for public outcry against overreaching government power. The last buffer against trampling the rights of the minority. The guarantee that we are all implicit in the most drastic changes to our government and our rights. The very last call to protest that which we know is wrong.
The simple fact is that if the constitutionality of a particular idea is the only thing standing between the people and something they want, that's a fairly small issue. If you oppose an idea, don't concede every battleground but the last. Don't choose to argue technicalities over merits before you must. Convince us we're wrong before we ever reach this point.
This rant brought to you by the fact that I am sick and tired of seeing "We can't have universal health care because it's unconstitutional" posted all over the internet. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Nov. 16th, 2006|09:40 pm] |
|
You are the Hanged Man
Self-sacrifice, Sacrifice, Devotion, Bound.
With the Hanged man there is often a sense of fatalism, waiting for something to happen. Or a fear of
loss from a situation, rather than gain.
The Hanged Man is perhaps the most fascinating card in the deck. It reflects the story of Odin who offered himself as a sacrifice in order to gain knowledge. Hanging from the world tree, wounded by a spear, given no bread or mead, he hung for nine days. On the last day, he saw on the ground runes that had fallen from the tree, understood their meaning, and, coming down, scooped them up for his own. All knowledge is to be found in these runes.
The Hanged Man, in similar fashion, is a card about suspension, not life or death. It signifies selflessness, sacrifice and prophecy. You make yourself vulnerable and in doing so, gain illumination. You see the world differently, with almost mystical insights.
What Tarot Card are You?
Take the Test to Find Out. |
|
|
| Another one of my questions and the internet spelling game. |
[Nov. 9th, 2006|01:31 am] |
I'm not a great speller and my grammar has gone downhill since high school, but I'd like to think when I misspell something it is at least apparent I've seen the word before. That doesn't seem to be true of alot of people posting on the internet. So here's the question: What English word is "redrick" intended to be? I'll give ya'll the hint that it was used while discussing politics.
Q4. At what level(s) should government operate? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Oct. 22nd, 2006|01:54 am] |
Not that anyone cares but I'm finally up to question 3. I keep skipping ahead to the God and religion questions. For some reason those seem more important now than they usually do. So I've spent an awful lot of time and energy questioning my belief in God this evening and it has left me in a odd mood.
Anyway,
Q3. What role should the state play towards the family?
And a bonus question that I'll even answer.
Q41. How do you try to understand the world?
I try to understand things by asking myself a series of 30 to 50 questions (in this case I'd bet on 41), answering them, considering the implications of those answers, refining the questions and then repeating. I think the process has led me to a very nice world view that leaves me convinced I'm right and everybody else is usually wrong. It is a world view I'm pretty sure doesn't match reality but I stopped letting that bother me awhile ago. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Aug. 22nd, 2006|11:38 pm] |
| [ | Current Mood |
| |  sad | ] |
My niece is huge, and now has her own bed.c
Q2. Should violence in entertainment be reduced?
This is probably the longest I've ever taken to move from one question to another, but I got distracted by other stuff. And in any case, no one else actually cares. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Aug. 9th, 2006|11:04 pm] |
|
I really just don't get this. I can understand wanting to win, thats fine. But I really think this coach went a bit far. If the premise of the league is that every kid gets to play, then let the kids play. Pretty sure not one of those kids needs an adult to flat out say "I think you're a bad player", regardless of their medical history. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jun. 14th, 2006|08:38 pm] |
Posting cause I'm exhausted but can't get to sleep cause this popped into my head and now I'm thinking about it (again):
Q1. Why is murder illegal?
Yeah, I'm doing this again, just be glad I don't post the questions every time I ask them. It is kind of weird to realize both how long I've been doing this (over ten years) and just how much of my view of the world has been shaped by asking these questions. This one in particular has probably been the biggest single influence on how I think about governments. Probably not the best way to do things, but I don't really care. It makes it alot easier to just be unreasonable when I feel like it. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jun. 7th, 2006|08:39 pm] |
|
Remember: If you vote, you're voting to deprive fellow citizens of their preferred representation. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 25th, 2006|01:45 am] |
The internet may very well be the end of political discussion. Or of any significant discussion at all on controversial matters. Sure the internet provides access to all sorts of evidence, and places ideas and arguments where huge numbers of people can read and respond, but above all else the internet lets you find someone who agrees with you. No matter how bizarre your idea is, there's probably a website or blog out there espousing similar ideas (There are people out there that appear serious about wanting the 19th amendment repealed so if you can't find someone who agrees with your crazy politics, you just aren't looking hard enough). Once you find it, you never need to worry about finding your own evidence again. Everything that supports your plan is right there on a handy link. And anything that shows a flaw in the plan, isn't.
What's more, you never need to try convincing anyone you're right: you've already found a whole community that agrees with you. And there's no sense of just how insignificant that community really is, sure only a couple dozen people post actively, but surely thousands more are reading. Besides going out and convincing people you're right isn't the way the internet works; they'll come to you when they want to be convinced.
You'll never have to intelligently defend your ideas either, the only opposition you'll find in your community will be from people so rabidly opposed that they'll open with personal attacks rather than try to present a coherent argument. It's all strongly biased people posting their take on current events and whipping each other into a frenzy to post more. For the most part, they don't have any desire to do anything except tell each other how right they are.
