Someone brought up the topic of homosexual marriage some post back, and said that we can't refer to the Founders because no Founding document ever mentions the subject. Well, for one, that doesn't really matter, and for two, the Founders had things to say on homosexuality in general, and generally cast it as contrary to good citizenship.
Also, I can't believe you said law should not be based on tradition. Let me count the ways that law is based on tradition. English common law, the basis of much of Western and American law relies heavily on tradition, and the English Constitution, which is unwritten is nearly 100% tradition. Law would not exist without a rich and deep tradition. And to say we can't use tradition because it would have no foresight, I say hogwash. Foresight to what? That doesn't make any sense.
Now, Several states around the country have slowly begun to challenge or question the assumption that marriage should be reserved for the union of a man and woman.
In a free society, such as in America, the primary organizing and stabilizing factor is the family. Alexis de Tocqueville, an astute French observer of American life, notes in his book, Democracy in America, that “There is no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America. In Europe, almost all the disturbances of society arise from irregularities in domestic life.” He goes on to call the American family “an image of order and peace” as well as the device in which the American man moderates his opinions and tastes. In other words, a nation which produces strong families is likely to also produce effective governments. Tocqueville laments the lack of such family life in his home country, which he describes as full of “fluctuating desire”, “restlessness of heart”, and “agitated by tumultuous passions.” The moderation of American thinking and public service Tocqueville, at least partially, attributes to the strength and tradition of the American family.
The recognition of civil unions between two men or two women would inevitably lead to the decline of the American family as it has been understood since the inception of our nation. Without the moral and sensible regulation the family brings to life, America could drift into an era of moral disintegration, social agitation, and political extremism. The creation of a good, upright citizenry is best done through the influence of traditional family life.
Tocqueville saw the disruptive nature of French life and recoiled. To embrace such contemporary radicalism, would have an extraordinary negative effect. Men and women who choose to engage in sexual activitiesw with other members of the same gender already have the right to marry(to a member of the opposite sex, of course) -no right of theirs has been taken away.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Thursday, December 15, 2005
The Sporting Republic
Football is both at its peak and in decline as an American tradition. As far as popularity, fiscal viability, and star-power of its athletes, the NFL is at an all time high. The league is widely popular with both young and old, it sells massive amounts of jerseys, magazines and other paraphenlia. Its biggest stars, like Terrell Owens and Peyton Manning, are instantly recognizable to the average American. The league is intelligently structured with salary caps, free-agency (for good or ill), and other arrangements that maximize competitiveness. It generates a lot of money from ticket sales and television contracts, and can also have an enormous impact on local economies. Life has never been better for the NFL and its members.
However, this has been achieved at great cost. In the lates 1960s and early 1970s, Pete Rozelle had a vision of a dominating, profit-maximizing, modern NFL that could tantilize the public. He took steps to move the NFL to modernity by introducing many of the media-driven and drama-pushing aspects of the NFL we see today. However, it is not clear that Rozelle meant to create some of the monstrosities we see in today's football.
When football as a competitive sport began in the late 1870s, and became more professionally dominated perhaps by the 1920s-30s, it was to promote the idea of a much cliched term of a scholar-athlete. Or roughly speaking, to promote good citizenship. Teddy Roosevelt often spoke of the "vigorous life", and how such physical activity was key to the education and character development of a man, and how that promoted good citizenship (and stewardship). While Roosevelt was not one to back down from an athletic or physical challenge, the idea of a "vigorous life", while personally applied, was not ego-centric.
This idea of competition ran strongly in American athletics, especially Olympians, as Olympic competition meant so much more than mere sport, especially in an era of nationalism. (To see idea of how not to represent country, check out the USA's 2004 Mens Basketball Team. What a showcase in selfishness, lack of team, lack of national pride and outright embarrassment. Reason #1 I don't watch NBA anymore. Even the finals.) Football also benefited from this athletic mindset. When George Halas coached the Bears in the early years, he could often not afford to pay his players (who played merely for the love of sport and competition, as they also worked other jobs), so he often held on to his wife's grocery money to provide them with something. As America fell in love with football in the 50s, television became more involved, but the Manly Athlete idea persisited on. But, America began to change, and with it that change many of the ideas of the manly or vigiorous life from antiquity began to get pushed out of the mainstream. In addition to that, as the demand for professional football grew, so did the salaries of its stars. Boys began to dream of football glory for the riches, and not the football itself. This lead to an enormous transformation in the sport, to my mind.
Now, one could say that football has always had its share of jerks and Visigoths, and that may be, and now they are simply more exposed. And I understand that players in the 30s would have played for high salaries if they could. But what I loathe is that their is no pursuit of the vigorious life by football players in the highest sense anymore. Egos run high, publicity is high, the media microscope can be penetrating. I also lament the media's acquiencense in such matters. I do still enjoy the competition and some of the players, but it feels just a little more empty to me now.
Additionally, football is not life. For example, Doug Williams starting a Super Bowl as QB did not shatter NFL racisim. Give me a break. The NFL is exclusively talent-based, more so that almost anything else. How do we undo the damage caused by the Vikings sex-boat? By winning! Now Mike Tice is coach of the year! Seriously get real. Players constantly speak about redeeming their private vices by going out onto the field and "getting it done". Pllllease. Football is not life. It is rarely a reflection of one's personal virtue or integrity anymore. Nick makes some excruciating valid points. The NFL is a pre-packaged love-fest designed to sell and entertain. All that is well and good, but I fear the soul of the NFL is near death.
There are a few athletes who I still consider to be guardians of that soul. One is Peyton Manning, for his love and knowledge of the game. (Despite his ungodly contract.) Some others are Drew Bledsoe for his parenting work and advocacy, Marshall Faulk for his appreciation of the NFL's history and his own humility and Curtis Martin, for similar reasons. I think that these men may understand Roosevelt's idea, broadly speaking. And I also understand that having players like TO and Randy Moss adds to the drama and story that the NFL can produce, but I do see (as far as the images of these men reflects their true nature) them as thieves in the night. And we must not let them seize the soul of the NFL.
However, this has been achieved at great cost. In the lates 1960s and early 1970s, Pete Rozelle had a vision of a dominating, profit-maximizing, modern NFL that could tantilize the public. He took steps to move the NFL to modernity by introducing many of the media-driven and drama-pushing aspects of the NFL we see today. However, it is not clear that Rozelle meant to create some of the monstrosities we see in today's football.
When football as a competitive sport began in the late 1870s, and became more professionally dominated perhaps by the 1920s-30s, it was to promote the idea of a much cliched term of a scholar-athlete. Or roughly speaking, to promote good citizenship. Teddy Roosevelt often spoke of the "vigorous life", and how such physical activity was key to the education and character development of a man, and how that promoted good citizenship (and stewardship). While Roosevelt was not one to back down from an athletic or physical challenge, the idea of a "vigorous life", while personally applied, was not ego-centric.
This idea of competition ran strongly in American athletics, especially Olympians, as Olympic competition meant so much more than mere sport, especially in an era of nationalism. (To see idea of how not to represent country, check out the USA's 2004 Mens Basketball Team. What a showcase in selfishness, lack of team, lack of national pride and outright embarrassment. Reason #1 I don't watch NBA anymore. Even the finals.) Football also benefited from this athletic mindset. When George Halas coached the Bears in the early years, he could often not afford to pay his players (who played merely for the love of sport and competition, as they also worked other jobs), so he often held on to his wife's grocery money to provide them with something. As America fell in love with football in the 50s, television became more involved, but the Manly Athlete idea persisited on. But, America began to change, and with it that change many of the ideas of the manly or vigiorous life from antiquity began to get pushed out of the mainstream. In addition to that, as the demand for professional football grew, so did the salaries of its stars. Boys began to dream of football glory for the riches, and not the football itself. This lead to an enormous transformation in the sport, to my mind.
Now, one could say that football has always had its share of jerks and Visigoths, and that may be, and now they are simply more exposed. And I understand that players in the 30s would have played for high salaries if they could. But what I loathe is that their is no pursuit of the vigorious life by football players in the highest sense anymore. Egos run high, publicity is high, the media microscope can be penetrating. I also lament the media's acquiencense in such matters. I do still enjoy the competition and some of the players, but it feels just a little more empty to me now.
Additionally, football is not life. For example, Doug Williams starting a Super Bowl as QB did not shatter NFL racisim. Give me a break. The NFL is exclusively talent-based, more so that almost anything else. How do we undo the damage caused by the Vikings sex-boat? By winning! Now Mike Tice is coach of the year! Seriously get real. Players constantly speak about redeeming their private vices by going out onto the field and "getting it done". Pllllease. Football is not life. It is rarely a reflection of one's personal virtue or integrity anymore. Nick makes some excruciating valid points. The NFL is a pre-packaged love-fest designed to sell and entertain. All that is well and good, but I fear the soul of the NFL is near death.
There are a few athletes who I still consider to be guardians of that soul. One is Peyton Manning, for his love and knowledge of the game. (Despite his ungodly contract.) Some others are Drew Bledsoe for his parenting work and advocacy, Marshall Faulk for his appreciation of the NFL's history and his own humility and Curtis Martin, for similar reasons. I think that these men may understand Roosevelt's idea, broadly speaking. And I also understand that having players like TO and Randy Moss adds to the drama and story that the NFL can produce, but I do see (as far as the images of these men reflects their true nature) them as thieves in the night. And we must not let them seize the soul of the NFL.
Football
Yeah I got that. My point in that post was that it's basically an entertainment industry now as much as a sporting one. Sort of a real life wwf or something. As such, everyone knows you know about the shadiness that goes on with players, teams, etc. I think what is going on is that there are quite a few decent players and that because they are trying to gear football towards the family entertainment genre (tagliabue released a press statement last year about this), they focus on the better aspects of the game...you know - for the kids. I mean, come on, do you really think anyone over the age of 12 credits anything Joe Theisman says as intelligent and worthy of consideration? Of course not. That's why there's no more Dennis Miller or Rush Limbaugh - too controversial (except maybe in Dennis Miller's case where it was maybe too abstract and remote with the references). So rest easy - when you have kids they can enjoy football and not be negatively influenced by the lesser quality aspects of the game. Cuz the NFL is one big happy family and it loves you.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Re: Football
John--you misunderstand me. My critique is not that football is boring. My critique is that it is getting tougher and tougher to swallow the spit-shined image of football that is sold by its commentators and the league itself.
Underneath the surface, I suspect football is savage, dirty, filled with direputable characters and uncheckable egos. But it is sold as a noble contest, each victory the consequence of hard work, drinking your milk and going to school and all that suchnot. I think part of my disgust stems from the fact that football, nowadays, seems to full of itself (which I attribute to its dominance over other American sports in popularity). Did anyone see the hall of fame ceremony this summer, the induction of Steve Young and Dan Marino? What a self-indugent stroke-fest that was. Why, it could almost inspire the cancer right out of that bed-ridden child!
I'm saying that the attempts to elevate football into the heavens of cosmic significance are somewhat obscene, and that's why it's becoming tougher for me to watch. It's not boring (except for the Patriots), but pretentious.
Underneath the surface, I suspect football is savage, dirty, filled with direputable characters and uncheckable egos. But it is sold as a noble contest, each victory the consequence of hard work, drinking your milk and going to school and all that suchnot. I think part of my disgust stems from the fact that football, nowadays, seems to full of itself (which I attribute to its dominance over other American sports in popularity). Did anyone see the hall of fame ceremony this summer, the induction of Steve Young and Dan Marino? What a self-indugent stroke-fest that was. Why, it could almost inspire the cancer right out of that bed-ridden child!
I'm saying that the attempts to elevate football into the heavens of cosmic significance are somewhat obscene, and that's why it's becoming tougher for me to watch. It's not boring (except for the Patriots), but pretentious.
FOOTBALL!
Boy talk about hard to keep entertained, Nick. Sheesh. I read your post and all I could think about was your incessant boredom with last year's Superbowl (I believe it cam down to the wire with New England stopping Philly's last ditch effort to hang on to a 24-21 victory). And while I agree with you on the announcers (holy God would I love to take the ESPN sunday nite crew and bury them in wet concrete), etc. and that some of the players are more T.O. than Tillman, I ask you: so what?
Are you really not entertained by it? T.O. bores you? Chad Johnson's gold teefed proclamtions of guaranteed victory don't break through your blase atitude? What about Ron Mexico? Not funny? Really? Because I don't think it's an issue of football players (or any other athlete for that manner) needing to be upstanding citizens. We all know that a healthy number of them aren't. Would you suddenly claim Top Gun sucktastic if Tom Cruise feigned commision an infomercial (that's information in a commercial) proclaiming how intelligent he is? You wouldn't buy into it - he's an idiot, much the same as announcers and many players. But he still produces entertainment, just like a healthy number of players. Would I let my daughter date Michael Irvin? Of course not. Do I think he's a fantasticly entertaining man? Damn straight.
Now I want to make this perfectly clear: I am not advocating the intelligence, morality, etc. of these athletes. All I'm saying is that if you don't get caught up in how offensive (intelectually, morally, etc.) they are, it's actually hilarious. And it's starting to spread into other sports as well. Thos LeBrons commercials: brilliant! I'm sure baseball and hockey will come around, also. Baseball has the unfortunate downside of being so boring I get +3 boredom bonus (much like sharing a couch with Nick and his aura will grant) if i watch more than an inning. I haven't given hockey a chance since it 'came back" so I can't comment on it. But I think pro football players are great, be they Troy Brownian (Bingo! I got Bingo!) or prefer the Minnesota Love Boat scene. Either way, it's funny and I'll support it until it stops being so.
Are you really not entertained by it? T.O. bores you? Chad Johnson's gold teefed proclamtions of guaranteed victory don't break through your blase atitude? What about Ron Mexico? Not funny? Really? Because I don't think it's an issue of football players (or any other athlete for that manner) needing to be upstanding citizens. We all know that a healthy number of them aren't. Would you suddenly claim Top Gun sucktastic if Tom Cruise feigned commision an infomercial (that's information in a commercial) proclaiming how intelligent he is? You wouldn't buy into it - he's an idiot, much the same as announcers and many players. But he still produces entertainment, just like a healthy number of players. Would I let my daughter date Michael Irvin? Of course not. Do I think he's a fantasticly entertaining man? Damn straight.
Now I want to make this perfectly clear: I am not advocating the intelligence, morality, etc. of these athletes. All I'm saying is that if you don't get caught up in how offensive (intelectually, morally, etc.) they are, it's actually hilarious. And it's starting to spread into other sports as well. Thos LeBrons commercials: brilliant! I'm sure baseball and hockey will come around, also. Baseball has the unfortunate downside of being so boring I get +3 boredom bonus (much like sharing a couch with Nick and his aura will grant) if i watch more than an inning. I haven't given hockey a chance since it 'came back" so I can't comment on it. But I think pro football players are great, be they Troy Brownian (Bingo! I got Bingo!) or prefer the Minnesota Love Boat scene. Either way, it's funny and I'll support it until it stops being so.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Obligatory "Your post was too long!" line
Geez, man, I'm so sick of the Moby Dicks you guys write all the time! Oh, and learn to use paragraphs! Break it up more! My eyes hurt! Waaaaaaaaaaaah!
There. Now no one else has to do it.
There. Now no one else has to do it.
Football
I'm ready for some flames on this one.
More or less, football (for me at least) is becoming unwatchable. It's not so much the game itself, but rather the way it is packaged and delivered by commentators, the media, the NFL, analysts, and to a lesser extent the players and coaches themselves.
Football has held the undisputed top spot in American sports for years now (how long, I don't know). Baseball is boring and has steriod issues. Basketball is a showcase for thuggery. Hockey judged itself too boring, and reconsituted the game into something different, which I don't call Hockey any longer, but instead call IceBlitz.
But Football has a legion of ex-players and media faces shilling for it all the time. The players are all about hard work and honor. They are all Pat Tillman patriots. On weekends they do community service. Anyone catch the first Patriots-Bills game? Tedy Bruschi is a hero. In case you didn't get that from the commentator saying "Tedy Bruschi is a hero!" NBC played that Hero song over his slow motion high-five to accentuate the point.
I'm finding that these glibly superimposed story lines are ringing especially false these days. Deep down, I truly believe that there are more Terrell Owens' (but too a lesser degree than the real TO) than there are Pat Tillmans. Football has the same thuggery issues as the NBA (what does it take to erase all memories the Vikings' sex-boat fiasco? 5 straight wins!), and the same steroid issues as baseball. And it still lays claim to some higher standard of the noble contest.
Well, I'm having trouble buying that anymore. I thought the ESPN football drama a while back (forgot the name) was really refreshing, until it was axed by the NFL. It featured a running back past his prime, who was cheating on his wife, a drugged out thug upstart new RB star (Willis McGahee?!), and a linebacker who could only communicate in the language of violence. It was a stark look inside what, under all the dressing, I think is the real NFL. And the league hated it. So they took it down.
The NFL has its own spin machine, you see, one that encourages us to forget that Ray Lewis is a killer, that Michael Irvin is a sex and drug addict, that Jamal Lewis went to jail--one that, I'm predicting, in the future will attribute Ricky Williams' decline to his love of pot. It packages its drug-and-sex-smeared product as wholesome family friendly entertainment.
Those ex-players and coaches who don't perpetuate the lie and become TV commentators at least have a second option open to them: writing tell all nonfiction bestsellers. Thanks for keeping it real, LT.
So... tell me I wrong. Flame on.
More or less, football (for me at least) is becoming unwatchable. It's not so much the game itself, but rather the way it is packaged and delivered by commentators, the media, the NFL, analysts, and to a lesser extent the players and coaches themselves.
Football has held the undisputed top spot in American sports for years now (how long, I don't know). Baseball is boring and has steriod issues. Basketball is a showcase for thuggery. Hockey judged itself too boring, and reconsituted the game into something different, which I don't call Hockey any longer, but instead call IceBlitz.
But Football has a legion of ex-players and media faces shilling for it all the time. The players are all about hard work and honor. They are all Pat Tillman patriots. On weekends they do community service. Anyone catch the first Patriots-Bills game? Tedy Bruschi is a hero. In case you didn't get that from the commentator saying "Tedy Bruschi is a hero!" NBC played that Hero song over his slow motion high-five to accentuate the point.
I'm finding that these glibly superimposed story lines are ringing especially false these days. Deep down, I truly believe that there are more Terrell Owens' (but too a lesser degree than the real TO) than there are Pat Tillmans. Football has the same thuggery issues as the NBA (what does it take to erase all memories the Vikings' sex-boat fiasco? 5 straight wins!), and the same steroid issues as baseball. And it still lays claim to some higher standard of the noble contest.
Well, I'm having trouble buying that anymore. I thought the ESPN football drama a while back (forgot the name) was really refreshing, until it was axed by the NFL. It featured a running back past his prime, who was cheating on his wife, a drugged out thug upstart new RB star (Willis McGahee?!), and a linebacker who could only communicate in the language of violence. It was a stark look inside what, under all the dressing, I think is the real NFL. And the league hated it. So they took it down.
The NFL has its own spin machine, you see, one that encourages us to forget that Ray Lewis is a killer, that Michael Irvin is a sex and drug addict, that Jamal Lewis went to jail--one that, I'm predicting, in the future will attribute Ricky Williams' decline to his love of pot. It packages its drug-and-sex-smeared product as wholesome family friendly entertainment.
Those ex-players and coaches who don't perpetuate the lie and become TV commentators at least have a second option open to them: writing tell all nonfiction bestsellers. Thanks for keeping it real, LT.
So... tell me I wrong. Flame on.
Prediction?
Peyton's going all the way? Really? The 13-0 team? Are you sure? Wow, that's an audacious prediction. I mean, you're really putting yourself out there. Bold.
Errrrr
Second best team? Yeah, they sure manhandled that four win cleveland team in a stunning display of football prowess. They sure did look better than Seattle. Let's take a quick gander back at an the Cincy season: 7 games against teams that at this point have losing schedules, throw in the bears and vikings who had a combined 2-5 record when the bengals played em and you're lookin at 9 easy wins. Yeah, they beat pittsburgh, but that was right smack in the middle of a 3 game losing streak with the starters way less than 100%. And those voctories are hardly what I'd call convincing...beat browns on last second field goal, beat packers by 7 despite 5 int by favre (and 9 [I think] total turnovers by packers), texans by 6, titans by 8, for God's sake Kyle Boller led a 3TD 4th quarter rally against them. Now let's look at the losses: Indy, Jax and Pitts (when pitts was healthy). Their only three tough, playoff caliber games and they lose. Plus, Cincy gives up, what, 120 rushing yards/game (for God's sake Jamal Lewis busted over 100 on them in his most anemic year ever). Let's look at possible first game opponants for them in the playoffs: Jax, S.D., K.C., Den., Pitts - yeah, I'll bet none of them will want to run the ball. Enjoy the first round bye, cuz that's the only advancement Cincy gets in the post season.
Friday, December 09, 2005
The correct answer to Who Dey?!
is the Colts. The Bengals are the second-best team in football right now, but it doesn't matter because Peyton is going all the way.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Who dey? Chad Johnson, that's who!
No way, you heard Chad Johnson's guarantee last night. AFC Championship at least. Gold teefs can't lie.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Government vs NFL and other tasty tidbits
Thought this was silly...
And since it's been a while since I've posted, I'll drop a few concise opinions in the spirit of brevity that has apparantly fled in terror from this blog. Christ almighty it's like reading a mini-book (especially you, Bert).
Gay marriage: Huzzah! Now I know that I am not the learned scholar in the ways of history, government and philosophy as you, my esteemed colleagues are, but I don't recall there being any mention one way or another in the founding documents of this country even a reference to the matter. It seems to me that the "definition" of marriage has stemmed largely from either a "traditional" or christian standpoint, both of which are bunk! Bunk, I say! Tradition has no place in law making, else it would seem difficult to advance beyond the current thought process. As far as the christian point of view, I was always taught religion doesn't (shouldn't I suppose, since it clearly does) hold a place in law making. Bert's arguement along the welfare lines (if I interpreted it correctly) is ok, but I hold you have to solve the abuse of welfare in heterosexual circumstances before you can use it to prevent homosexual marriage. Undermining social fabric? Anything can be construed as such...and to prove my point, I will offically state here that Slaps undermines social fabric on a far greater and detrimental scale than any two male lovers could ever hope to do. But I digress into a textual nightmare. Huzzah! for gay marriage. Seems ok to me.