No debate, no discussion that requires refinement or adjustment of the argument. It's right because it's right and if you don't see that you should find a different website. Anyone in disagreement should direct their comments to the opposition website which will inevitably spring up. Then everyone can just pretend the other side doesn't exist. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 7th, 2006|09:20 am] |
This takes a special sort of brain.
I think the next logical step is to choose a random homeless person and follow them around with signs claiming that being poor is God's punishment for living in a country that tolerates homosexuality. Or maybe cancer patients. |
|
|
| Call to arms |
[Jan. 6th, 2006|11:46 pm] |
Due to clear provocations, a state of war now exists between myself and ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) meatcurtains. I urge everyone to join me in the battle against this cunning enemy. Despite the enemy's use of unconventional and inhumane weaponry, I hold a clear military advantage of one Nerf weapon to none.
Be advised the enemy has shown a willingness to deploy jazz bands in furtherance of his goals, clearly demonstrating his indifference to the welfare of civilians. It is in everyone's interest that my inevitable victory come quickly. Further, anyone entering the war zone should take care to avoid stray foam ordinance.
Yes, I'm really this bored. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Dec. 24th, 2005|10:07 am] |
Maybe he just took this too literally:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Nov. 10th, 2005|09:43 pm] |
 | You scored as Old School Democrat. Old school Democrats emphasize economic justice and opportunity. The Democratic ideal is best summarized by the Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
Old School Democrat | | 70% | Green | | 65% | New Democrat | | 65% | Libertarian | | 40% | Socially Conservative Republican | | 35% | Foreign Policy Hawk | | 30% | Pro Business Republican | | 30% | </td>
What's Your Political Philosophy?
created with QuizFarm.com |
|
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Sep. 24th, 2005|07:10 pm] |
You are a
Social Liberal
(91% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(35% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Strong Democrat
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (155, -57)
modscore: (21, 55)
raw: (2554)
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating |
|
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Sep. 21st, 2005|11:05 pm] |
 Bears are strong and independent creatures who roam in the forest in search of food. Bears are usually gentle, but anger one and be prepared for their full fury! You're tough, you won't back down from a fight -- classic attributes of a bear. Intelligent and resourceful, though lazy at times, you are a fascinating creature of the wild. You were almost a: Frog or a MouseYou are least like a: Duckling or a LambWhat Cute Animal Are You? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Sep. 17th, 2005|09:55 pm] |
|
Harvest moon tonight. Go look. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jul. 16th, 2005|01:17 pm] |
Is it any surprise we have such lousy government officials when so many voters are worthless human beings?
For awhile, I thought this year's best example would be the guy who wouldn't return someone else's severed finger. Even with 6 or 7 months left in the year, I really thought that would be hard to top. But then Michael Schiavo decided having the last word was so important that he carved it into his wife's tombstone. I wasn't entirely sure that was as bad as the severed finger bit, but I figured I'd have the rest of the year to figure it out cause no one else would come close.
I should really stop being so optimistic: A T-ball coach apparently paid one of his players to injure a mentally disabled teammate so the coach could get around the rule requiring that all players play at least three innings. How can winning a T-ball game possibly be that important? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jul. 5th, 2005|12:46 pm] |
The guys on MSNBC talking about the flag burning amendment actually made some sense today. The pro-amendment guy said something along the lines of: This amendment isn't about freedom of speech, it isn't about flags or symbols. It's about protecting the Constitution.
And he's absolutely right: After all the flags are burned, the next logical step would be to burn the Constitution (or atleast copies of it). Better stop this early. We can't have people running around burning pieces of paper.
He also said some idiotic thing about "the wishes of the minority should never outweigh the wishes of the majority."
Also, my future niece is apparently very patient. Or maybe she just likes messing with Rod and Jessica. Or maybe she has been born, and they just forgot to tell me. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[May. 6th, 2005|11:12 pm] |
I think I've finally found something that bothers me more than all the idiot politicians. Suppose someone loses a body part and that you find it. Further, suppose you're informed that there's still a chance it can be reattached. Isn't returning the body part the only action you can take that indicates you are still both human and sane?
What reason is there for keeping the thing?
'It's evidence for my lawsuit. I'm sure to be awarded millions for the trauma of finding a finger in my food, especially after showing complete indifference to my fellow human being following his own trauma of losing a finger.' - not sane or human. Best reason for hunting down lawyers yet.
'I ate some of that food. That finger could have AIDS. I'll should keep it so I can get it tested. I'm too busy now though so I'll just chuck in the freezer until I have more time.' - Human, not sane. Pretty sure that almost any disease the finger had, its previous owner has as well. Also pretty sure, the guy would have been more than willing to be tested for any number of crazy diseases if it meant he got his finger back.
'Hey, a finger! I better take that home in case I ever need a spare.' - Not sane, but the most reasonable thing I've come up with so far.
I suppose cannibalism is a possible explanation, but once again not sane or human.
I really just can't wrap my brain around this. It seems like such a huge act of indifference towards another human being. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