Harry Potter & TGoF: Eh...lost a bunch in the translation from book to movie. Exciting, I suppose, but I was severely disappointed with the lack of sphynx in the maze as well as the intitiation of the revival of the Order of the Phoenix. Now, admittedly I was what could technically be called "slightly intoxicated" - but only slightly! - but I think drunk me could have inserted a little more development along the way. Also, Mad Eye's magical eye is like a modified eye-patch? I always pictured it being right in his socket, like a real eye. Only magical!
Abortion: Doesn't gay marriage solve this problem????
I'm out. Hope you all take a lesson here in brevity.
And since it's been a while since I've posted, I'll drop a few concise opinions in the spirit of brevity that has apparantly fled in terror from this blog. Christ almighty it's like reading a mini-book (especially you, Bert).
Gay marriage: Huzzah! Now I know that I am not the learned scholar in the ways of history, government and philosophy as you, my esteemed colleagues are, but I don't recall there being any mention one way or another in the founding documents of this country even a reference to the matter. It seems to me that the "definition" of marriage has stemmed largely from either a "traditional" or christian standpoint, both of which are bunk! Bunk, I say! Tradition has no place in law making, else it would seem difficult to advance beyond the current thought process. As far as the christian point of view, I was always taught religion doesn't (shouldn't I suppose, since it clearly does) hold a place in law making. Bert's arguement along the welfare lines (if I interpreted it correctly) is ok, but I hold you have to solve the abuse of welfare in heterosexual circumstances before you can use it to prevent homosexual marriage. Undermining social fabric? Anything can be construed as such...and to prove my point, I will offically state here that Slaps undermines social fabric on a far greater and detrimental scale than any two male lovers could ever hope to do. But I digress into a textual nightmare. Huzzah! for gay marriage. Seems ok to me.
Harry Potter & TGoF: Eh...lost a bunch in the translation from book to movie. Exciting, I suppose, but I was severely disappointed with the lack of sphynx in the maze as well as the intitiation of the revival of the Order of the Phoenix. Now, admittedly I was what could technically be called "slightly intoxicated" - but only slightly! - but I think drunk me could have inserted a little more development along the way. Also, Mad Eye's magical eye is like a modified eye-patch? I always pictured it being right in his socket, like a real eye. Only magical!
Abortion: Doesn't gay marriage solve this problem????
I'm out. Hope you all take a lesson here in brevity.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
I hate cats
Just dropping this "amusing" little story by: Last night I find, to my surprise, cat shit in the dishwasher. The cat shit in the dishwasher. Enjoy.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Come on, you jerks....
What's going on here? We were cooking along pretty well, but there's been nothing since election day. Umm...something thought-provoking...jurisprudential stuff seems to work...lots of Sci-fi fantasy fans here...
What do we think about the legal rights of prisoners? What do we think of _Goblet of Fire_? Would Jesus want us to use torture--I mean--"extreme rendition?" How about them Buckeyes? Yeah!
What do we think about the legal rights of prisoners? What do we think of _Goblet of Fire_? Would Jesus want us to use torture--I mean--"extreme rendition?" How about them Buckeyes? Yeah!
Monday, November 07, 2005
Election Day Tomorrow
Make sure to go vote against Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 tomorrow if you are an Ohio voter.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Sex at school caused by...
You guessed it...abstinence education.
Needless to say, I got no action in high school, so my outrage over this article may be the result of a little bias.
Some kids were caught having an orgy in the school auditorium. The Washington Post somehow thought this comment was relevant:
"Some parents said the matter got them talking to their children in discussions they might not have at Osbourn, where, according to the school system's director of instructional services, Sandy Thompson, health classes focus on abstinence and sexually transmitted diseases but not condoms or contraception."
If only those darned sex ed classes would've included more contraception education we wouldn't have all this public sex.
Ms. Miller, an alumna of the high school, had the most insightful comment:
"Our parents are the ones who had the sexual revolution, so why are they surprised?"
Whose fault is it, you ask? Well it's the abstinence-teaching fundamentalists and the free-lovin' hippies of course.
Sad...
Needless to say, I got no action in high school, so my outrage over this article may be the result of a little bias.
Some kids were caught having an orgy in the school auditorium. The Washington Post somehow thought this comment was relevant:
"Some parents said the matter got them talking to their children in discussions they might not have at Osbourn, where, according to the school system's director of instructional services, Sandy Thompson, health classes focus on abstinence and sexually transmitted diseases but not condoms or contraception."
If only those darned sex ed classes would've included more contraception education we wouldn't have all this public sex.
Ms. Miller, an alumna of the high school, had the most insightful comment:
"Our parents are the ones who had the sexual revolution, so why are they surprised?"
Whose fault is it, you ask? Well it's the abstinence-teaching fundamentalists and the free-lovin' hippies of course.
Sad...
Abortion
Again, in response to E$.
I did a quick, therefore inadequate, search of the state of abortion laws at the time Roe was decided. I believe (this is in part from Blackmun's opinion) that at least 18 states allowed abortions under similar statutes to this:
Justifiable Abortion. A licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes there is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother or that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or that the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or other felonious intercourse. All illicit intercourse with a girl below the age of 16 shall be deemed felonious for purposes of this subsection. (this was the Model Penal Code's version at the time)
Obviously abortion was more restricted prior to Roe, but it was certainly not proscribed everywhere. It was allowed before the 26th week of pregnancy in these states where it was not proscribed. The interpretation of the statute worked much like abortion statutes now, under much judicial interpretation of "physical or mental health of the mother". It was probably not as liberally condoned by courts as it is now under the Supreme Court's (lack of) guidance a la Roe and Casey, etc. especially in say, Arkansas (where it was legal), and it might have been just as liberally condoned in more liberal states. I do not know.
I think pro-abortion people have not pushed for legislation for multiple reasons. It is very unlikely the Court will overturn abortion case precedents altogether. If it does, then advocates can enact liberal abortion laws if they are able. I think many states would allow abortion if this were to happen, even more liberally than in 1973.
Secondly, abortion liberalization statutes would undermine pro-abortion court rulings. The core of Roe was that women had a 'fundamental right' (a very loose constitutional term of art) to abort. Thus, in most respects, it is beyond the powers of legislatures to touch. Such legislation would be an admission that abortion decisions rest on shaky foundations. Incidentally, due to the politicization of the issue, those shaky foundations are less freely admitted now than when Roe was written. Abortion rights advocates cling to that ruling despite its treatment in Casey and by liberal legal scholars after Roe was written.
Finally, related to the first two points, for better or (more likely) for worse, we believe the Supreme Court is the final--and in most respects--only arbiter of Constitutionality. This serves to devalue legislative and executive pronouncements. We have come to the point where Congress and the President sign and pass things they themselves might believe unconstitutional and say, "the Court will deal with it". Thus elected officials don't have to take unpopular stands in defense of the Constitution anymore. They just push it off to the courts. Can you imagine a President, a la Jackson or Lincoln, openly disobeying or even roundly criticizing the Supreme Court? It is nearly unheard of in our time.
I did a quick, therefore inadequate, search of the state of abortion laws at the time Roe was decided. I believe (this is in part from Blackmun's opinion) that at least 18 states allowed abortions under similar statutes to this:
Justifiable Abortion. A licensed physician is justified in terminating a pregnancy if he believes there is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother or that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or that the pregnancy resulted from rape, incest, or other felonious intercourse. All illicit intercourse with a girl below the age of 16 shall be deemed felonious for purposes of this subsection. (this was the Model Penal Code's version at the time)
Obviously abortion was more restricted prior to Roe, but it was certainly not proscribed everywhere. It was allowed before the 26th week of pregnancy in these states where it was not proscribed. The interpretation of the statute worked much like abortion statutes now, under much judicial interpretation of "physical or mental health of the mother". It was probably not as liberally condoned by courts as it is now under the Supreme Court's (lack of) guidance a la Roe and Casey, etc. especially in say, Arkansas (where it was legal), and it might have been just as liberally condoned in more liberal states. I do not know.
I think pro-abortion people have not pushed for legislation for multiple reasons. It is very unlikely the Court will overturn abortion case precedents altogether. If it does, then advocates can enact liberal abortion laws if they are able. I think many states would allow abortion if this were to happen, even more liberally than in 1973.
Secondly, abortion liberalization statutes would undermine pro-abortion court rulings. The core of Roe was that women had a 'fundamental right' (a very loose constitutional term of art) to abort. Thus, in most respects, it is beyond the powers of legislatures to touch. Such legislation would be an admission that abortion decisions rest on shaky foundations. Incidentally, due to the politicization of the issue, those shaky foundations are less freely admitted now than when Roe was written. Abortion rights advocates cling to that ruling despite its treatment in Casey and by liberal legal scholars after Roe was written.
Finally, related to the first two points, for better or (more likely) for worse, we believe the Supreme Court is the final--and in most respects--only arbiter of Constitutionality. This serves to devalue legislative and executive pronouncements. We have come to the point where Congress and the President sign and pass things they themselves might believe unconstitutional and say, "the Court will deal with it". Thus elected officials don't have to take unpopular stands in defense of the Constitution anymore. They just push it off to the courts. Can you imagine a President, a la Jackson or Lincoln, openly disobeying or even roundly criticizing the Supreme Court? It is nearly unheard of in our time.
Re: Eric's posts
I'm going to suprise you by agreeing in large part with your post on intentions or what "I really meant". I think I may have confused things by saying original intent. And you are right to point out that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are bad terms, but politically speaking they are what we have to work with. Speaking judicially we might say functionalist or formalist, but no two terms are comprehensive obviously.
To say original intentions is probably the wrong way to put it because there are people who would try to divine the spirit of the law or what the writer really meant as opposed to what he wrote. The 'liberals' (and Justice Thomas occasionally) take this approach (with adverse positions as you point out) to the Constitution, and a vast majority of judges do when it comes to legislation (which, it appears, will suprise you). I agree with you that this is a bad approach. Interpretation must start with the text that was given us.
Let me distinguish originalism from original intent, a distinction Justice Scalia makes. Scalia also eschews legislative history and intent as a bad guide to judicial interpretation for a myriad of good reasons that not enough people take seriously. The extent to which we might try to define original intent is asking "what did those words mean when they were written" or "were these laws commonly thought Constitutional when the article/amendment was adopted." These are legitimate inquiries. So, again, I would probably agree that people of all political stripes may believe they are adhering to some spirit of the law, but this leads to the disputes we have both pointed out, and, I would say, is the wrong approach. In this sense, an originalist's approach is very amoral, which is discouraging to many conservatives BTW, because it rarely allows a judge to invest any overarching intent in the form of moral preferences or authority, i.e. natural law or laissez fair economics, the authors may have held. Justice Holmes was probably the exemplar of this amoral approach.
This is why Scalia says his approach is very simple when it comes to very controversial things. The Constitution simply says nothing about abortion or assisted suicide, etc. Any attempt to force them in there begins by being extra-textual, a difficult hurdle to overcome in Constitutional interpretation. These questions are left to the people and the States, thus, self-government. We have come to the point where we expect the Court to decide every question under the sun. If we think there is a 'right' to something, it must be in there, but this is so self-evidently not the case as admitted by those who want it to be there when they say, "well...ah...ah...the Framer's never anticipated such and such a situation." So what? This seems dispositive evidence that the Constitution does not have an answer the Court, like philosopher kings, may hand down.
To say original intentions is probably the wrong way to put it because there are people who would try to divine the spirit of the law or what the writer really meant as opposed to what he wrote. The 'liberals' (and Justice Thomas occasionally) take this approach (with adverse positions as you point out) to the Constitution, and a vast majority of judges do when it comes to legislation (which, it appears, will suprise you). I agree with you that this is a bad approach. Interpretation must start with the text that was given us.
Let me distinguish originalism from original intent, a distinction Justice Scalia makes. Scalia also eschews legislative history and intent as a bad guide to judicial interpretation for a myriad of good reasons that not enough people take seriously. The extent to which we might try to define original intent is asking "what did those words mean when they were written" or "were these laws commonly thought Constitutional when the article/amendment was adopted." These are legitimate inquiries. So, again, I would probably agree that people of all political stripes may believe they are adhering to some spirit of the law, but this leads to the disputes we have both pointed out, and, I would say, is the wrong approach. In this sense, an originalist's approach is very amoral, which is discouraging to many conservatives BTW, because it rarely allows a judge to invest any overarching intent in the form of moral preferences or authority, i.e. natural law or laissez fair economics, the authors may have held. Justice Holmes was probably the exemplar of this amoral approach.
This is why Scalia says his approach is very simple when it comes to very controversial things. The Constitution simply says nothing about abortion or assisted suicide, etc. Any attempt to force them in there begins by being extra-textual, a difficult hurdle to overcome in Constitutional interpretation. These questions are left to the people and the States, thus, self-government. We have come to the point where we expect the Court to decide every question under the sun. If we think there is a 'right' to something, it must be in there, but this is so self-evidently not the case as admitted by those who want it to be there when they say, "well...ah...ah...the Framer's never anticipated such and such a situation." So what? This seems dispositive evidence that the Constitution does not have an answer the Court, like philosopher kings, may hand down.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Bork and Roe v. Wade
I meant the second point, not necessarily the sine qua non part. Which leads me to the following question: since the biggest threat to abortion rights is the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and since the "activist" origins of the ruling are the most obvious (and justifiable) grounds to overturn it, why has the pro-choice camp never introduced actual legislation to legalize abortion, whether at the state or federal level? I mean, everybody freaked out and started wielding pitchforks and torches at the thought of h...ho...homosexuals getting married, passing state-level "defense of marriage" acts, even though there is already a federal DOMA on the books. There have been plenty of Democratic majorities, and even if such an effort failed, the Roe ruling would still be binding, like a legal safety net, right? If the legislation worked, then even if Roe were overturned, abortion would remain legal and the anti-abortion camp would be deprived of a principal objection to it. There must be a reason this wouldn't have worked (I doubt it would now with GOP majorities all over the place); otherwise, somebody would have thought of it before me.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Perhaps this...
...will lessen your skepticism, Stanya. Bork gives Judge Alito his support.
He notes that "overturning Roe v. Wade should be the sine qua non of a respectable jurisprudence." This is not because abortion is the issue. It is because that opinion represents above all others the overreaching of the federal judiciary to legislate from the bench, constitutionalize issues, and create rights not mentioned in the Constitution.
Bork also observes that the abortion issue is so contentious in the United States because of Roe. If the issue were to be handled democratically, there would be a more civil debate and compromise, recognizing the ability to learn from mistaken policy, convince fellow citizens, and make gains in the future.
He notes that "overturning Roe v. Wade should be the sine qua non of a respectable jurisprudence." This is not because abortion is the issue. It is because that opinion represents above all others the overreaching of the federal judiciary to legislate from the bench, constitutionalize issues, and create rights not mentioned in the Constitution.
Bork also observes that the abortion issue is so contentious in the United States because of Roe. If the issue were to be handled democratically, there would be a more civil debate and compromise, recognizing the ability to learn from mistaken policy, convince fellow citizens, and make gains in the future.
On a similar note...
...George Will sums up why the Democrats will have a difficult time opposing Judge Alito.
"I didn't mean it like that...."
I dig much of what you're saying, but it is interesting that your second paragraph seems to define "liberal" as "deviating from original intentions," to the point that "conservative" scholars are being "liberal" when they twist meanings. It seems to me that if intention twisting goes both ways (and since we love to simplify everyting to just two possible sides, which I doubt we can reasonably do), it is a bit sophistical to label it "liberal" or "conservative," even if one side seems to do it more.
Speaking of one side doing it more, I also question the notion that "twisters" (which I'll use instead of either team label) believe they are twisting. Now, I'll defer somewhat to Matt's experience; maybe you personally know self-avowed "liberals" who get together and say "let's try to bend the meaning of the words from what was originally intended," but I've never met one. Whenever I hear people of any political stripe talk about the Constitution, they all think they are upholding the spirit of the document, if not the peculiar personal intentions of Rufus King or Richard Dobbs Spaight. For example, I have no problem with interpreting the Constitution to allow gay marriage. This is not because I've said, "yeah, why not try to squeeze out some really wacky interpretation to shake things up," but because I've read and read and re-read the Constitution and find nothing to preclude the possibility. Moreover, all of the "spirit of the Constitution" arguments invariably have to tap into "spirit of Marriage" appeals, which have nothing to do with the Constitution. I know James Madison probably never intended gay marriage, but he probably never thought of it at all. Many of our sacred, holy Founding Fathers could never imagine a woman voting or a Black man becoming Secretary of State, so if we worry too much about what the guys "really meant" (as opposed to what they wrote), we may not always reach a happy conclusion. Finally, I simply can't believe "the original meaning and intent of the framers is in large part settled," any more than Christ's intentions (or Paul's, for that matter) are "settled", or we wouldn't still be arguing about it. If you think it's already carved in stone, that's because you're talking people who already think the same thing you do.
Lastly, I have some questions on the nature of words, and laws, in particular. The articles and amendments are laws, written words. It seems written laws are meant to take the place of somebody's judgment to some extent. Here's what I mean. If I am the king and somebody makes a claim against somebody else, I have the power and obligation to decide what to do to make it right (though rulers' versions of "right" have frequently been anything but). To simplify things for the next time, or to make sure my intentions are carried out in my absence (when I'm dead or off killing the neighboring tribe), I write them down for other people to read (thanks, Hammurabi). The trick, though, is that the words I leave about my intentions are not the same thing as my intentions. As Socrates warns Phaedrus, words are not trustworthy memory aids; the are only impoverished shadows of what I actually meant. Now, my point here is not the same as Derrida's (though he adds yet another layer of difficulty to the problem). Once I, the king, am dead, the people cannot ask me what I "really" meant, they can only consult the words I left. (We can quibble about extratextual evidence [letters Jefferson wrote, napkins Madison doodled on, what Franklin did after he signed the thing, etc.], but those are not really part of the text under consideration and are beside the point here). So, interpreters of my words have the following job: determing the range, the limits of meaning for the words I left (since the words are slippery and indeterminate) and reach a reasoned conclusion within those limits. I don't say the because that would be really naive. Moreover, isn't this what lawyers do for a living? Neither prosecutor nor defender questions what the law says, but stretches (and I don't mean that in a negative way) the words' range of meaning just far enough so their interpretation fits safely inside. Neither lawyer would say he is "twisting" the law or the intent behind the law. Rather, they both think they are elucidating a legitimate interpretation of the semi-reliable written words. On the other hand, it is always "the other guy" who is twisting the law...I would never do something like that...I'm just upholding what the law says! Also notice that nobody calls to the stand the state senator who voted yes on the law when it was a bill, or the little old lady who collected signatures for the referendum to see what they really intended the law to mean--we have the law, and that is what we have to work with.
Dang, this got long. My point here isn't to pick on you "conservatives" or exonerate "liberals" (though it was interesting to hear a law professor on talk radio the other day praise Alito as a "good, conservative, activist jurist"). I want nothing to do with either of you. However, I see this business of "originalism" vs. "activism" as another talking point based partly on an actual problem of interpretation that affects everyone. Discuss.
P.S. I generally think Bork is a douche bag, but I agree with the argument you cite about Roe.
Speaking of one side doing it more, I also question the notion that "twisters" (which I'll use instead of either team label) believe they are twisting. Now, I'll defer somewhat to Matt's experience; maybe you personally know self-avowed "liberals" who get together and say "let's try to bend the meaning of the words from what was originally intended," but I've never met one. Whenever I hear people of any political stripe talk about the Constitution, they all think they are upholding the spirit of the document, if not the peculiar personal intentions of Rufus King or Richard Dobbs Spaight. For example, I have no problem with interpreting the Constitution to allow gay marriage. This is not because I've said, "yeah, why not try to squeeze out some really wacky interpretation to shake things up," but because I've read and read and re-read the Constitution and find nothing to preclude the possibility. Moreover, all of the "spirit of the Constitution" arguments invariably have to tap into "spirit of Marriage" appeals, which have nothing to do with the Constitution. I know James Madison probably never intended gay marriage, but he probably never thought of it at all. Many of our sacred, holy Founding Fathers could never imagine a woman voting or a Black man becoming Secretary of State, so if we worry too much about what the guys "really meant" (as opposed to what they wrote), we may not always reach a happy conclusion. Finally, I simply can't believe "the original meaning and intent of the framers is in large part settled," any more than Christ's intentions (or Paul's, for that matter) are "settled", or we wouldn't still be arguing about it. If you think it's already carved in stone, that's because you're talking people who already think the same thing you do.
Lastly, I have some questions on the nature of words, and laws, in particular. The articles and amendments are laws, written words. It seems written laws are meant to take the place of somebody's judgment to some extent. Here's what I mean. If I am the king and somebody makes a claim against somebody else, I have the power and obligation to decide what to do to make it right (though rulers' versions of "right" have frequently been anything but). To simplify things for the next time, or to make sure my intentions are carried out in my absence (when I'm dead or off killing the neighboring tribe), I write them down for other people to read (thanks, Hammurabi). The trick, though, is that the words I leave about my intentions are not the same thing as my intentions. As Socrates warns Phaedrus, words are not trustworthy memory aids; the are only impoverished shadows of what I actually meant. Now, my point here is not the same as Derrida's (though he adds yet another layer of difficulty to the problem). Once I, the king, am dead, the people cannot ask me what I "really" meant, they can only consult the words I left. (We can quibble about extratextual evidence [letters Jefferson wrote, napkins Madison doodled on, what Franklin did after he signed the thing, etc.], but those are not really part of the text under consideration and are beside the point here). So, interpreters of my words have the following job: determing the range, the limits of meaning for the words I left (since the words are slippery and indeterminate) and reach a reasoned conclusion within those limits. I don't say the because that would be really naive. Moreover, isn't this what lawyers do for a living? Neither prosecutor nor defender questions what the law says, but stretches (and I don't mean that in a negative way) the words' range of meaning just far enough so their interpretation fits safely inside. Neither lawyer would say he is "twisting" the law or the intent behind the law. Rather, they both think they are elucidating a legitimate interpretation of the semi-reliable written words. On the other hand, it is always "the other guy" who is twisting the law...I would never do something like that...I'm just upholding what the law says! Also notice that nobody calls to the stand the state senator who voted yes on the law when it was a bill, or the little old lady who collected signatures for the referendum to see what they really intended the law to mean--we have the law, and that is what we have to work with.
Dang, this got long. My point here isn't to pick on you "conservatives" or exonerate "liberals" (though it was interesting to hear a law professor on talk radio the other day praise Alito as a "good, conservative, activist jurist"). I want nothing to do with either of you. However, I see this business of "originalism" vs. "activism" as another talking point based partly on an actual problem of interpretation that affects everyone. Discuss.
P.S. I generally think Bork is a douche bag, but I agree with the argument you cite about Roe.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Original Intent
In light of the President's new nominee, I wanted to address Eric's post from the 18th of last month. I have to disagree.
In one sense, Eric is correct. Idealogues can twist the meaning of texts in their favor. This, however, does not negate the actual meaning of those texts. The debate among liberal constitutional scholars, at least honest ones, has shifted from "what did the authors mean" to "how should we interpret the Constitution in light of present moral/political circumstances". On the other side you have conservatives and libertarians who would adhere to the Constitution's intended meaning despite outcomes that may offend modern sensibilities. And sure, there are conservatives and libertarians who would depart from original meaning, but they are essentially taking a similar path to the liberals'.
In other words, the original meaning and intent of the framers is in large part settled. There is little to debate about. The argument is whether it should guide jurisprudence, which, to me, is a no-brainer. If you do not adhere to the meaning given by its authors, what meaning do you give it? As Justice Scalia argues, you give it the meaning that 5 justices want it to have. This is clearly anti-constitutional, meaning judges may change how our political order is constituted. The idea of a constitution is exactly the opposite of what liberals claim it to be. A living, ever-changing constitution is no constitution at all. The Constitution, it seems self-evident, is only changeable through the amendment process it provides.
Again as Scalia notes, 70 years ago everyone shared his jurisprudence. The problem we face now is not that of judicial Derridas (though it arises from time to time), but of those who are simply in conflict with what they see as shortcomings of our Constitution or constitutionalism in general. Thus, they have sought to invent modes of judicial amendment and are ever attempting to legitimize them to reach ends the Constitution simply does not mandate or contemplate.
Not to borrow from Scalia too much--but he has it right--what informs this informal amendment? And the skeptic's answer is, our moral and political preferences. We make the constitution mean what we want it to mean not what it actually means. Thus, the constitution is destroyed by our present moral preferences it was meant to moderate in the political process it established.
Sadly, we have come to the point where one political party believes originalism is an unacceptable jurisprudence. When the Democrats do not win in elections and legislatures, they go to the courts, and if the courts do not give them what they want, their desires are completely frustrated.
In one sense, Eric is correct. Idealogues can twist the meaning of texts in their favor. This, however, does not negate the actual meaning of those texts. The debate among liberal constitutional scholars, at least honest ones, has shifted from "what did the authors mean" to "how should we interpret the Constitution in light of present moral/political circumstances". On the other side you have conservatives and libertarians who would adhere to the Constitution's intended meaning despite outcomes that may offend modern sensibilities. And sure, there are conservatives and libertarians who would depart from original meaning, but they are essentially taking a similar path to the liberals'.
In other words, the original meaning and intent of the framers is in large part settled. There is little to debate about. The argument is whether it should guide jurisprudence, which, to me, is a no-brainer. If you do not adhere to the meaning given by its authors, what meaning do you give it? As Justice Scalia argues, you give it the meaning that 5 justices want it to have. This is clearly anti-constitutional, meaning judges may change how our political order is constituted. The idea of a constitution is exactly the opposite of what liberals claim it to be. A living, ever-changing constitution is no constitution at all. The Constitution, it seems self-evident, is only changeable through the amendment process it provides.
Again as Scalia notes, 70 years ago everyone shared his jurisprudence. The problem we face now is not that of judicial Derridas (though it arises from time to time), but of those who are simply in conflict with what they see as shortcomings of our Constitution or constitutionalism in general. Thus, they have sought to invent modes of judicial amendment and are ever attempting to legitimize them to reach ends the Constitution simply does not mandate or contemplate.
Not to borrow from Scalia too much--but he has it right--what informs this informal amendment? And the skeptic's answer is, our moral and political preferences. We make the constitution mean what we want it to mean not what it actually means. Thus, the constitution is destroyed by our present moral preferences it was meant to moderate in the political process it established.
Sadly, we have come to the point where one political party believes originalism is an unacceptable jurisprudence. When the Democrats do not win in elections and legislatures, they go to the courts, and if the courts do not give them what they want, their desires are completely frustrated.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Current events
Could someone explain or summarize this Wilson/Plame/CIA debacle to/for me? Trying to jump in now is like starting Robert Jordan at book 7.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Gay Marriage
Thanks for that post, Stanya. Those were two of the more thoughtful, honest pieces I've read about the issue. Admittedly, though, I have not paid much attention to the debate for a couple years.
Personally, I would oppose gay marriage. I won't defend this position fully, now, but I will say that government certainly has a legitimate interest in marriage considering the effects of out-of-wedlock births and welfare policy. The last thirty-some years have been a failed experiment in undermining marriage, the family, and empirically beneficial social mores for the sake of feminism, sexual liberation, and radical individualism amounting to license. We have increasingly undermined the legitimacy of social moral pressures, obliterating any notion that our freedoms carry corresponding duties and responsibilities to our families, communities, and society. I think it possible that activist homosexuals, not homosexuality per se, have contributed to this. I don't know for sure that gay marriage will further undermine the social fabric, but I am skeptical of those that are pushing for it.
If those in favor of gay marriage can sell it to legislatures, they have that right, and I don't begrudge it. Perhaps they will prevail and it will prove not to harm marriage substantially or even prove to be beneficial in some way. If allowed and proved harmful, hopefully, it may be reconsidered or repealed.
What I do find intolerable, however, are courts extracting the issue from the political process as was the case in Massachusetts. The Constitution certainly does not speak to the issue despite judges' wrangling to impose 'enlightened' views on the rest of us. States may make laws with the impetus of moral dissapproval. That motive aside, they certainly should be able to make laws concerning marriage and social welfare considering the costs arrangements such as out-of-wedlock births and other sexual/marriage-related issues impose on society.
Personally, I would oppose gay marriage. I won't defend this position fully, now, but I will say that government certainly has a legitimate interest in marriage considering the effects of out-of-wedlock births and welfare policy. The last thirty-some years have been a failed experiment in undermining marriage, the family, and empirically beneficial social mores for the sake of feminism, sexual liberation, and radical individualism amounting to license. We have increasingly undermined the legitimacy of social moral pressures, obliterating any notion that our freedoms carry corresponding duties and responsibilities to our families, communities, and society. I think it possible that activist homosexuals, not homosexuality per se, have contributed to this. I don't know for sure that gay marriage will further undermine the social fabric, but I am skeptical of those that are pushing for it.
If those in favor of gay marriage can sell it to legislatures, they have that right, and I don't begrudge it. Perhaps they will prevail and it will prove not to harm marriage substantially or even prove to be beneficial in some way. If allowed and proved harmful, hopefully, it may be reconsidered or repealed.
What I do find intolerable, however, are courts extracting the issue from the political process as was the case in Massachusetts. The Constitution certainly does not speak to the issue despite judges' wrangling to impose 'enlightened' views on the rest of us. States may make laws with the impetus of moral dissapproval. That motive aside, they certainly should be able to make laws concerning marriage and social welfare considering the costs arrangements such as out-of-wedlock births and other sexual/marriage-related issues impose on society.
Who wants to get queer-hitched?
Just to switch things up a bit, here is an incredibly thoughtful piece by Cathy Young on marriage, Maggie Gallagher and the issue of same-sex marriage. Another great piece I found last year (from Jane Galt) provides the strongest argument (in my opinion) against same-sex marriage that I have yet to see/hear. Most everything anti-SSM is simply "its tradition!" and not an actual argument (my dad tried to make this argument to me, in addition to the slippery slope "what if a man wants to marry his dog?" argument, both of which are easily refuted). In no does this mean that I want to end the property discussion either, I just need to think on that some more. Also, we had pancakes.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Lunar real estate....
Here is an article about Dennis Hope, the aforementioned kooky guy:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040202.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040202.html
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Sadly...
...Cornel West was a no-show for his engagement here at W&L. Harvard had the good sense to let him go, but, alas, good ol' Princeton was there to snatch him back. Go here for a more critical take on this icon of academia.
Oh, yeah...you can check out his album here.
Oh, yeah...you can check out his album here.
Takings continued...
The case, for anyone who is interested, I alluded to in my previous post is Berman v. Parker in 1954. Here the Court allowed DC to condemn slum--real slums, not like Kelo's house, areas with the eminent domain power. DC sold the land they condemned to private developers. So, there is the 'landmark' precedent in silly journalist speak (Lawrence v. Texas is the 'landmark' in this link if you have a slow connection like me and don't want to take it).
I think 'landmark' makes a good euphemism for bad decision or departure from the Constitution. The press cheers, "the Court is advancing our social causes, yippie! This'll be a landmark to guide judges in the future." And all along I thought the Constitution should be the judge's guide. Call me a reactionary...
I think 'landmark' makes a good euphemism for bad decision or departure from the Constitution. The press cheers, "the Court is advancing our social causes, yippie! This'll be a landmark to guide judges in the future." And all along I thought the Constitution should be the judge's guide. Call me a reactionary...
Friday, October 21, 2005
You can't own property, man
I have to say that I tend to agree with Eric's last post. I would be less likely to agree that our times are more enlightened, especially as to property (this is another debate altogether). As wonderful as libertarians like Stanya think think things would be without eminent domain, it was provided for by the takings clause. Historically, there probably has never been a functional understanding of property more libertarian than in the US. That being said, you own your property only with the government's consent or protection. So, a libertarian ideal, while economically good, can only be realized by force or by political persuasion, meaning requiring the government through our political processes to protect property. Therefore, it is probably wrong to say you have a right to your property beyond which you cannot enforce it yourself. It would be good if government functioned on the proposition that there is a natural right to property, but natural rights don't enforce themselves.
The definition of 'public use' in precedent, like much else, expanded over time. Legitimate definitions might be the obvious, government buildings, schools, roads, etc. Eventually public use came to include common carriers such as railroads, so that if it was something available for all the public to use, it qualified. These have always been pretty uncontroversial. Recent precedent, though, has changed public use to public benefit, clearly a huge expansion of qualifying exuses to use eminent domain. The important case slips my mind at the moment, I believe it was in the early sixties, began this expansion of what was a public use. A bad example to me was Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff in 1984, thus pre-Scalia and Thomas. O'Connor wrote the opinion (though, she did dissent in Kelo) saying Hawaii could transfer a bunch of property from lessors to lessees because so much property was concentrated in so few owners' hands. The claim was this caused property prices to be extraordinarily high, and difficult to acquire. The court voted 8-0!!!! So that, now, as I mentioned, if there is any conceivable public benefit (tax revenue, aesthetic value might even qualify), the taking will be ok'd by the courts. The only caveat was Justice Kennedy's concurrence (since he was the fifth vote) suggesting the gain must be rational and substantial to some minimal extent.
Finally, to scare you Stanya, State and local governments may take property or regulate it so as to destroy some of its value as long as there is a legitimate police power reason without compensation as you and I talked about with zoning laws.
The definition of 'public use' in precedent, like much else, expanded over time. Legitimate definitions might be the obvious, government buildings, schools, roads, etc. Eventually public use came to include common carriers such as railroads, so that if it was something available for all the public to use, it qualified. These have always been pretty uncontroversial. Recent precedent, though, has changed public use to public benefit, clearly a huge expansion of qualifying exuses to use eminent domain. The important case slips my mind at the moment, I believe it was in the early sixties, began this expansion of what was a public use. A bad example to me was Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff in 1984, thus pre-Scalia and Thomas. O'Connor wrote the opinion (though, she did dissent in Kelo) saying Hawaii could transfer a bunch of property from lessors to lessees because so much property was concentrated in so few owners' hands. The claim was this caused property prices to be extraordinarily high, and difficult to acquire. The court voted 8-0!!!! So that, now, as I mentioned, if there is any conceivable public benefit (tax revenue, aesthetic value might even qualify), the taking will be ok'd by the courts. The only caveat was Justice Kennedy's concurrence (since he was the fifth vote) suggesting the gain must be rational and substantial to some minimal extent.
Finally, to scare you Stanya, State and local governments may take property or regulate it so as to destroy some of its value as long as there is a legitimate police power reason without compensation as you and I talked about with zoning laws.
Property
Dr. Vaughan once taught a whole seminar on theories of property, but I didn't get to take it. I heard it was pretty interesting, though. I seem to remember Locke (Second Treatise) defining property as something like nature (land, plants, rocks) invested with labor (a garden, tomato sauce, horseshoes), which makes it "mine." I totally buy that notion, but history (at least the people in it) doesn't really seem to (see "slavery," "conquest," "colonialism," and the like).
Property or ownership is partly nominal, as in "I claim this land for the King of France" or a deed to a house. But I think the real essence of property is physical force. If someone resists the King of France's claim to ownership, he will be arrested or killed. Having seen this transaction, the next guy who wants to resist will respect the King's speech act of claiming property. The same thing seems to be going on in our more enlightened times, as well. Say I have a deed to a house, and everyone (government, contractors, tenants, neighbors) agree the property is "mine." Rather than killing each other, we settle any disputes through legal proceedings. However, all of our laws are only meaningful insofar as they imply a threat to person or property: if you break the law, you will lose "your" stuff or be locked up. Sure, the threat is more humane than rape and murder has been more or less agreed on by the participants in the society, but it is a threat all the same. The difference, then, between Alexander's plundering Persia, my buying a car, and the government's claim of eminent domain is one of degree, not kind.
I was reminded of issues like these when I saw the guy who owns the moon on Conan O'Brien (I'll try to find a link to his website later). He found a loophole in all of the existing laws regarding ownership of stellar bodies, and has laid legitimate, legal claim to the Moon, Mars, and other planets. He makes a fortune selling lunar real estate (lots of celebrities buy, but hotel chains are some of his biggest customers). Right now, he is just a kooky fella who has found a scam, and The Man lets him have his fun. However, if the Moon ever actually becomes easy to get to or needed for some military installation, that guy will have no chance whatsoever of resisting the King's claim.
So, it seems to me that, as awful as it sounds, all property is simply on loan from whoever has the strength to take it away, whether it is barbarian invaders, Medieval Crusaders, my mortgage lender, the State of Ohio, or Uncle Freakin' Sam.
Property or ownership is partly nominal, as in "I claim this land for the King of France" or a deed to a house. But I think the real essence of property is physical force. If someone resists the King of France's claim to ownership, he will be arrested or killed. Having seen this transaction, the next guy who wants to resist will respect the King's speech act of claiming property. The same thing seems to be going on in our more enlightened times, as well. Say I have a deed to a house, and everyone (government, contractors, tenants, neighbors) agree the property is "mine." Rather than killing each other, we settle any disputes through legal proceedings. However, all of our laws are only meaningful insofar as they imply a threat to person or property: if you break the law, you will lose "your" stuff or be locked up. Sure, the threat is more humane than rape and murder has been more or less agreed on by the participants in the society, but it is a threat all the same. The difference, then, between Alexander's plundering Persia, my buying a car, and the government's claim of eminent domain is one of degree, not kind.
I was reminded of issues like these when I saw the guy who owns the moon on Conan O'Brien (I'll try to find a link to his website later). He found a loophole in all of the existing laws regarding ownership of stellar bodies, and has laid legitimate, legal claim to the Moon, Mars, and other planets. He makes a fortune selling lunar real estate (lots of celebrities buy, but hotel chains are some of his biggest customers). Right now, he is just a kooky fella who has found a scam, and The Man lets him have his fun. However, if the Moon ever actually becomes easy to get to or needed for some military installation, that guy will have no chance whatsoever of resisting the King's claim.
So, it seems to me that, as awful as it sounds, all property is simply on loan from whoever has the strength to take it away, whether it is barbarian invaders, Medieval Crusaders, my mortgage lender, the State of Ohio, or Uncle Freakin' Sam.
Question for the big fancy lawyer-man
Actually a serious series of questions. What does the precedent say about eminent domain? What did the Court allow prior to Kelo? The takings clause was something I hadn't thought about all that much until this summer. What was the definition of "public use" as defined by the Court? Personally, I don't support any sort of eminent domain; property is property. If the gov't can take the property (regardless of whether they pay me or not) then it is not property; it is just on loan from the gov't. Anyway, thoughts/comments on the meaning/defintion of property are welcome.
Stanya out.
Stanya out.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Revisiting Kelo
Having now studied some of the precedent, the Kelo decision was no suprise. It was no less wrong, however.
The test used by the Court for the public use requirement is merely a rational relation to any conceivable public benefit. Justice Thomas's dissent nicely pointed out the silliness of this approach.
The upside to Kelo...Many states will now make it more difficult to exercise eminent domain. To put it in perspective, prior to the Court incorporating the Takings Clause through the 14th Amendment, it did not apply to the States anyway. So now property will be more legally protected even though our society values its protection much less than it did in the 19th century.
The test used by the Court for the public use requirement is merely a rational relation to any conceivable public benefit. Justice Thomas's dissent nicely pointed out the silliness of this approach.
The upside to Kelo...Many states will now make it more difficult to exercise eminent domain. To put it in perspective, prior to the Court incorporating the Takings Clause through the 14th Amendment, it did not apply to the States anyway. So now property will be more legally protected even though our society values its protection much less than it did in the 19th century.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Don't know much about science...
...but thought I should contribute something about that part of our blog's title.
...Okay, so I'm not really contributing, but passing it along from someone who was passing it along.
...Okay, so I'm not really contributing, but passing it along from someone who was passing it along.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Postrel's hotness...or should it be "heat?"
She's not ugly, but at least she's not anorexic like Ann Coulter. Cripes, somebody give that woman a cheese burger.
About "original intentions"....
Speaking of soundbyte lingo to be sick of hearing, let's talk about "original intentions" a bit. Everybody who has an opinion on the Constitution claims their view best reflects "the intentions of our founders." The problem is all of the primary and secondary texts admissible as evidence must be interpreted and are just as easily pimped for the service of ideology. Also, why should I necessarily care what the founders intended? They are dead and I live with the Constitution in 2005. Even if some right-wing wacko makes a compelling case that, say, they really intended for America to be a Protestant-fundamentalist-theocratic-police state, or if some left-wing loon can show evidence they would have wanted to protect the rights of gay children to marry multiple animals of the same sex and bill the taxpayers for the tuxedo rental, what makes them right? It's not like the "founders" were never wrong about anything. As far as I can tell, the difference between "activism" and "constructionism" is whether you or I am doing it. WEAK-MINDED DOGMATIST DISCLAIMER: the preceding statement is not a plug for Constitutional relativism, as some may be tempted to assert. I think "right" and "wrong" are meaningful categories, but instead want to point out the inconsistency (even hypocrisy) with which the terms are used, which makes meaningful, truth-seeking discourse impossible.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Supreme Court. Also I think I have a crush on Virginia Postrel
The Supreme Court should be composed of the best legal minds of the country. Harriet Miers is not that. This president is totally squandering a chance to restore the primacy of the Constitution in our nation. I was never really "with" Bush (although I would have voted him had it been close in AK; my hatred of Edwards and respect for Cheney were enough to shore that up). He clearly is not particularly concerned with how he leaves this country when he's done. His concern is his legacy in the "War Against Terror." Screw domestic policy!
My personal choice for a new Justice was most definitely Janice Brown. Not because she's black or a woman but because she be havin' a crazy, badass libertarian-conservative-STRICT constructionist view of the Constitution. She'd slap Scalia if he got out of line. Breyer and Souter would be afraid of her. She'd cuss out Ginsberg fo' bein' a "natty ho." She'd impress the Cheif Justice with the junk in her trunk too. I say the Court needs her sass.
Finally, I am sick and tired of hearing about "judicial activism" and precedent. If precedent is WRONG it needs to be reversed which requires activity. Roe v. Wade, regardless of your thoughts on abortion is stupid, stupid Constitutional law. Activism is necessary (within the sphere of the actual text of the Constitution) in order to restore the Constitution to its original meaning/intentions. Stop treating precedence as the end-all, be-all.
Finally, here is an interesting article on the state of cloning science in Canada (hint, things are MUCH worse there) by Virginia Postrel, whom, I find out, is actually pretty hot.
My personal choice for a new Justice was most definitely Janice Brown. Not because she's black or a woman but because she be havin' a crazy, badass libertarian-conservative-STRICT constructionist view of the Constitution. She'd slap Scalia if he got out of line. Breyer and Souter would be afraid of her. She'd cuss out Ginsberg fo' bein' a "natty ho." She'd impress the Cheif Justice with the junk in her trunk too. I say the Court needs her sass.
Finally, I am sick and tired of hearing about "judicial activism" and precedent. If precedent is WRONG it needs to be reversed which requires activity. Roe v. Wade, regardless of your thoughts on abortion is stupid, stupid Constitutional law. Activism is necessary (within the sphere of the actual text of the Constitution) in order to restore the Constitution to its original meaning/intentions. Stop treating precedence as the end-all, be-all.
Finally, here is an interesting article on the state of cloning science in Canada (hint, things are MUCH worse there) by Virginia Postrel, whom, I find out, is actually pretty hot.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Re: The President
Wow. Those are words I never thought I'd hear from you, Jarrod. I look forward to your elaboration.
Though it does little to add my voice to the symphony, this Supreme Court nominee strikes me are particularly weak, and perhaps indicative of the contempt that the President may hold for his own supporters, and the nation as a whole. At best, it is ill-concieved favoritism. I don't trust this President or the people he has around him to withdraw the nomination, so I hold to hope that it meets quick demise in the Senate. I am worried, however, that the Democrats are emboldened by the chaos this nomination is causing in Republican circles and will support her in the hopes of splintering GOP control. Likewise I'm worried that a sizable portion of the Republican majority are still under the President's spell and will support her. These two groups, combined, may be enough to get her through. There is always a deficit of spinal fortitude in the Senate.
Though it does little to add my voice to the symphony, this Supreme Court nominee strikes me are particularly weak, and perhaps indicative of the contempt that the President may hold for his own supporters, and the nation as a whole. At best, it is ill-concieved favoritism. I don't trust this President or the people he has around him to withdraw the nomination, so I hold to hope that it meets quick demise in the Senate. I am worried, however, that the Democrats are emboldened by the chaos this nomination is causing in Republican circles and will support her in the hopes of splintering GOP control. Likewise I'm worried that a sizable portion of the Republican majority are still under the President's spell and will support her. These two groups, combined, may be enough to get her through. There is always a deficit of spinal fortitude in the Senate.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
The President
I am done with this President. Five years now have I looked the other way while he massively increased federal spending, expanded and strengthend the bureaucracy, and ignored any kind of foreign policy development that wasn't related to the war on terror. So now, clinging to the hope of a Supreme Court that would finally respect the constitution and the ideals by which it was created, that I believe can only be done with what we call "conservative" jurisprudence. For him to nominate someone so awful as Harriet Miers, for him to have the audacity to tell me to "trust him" which is something we simply cannot do for Supreme Court nominees, and for all the ridiculous arguments and flaking coming from the White House these days, I simply can no longer support him. He will destroy conservative power in America softly and he has proven to be much more destructive in a domestic policy sense than Clinton ever was. The prospects for a truly conservative nominee in 2008 are slim also, and I blame a large portion of that sentiment on the failure of this President to govern when the opportunity was presented to him. A second term often allows a President to reveal himself and this President has done that to great disappointment. I'll share more thoughts later when my breakage becomes complete.
Intelligent Design
I did not compare evolution to creation. I did not advocate the instruction of creationism in a scientific classroom. Your assumptions about my own motivations or thought are astonishing.
First, it doesn't matter if I believe a big invisible man created the Earth in six days, because religious text and meaning have nothing to do with science, particuraly in this case where they seem to be diametrically opposed. Obviously, it is impossible to explain a creation theory by scientific standards because such a theory would not hold to accepted scienctific methods. I argue that evolution theory does not hold to scientifc standards either. Therefore, a scientific hole in a religious argument doesn't mean much because the entire text is supernatural to begin with. However, a scientific hole in a scientifc theory is critical that is why I mention it. Secondly, I have a great respect for the natural teachings and knowledge that hard science can provide, and I have said as much. Generally, I only opppose basic scientific thought or action in two areas, one is regarding teaching evolution, which I regard as shaky at best, especially with the decline of Darwinian teachings and the convoluted and often incomplete teachings that make it into textbooks these days. The second is when science departments demand my tax dollars to perform possibly immoral acts and then complain about government restriction when a popular uprising ensues. Unfortunately, both of those issues have come up on this blog, perhaps clouded your view of my opinion of science. Thirdly, I take exception to your assertion that I have an uneducated view of science. I have invested many hours studying the history, nature and discoveries scientists have given mankind throughout the centuries. This includes big names like Newton, Einstein and Hawking to the lessers like Pascal and Keplar. For them I have great appreciation. In any case, simply because I point out a inconsistency in a scientific theory, and because there may be a similar inconsistency in a religious idea doesn't really matter in regards to the argument I was making. I was offering an opinion on intelligent design in the classroom, which I think should not be there, and I added a corollary that evolution should also be excluded for its questionable nature. What that has to do with any problems you have with views I might hold on a subject marginally related is curious. Perhaps we can run through and identify a series of contradictions in my views, but for the purposes of this blogging subject, I don't see the relevance to my asserted contradictions to evolution teaching in the classroom. Fourthly, I don't make these assertions because I want to see science destroyed or marginalized, but because I want science to make stay true to it roots and purpose. I believe that the dipping of science into ideology, as I think evolution has become, will permanently weaken the pursuit of natural knowledge in the accepted academic sense. Lastly, simply because the periodic table was incomplete at its first conception and is now accepted as law doesn't speak to this issue because evolution is entirely entirely different. By that reasoning every bogus or thinly evidenced scientific hypothesis should be taught in a classroom because further research "might" reveal it to be true. Let me tell you about the virtues of spontaneous combustion then, or perhaps, spontaneous generation. Besides, the periodic table wasn't accepted as law or doctrine until after it was completed or at least fashioned into a convincing and viable form. Evolution has not yet met that standard, but yet it is presented and taught as if it had. That isn't science, that is ideology and I don't want classrooms puporting to teach objective and naturally revealed truth stocked with ideolouges. My point here is very simple, but your rebuttal has both uneccesarily expanded the discussion and introduced unrelated analogies in an attempt to complicate my argument. Therefore, to keep it simple I reiterate that I do not think ID should be taught in classrooms, similarly because evolution does not readily appear to meet scientific standard by my estimation, it should also be excluded from the classroom. Religion is fine for religion class, and I have never said otherwise.
First, it doesn't matter if I believe a big invisible man created the Earth in six days, because religious text and meaning have nothing to do with science, particuraly in this case where they seem to be diametrically opposed. Obviously, it is impossible to explain a creation theory by scientific standards because such a theory would not hold to accepted scienctific methods. I argue that evolution theory does not hold to scientifc standards either. Therefore, a scientific hole in a religious argument doesn't mean much because the entire text is supernatural to begin with. However, a scientific hole in a scientifc theory is critical that is why I mention it. Secondly, I have a great respect for the natural teachings and knowledge that hard science can provide, and I have said as much. Generally, I only opppose basic scientific thought or action in two areas, one is regarding teaching evolution, which I regard as shaky at best, especially with the decline of Darwinian teachings and the convoluted and often incomplete teachings that make it into textbooks these days. The second is when science departments demand my tax dollars to perform possibly immoral acts and then complain about government restriction when a popular uprising ensues. Unfortunately, both of those issues have come up on this blog, perhaps clouded your view of my opinion of science. Thirdly, I take exception to your assertion that I have an uneducated view of science. I have invested many hours studying the history, nature and discoveries scientists have given mankind throughout the centuries. This includes big names like Newton, Einstein and Hawking to the lessers like Pascal and Keplar. For them I have great appreciation. In any case, simply because I point out a inconsistency in a scientific theory, and because there may be a similar inconsistency in a religious idea doesn't really matter in regards to the argument I was making. I was offering an opinion on intelligent design in the classroom, which I think should not be there, and I added a corollary that evolution should also be excluded for its questionable nature. What that has to do with any problems you have with views I might hold on a subject marginally related is curious. Perhaps we can run through and identify a series of contradictions in my views, but for the purposes of this blogging subject, I don't see the relevance to my asserted contradictions to evolution teaching in the classroom. Fourthly, I don't make these assertions because I want to see science destroyed or marginalized, but because I want science to make stay true to it roots and purpose. I believe that the dipping of science into ideology, as I think evolution has become, will permanently weaken the pursuit of natural knowledge in the accepted academic sense. Lastly, simply because the periodic table was incomplete at its first conception and is now accepted as law doesn't speak to this issue because evolution is entirely entirely different. By that reasoning every bogus or thinly evidenced scientific hypothesis should be taught in a classroom because further research "might" reveal it to be true. Let me tell you about the virtues of spontaneous combustion then, or perhaps, spontaneous generation. Besides, the periodic table wasn't accepted as law or doctrine until after it was completed or at least fashioned into a convincing and viable form. Evolution has not yet met that standard, but yet it is presented and taught as if it had. That isn't science, that is ideology and I don't want classrooms puporting to teach objective and naturally revealed truth stocked with ideolouges. My point here is very simple, but your rebuttal has both uneccesarily expanded the discussion and introduced unrelated analogies in an attempt to complicate my argument. Therefore, to keep it simple I reiterate that I do not think ID should be taught in classrooms, similarly because evolution does not readily appear to meet scientific standard by my estimation, it should also be excluded from the classroom. Religion is fine for religion class, and I have never said otherwise.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
New James Bond
Daniel Craig will star in the 21st Bond film, based on Ian Fleming's first book Casino Royale.
"Craig has said he does not like the fact that the films are more about gadgets than feelings."
Evidently it is going to take some work to get into character.
"Craig has said he does not like the fact that the films are more about gadgets than feelings."
Evidently it is going to take some work to get into character.
George Will....
...makes much sense. However, why would it not be "obstructionist" for "Republicans to put up some resistance?" Wasn't that what we call it whenever a Republican steps out of line with the party orthodoxy? Are we supposed to trust Our Leader or not?
Monday, October 10, 2005
Re; Speaking of judges
um...what?
Bert, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, although I am thoroughly impressed with your fancy lawyer speak.
Bert, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, although I am thoroughly impressed with your fancy lawyer speak.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Speaking of judges...
Mark Steyn encapsulates Breyer's attempt to legitimize his anti-constitutional jurisprudence (also known as a lack thereof):
"Stephen Breyer, one of the nine Supreme Court justices, dislikes the term ‘judicial activism’ and prefers to see what he does as part of a ‘democratic conversation’ that’s good for the health of the republic. The Right, not unreasonably, thinks the democratic conversation was held earlier, during the election and then in the legislature and that, having passed a law forbidding, say, partial-birth abortion, they shouldn’t then see it overturned because Justice Breyer wants to have the last word in the ‘democratic conversation’. "
Breyer actually says judges are partaking in a 'democratic conversation' especially in the context of consulting foreign law.
"Stephen Breyer, one of the nine Supreme Court justices, dislikes the term ‘judicial activism’ and prefers to see what he does as part of a ‘democratic conversation’ that’s good for the health of the republic. The Right, not unreasonably, thinks the democratic conversation was held earlier, during the election and then in the legislature and that, having passed a law forbidding, say, partial-birth abortion, they shouldn’t then see it overturned because Justice Breyer wants to have the last word in the ‘democratic conversation’. "
Breyer actually says judges are partaking in a 'democratic conversation' especially in the context of consulting foreign law.
George Will...
...hammers the President on the Miers nomination. I have to say, I don't understand this nomination at all. It is a let down. I'm hoping enough Republicans put up some resistance.
Friday, October 07, 2005
On another note....
Does anybody else watch Lost on ABC? If not, I utterly recommend it. However, I wouldn't suggest you dive in now without renting season one--the plot is fairly intricate.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
ID and science
I'll just go ahead and jump on the bandwagon here and say that in no way shape or form would I constitue ID as classroom worthy science. I would calssify it as more of a religion...or a joke. Go flying spaghetti monster!
On a different note, I'd like to ask JB why the "gaping holes" in the theory of evolution are so terrible. The periodic table, which I seem to recall you saying you would never question, had about 70% of the spaces blank when it was first designed. When Mendeleev first drew the table, it was missing a tremendous number of elements. But he rightly concluded that scienctists had yet to discover the missing links. He didn't simply assume that science was wrong because it didn't immediately have the answers or because most of his table was missing (which seems to be what you're doing with the Theory of Evolution). Instead, he used basic scientific and mathematic principles to infer (he did this correctly, for the most part) the general physical properties of the missing elements (which seems to be what the dreaded SCIENCE does with evolution - that's why it is a theory and not a law - there isn't enough scientific proof). Infact, it was Mendeleev's speculation with the table that led to the discovery of several more elements as chemists and physicists quested to fill those gaps. Incidentally, as a side note, I'd direct you to the Webster's definitions of "theory" and ask how one, if not all of them, doesn't apply to science's "THEORY" of evolution.
I maintain that you have a surprisingly narrow and uneducated view of what science is and how it works based upon your posts. You are suprisingly quick to point out a vacuum in scientific knowledge for someone so dedicated to the idea that a great, big invisible man created everything in 6 days. I hold your devotion to religion and criticisms of science to be hypocritical in the most fundamental of senses; you find fault with the gaps in science and label them as something to be frowned upon while you embrace gaps in religious theory as a testament to your faith. Further, I would think that you ignore a tremendous amount of evidence by simply writing off the idea of evolution because you find it to not coexist with what you read in the Bible. I would argue that there is sufficient evidence for a THEORY of evolution and that, from that aspect, the THEORY should be taught in schools as it is a fairly good modern means by which students can begin to see how to try to fit data together to begin to answer very complex and intricate questions. My elemental science class in high school spent several days putting together a periodic table based on the data that Mendeleev had (the periodic table was only a theory when he did it) and I don't see why the same couldn't be done with evolution. It is a theory that can be debated both ways and the ability to look at a problem from every possible angle and discount nothing until it is proven wrong is an essential quality that any pursuer of "science" must possess. I think there is an excellent parallel between the development of the periodic table and that of the theory of evolution. Perhaps, in time, science will fill those gaps with evidence, much as the gaps in the periodic table were filled.
On a different note, I'd like to ask JB why the "gaping holes" in the theory of evolution are so terrible. The periodic table, which I seem to recall you saying you would never question, had about 70% of the spaces blank when it was first designed. When Mendeleev first drew the table, it was missing a tremendous number of elements. But he rightly concluded that scienctists had yet to discover the missing links. He didn't simply assume that science was wrong because it didn't immediately have the answers or because most of his table was missing (which seems to be what you're doing with the Theory of Evolution). Instead, he used basic scientific and mathematic principles to infer (he did this correctly, for the most part) the general physical properties of the missing elements (which seems to be what the dreaded SCIENCE does with evolution - that's why it is a theory and not a law - there isn't enough scientific proof). Infact, it was Mendeleev's speculation with the table that led to the discovery of several more elements as chemists and physicists quested to fill those gaps. Incidentally, as a side note, I'd direct you to the Webster's definitions of "theory" and ask how one, if not all of them, doesn't apply to science's "THEORY" of evolution.
I maintain that you have a surprisingly narrow and uneducated view of what science is and how it works based upon your posts. You are suprisingly quick to point out a vacuum in scientific knowledge for someone so dedicated to the idea that a great, big invisible man created everything in 6 days. I hold your devotion to religion and criticisms of science to be hypocritical in the most fundamental of senses; you find fault with the gaps in science and label them as something to be frowned upon while you embrace gaps in religious theory as a testament to your faith. Further, I would think that you ignore a tremendous amount of evidence by simply writing off the idea of evolution because you find it to not coexist with what you read in the Bible. I would argue that there is sufficient evidence for a THEORY of evolution and that, from that aspect, the THEORY should be taught in schools as it is a fairly good modern means by which students can begin to see how to try to fit data together to begin to answer very complex and intricate questions. My elemental science class in high school spent several days putting together a periodic table based on the data that Mendeleev had (the periodic table was only a theory when he did it) and I don't see why the same couldn't be done with evolution. It is a theory that can be debated both ways and the ability to look at a problem from every possible angle and discount nothing until it is proven wrong is an essential quality that any pursuer of "science" must possess. I think there is an excellent parallel between the development of the periodic table and that of the theory of evolution. Perhaps, in time, science will fill those gaps with evidence, much as the gaps in the periodic table were filled.
Monday, October 03, 2005
On ID....
Interesting comparison here....
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-barash27sep27,1,4928180.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-barash27sep27,1,4928180.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Tim Burton...
...has made a funny little, family-friendly film. No necrophilia here, just clay-mation and song. Corpse Bride was entertaining and I recommend it to you.
Squid
Just wanted to make sure everyone caught this in the article.
"In 2003, New Zealand marine biologists laid a sex trap.
They ground up some squid gonads, believing that the scent would drive male giant squids wild as the creatures migrated through New Zealand waters.
The hope was that a camera would squirt out the pureed genitals and a passing squid, driven into a sexual frenzy, would then mate with the lens -- a project that, some may be relieved to hear, never came to fruition."
Scary indeed!
"In 2003, New Zealand marine biologists laid a sex trap.
They ground up some squid gonads, believing that the scent would drive male giant squids wild as the creatures migrated through New Zealand waters.
The hope was that a camera would squirt out the pureed genitals and a passing squid, driven into a sexual frenzy, would then mate with the lens -- a project that, some may be relieved to hear, never came to fruition."
Scary indeed!
Friday, September 30, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Scary science
Japanese scientists have captured a giant squid on camera!
That thing is pretty damn scary.
But still not as scary as the comparably sized octopus would be.
That thing is pretty damn scary.
But still not as scary as the comparably sized octopus would be.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Intelligent Design
It certainly doesn't feel like science. I would say that I am sympathetic to the view of many scientists that they shouldn't be forced to teach something in a classroom that doesn't pass scientific muster, or teach something other than science in their classrooms. If intelligent design is not considered to be science by a certain standard in the scientific community, than it ought not be taught in the science room.
However, a problem lies therein. Science does not present itself as an academic discipline meant to be mulled over and deliberated upon, etc, if you get my meaning. Scientists cast themselves as nature's truthseekers, steep in natural wisdom and versed in the nature of the planetary system. It isn't like a scientist would say "Well, evidence of an evolutionary chain that did not progress is this Archaeopterix (spelling), but remember, its only science." Science claims to be this end all of natural knowledge, which creates a frightful dilemma for those that can identify staggering gaps in evolutionary theory. I would hesitate to even classify it as a theory, for it seems to only meet the standards of a hypothesis. Now, it does seem to me that scientific methodology and formulae make very good sense, and I find much of the science related documents I have read or textbooks I have examined to be extremely convincing in non-evolutionary studies or what is called scientific law. I mean who doesn't think the periodic chart is accurate? My basic point is that science, while full of knowledge, has tried to dip too far into wisdom with its near fantical teachings on evolution. And science is simply not good at wisdom.
So, that leaves us with a basic problem. Science cannot provide an adequate answer for the origins of mankind, so it should, buy its own discipline, be moderate in its approach to instructing America's youth. I don't think ID is the answer, in fact, I don't have an answer, only a problem. Generally, I would loathe legislative interference in classroom study, but with the nature and power of many state departments of education, it can be frustrating to see behemoth beraucractic regulation by ideologically driven phonies and underqualified fat cats pushing ridiculous education programs and requirements at monstrous expense to state taxpayers.
So, in any case, it does not appear to me that Intelligent Design as I understand it passes scientific "muster". That really doesn't mean much to me, since I support the basic idea that the Earth is much younger than scientists believe and that evolution requires as much faith to swallow as creation. That is really neither here nor there except to say that sometimes "scientific evidence" doesn't seem like evidence at all, but something else entirely. Therefore, I suggest not watering down scientific exploration with the teaching of either Intelligent Design or Evolution in high school classrooms, for both seem to dull science's appeal to knowledge.
However, a problem lies therein. Science does not present itself as an academic discipline meant to be mulled over and deliberated upon, etc, if you get my meaning. Scientists cast themselves as nature's truthseekers, steep in natural wisdom and versed in the nature of the planetary system. It isn't like a scientist would say "Well, evidence of an evolutionary chain that did not progress is this Archaeopterix (spelling), but remember, its only science." Science claims to be this end all of natural knowledge, which creates a frightful dilemma for those that can identify staggering gaps in evolutionary theory. I would hesitate to even classify it as a theory, for it seems to only meet the standards of a hypothesis. Now, it does seem to me that scientific methodology and formulae make very good sense, and I find much of the science related documents I have read or textbooks I have examined to be extremely convincing in non-evolutionary studies or what is called scientific law. I mean who doesn't think the periodic chart is accurate? My basic point is that science, while full of knowledge, has tried to dip too far into wisdom with its near fantical teachings on evolution. And science is simply not good at wisdom.
So, that leaves us with a basic problem. Science cannot provide an adequate answer for the origins of mankind, so it should, buy its own discipline, be moderate in its approach to instructing America's youth. I don't think ID is the answer, in fact, I don't have an answer, only a problem. Generally, I would loathe legislative interference in classroom study, but with the nature and power of many state departments of education, it can be frustrating to see behemoth beraucractic regulation by ideologically driven phonies and underqualified fat cats pushing ridiculous education programs and requirements at monstrous expense to state taxpayers.
So, in any case, it does not appear to me that Intelligent Design as I understand it passes scientific "muster". That really doesn't mean much to me, since I support the basic idea that the Earth is much younger than scientists believe and that evolution requires as much faith to swallow as creation. That is really neither here nor there except to say that sometimes "scientific evidence" doesn't seem like evidence at all, but something else entirely. Therefore, I suggest not watering down scientific exploration with the teaching of either Intelligent Design or Evolution in high school classrooms, for both seem to dull science's appeal to knowledge.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Intelligent Design
It is not science. It offers no testable hypothesis. It endlessly repeats the hopeless logic that because biological, cosmological, and natural process that are highly complex seem to perform a function, this is evidence of design. Design theorists revert to statistics to show the how unlikely it is that these process emerged on their own, with no guidance.
The interesting thing is that, this brand of math originated in Creationists who willfully worked backwards from current accepted scientific numbers (age of the universe, global population) to support thier Creationist views. And yet, it seems to me that Intelligent Design and Creationism are directly opposed--in attempting to gain the foothold in science departments, ID jettisons the-universe-was-made-in-6-days and most other anti-evolution rhetoric. Instead, ID attempts to provide the very thing that Darwinism lacks, purpose, while tacitly accepting evolution in order to weasel its way into the scientific community.
If you believe in god and want to say god's been directing evolution, I say fine. But if you propose to espouse that view (with no scientific evidence to back it up) in mainstream science and demand that it be taught alongside other hard sciences (like the ones that require a lab), I say you and the president can both forget about it. Teach it in religion class, where the students all know exactly how valid that curriculum is and treat it accordingly.
Incidentally, if you're a theologian dabbling in science or a scientist willing to pay lip service to ID, you might able to land some research money here.
The interesting thing is that, this brand of math originated in Creationists who willfully worked backwards from current accepted scientific numbers (age of the universe, global population) to support thier Creationist views. And yet, it seems to me that Intelligent Design and Creationism are directly opposed--in attempting to gain the foothold in science departments, ID jettisons the-universe-was-made-in-6-days and most other anti-evolution rhetoric. Instead, ID attempts to provide the very thing that Darwinism lacks, purpose, while tacitly accepting evolution in order to weasel its way into the scientific community.
If you believe in god and want to say god's been directing evolution, I say fine. But if you propose to espouse that view (with no scientific evidence to back it up) in mainstream science and demand that it be taught alongside other hard sciences (like the ones that require a lab), I say you and the president can both forget about it. Teach it in religion class, where the students all know exactly how valid that curriculum is and treat it accordingly.
Incidentally, if you're a theologian dabbling in science or a scientist willing to pay lip service to ID, you might able to land some research money here.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Replies....
On Enterprise v. Star Destroyer: So it's all about size, is it? "Size matters not!," quoth Yoda.
On OSU: Troy Smith is the better choice, but he is far from great. He looks to throw second, if at all, and then only looks for one, maybe two receivers before running sideways. Additionally, he can't throw worth a damn; how many open receivers did he hit in the shoes against SDSU? He's going to have to knock that shit off during Big Ten play, or we're screwed.
On "Intelligent Design": Oh, Kris. Haven't you heard? ID is as scientifically reliable as evolution...If you disagree, you must be afraid of "truth"...The scientific community is really divided over evolution...We should rely on empirical evidence and testing and all that, but only until we come to the origins of life...then we should throw up our hands and say, "Oh, well. It looks like science can never handle this one, guys. Rather than pursuing further research, let's just say it was a higher intelligence and go play golf"...In fact, since there are some gaps in understanding the mechanism of evolution, it is just a pseudo-religion...all them there scientists who believe in it are part of the conspiracy to destroy religion...they are on the defensive!...ha! ha! ha!...Peppered moths!...Fossil record...the holocaust never happened!...Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...Wha ha haaaa!!!!.....
On OSU: Troy Smith is the better choice, but he is far from great. He looks to throw second, if at all, and then only looks for one, maybe two receivers before running sideways. Additionally, he can't throw worth a damn; how many open receivers did he hit in the shoes against SDSU? He's going to have to knock that shit off during Big Ten play, or we're screwed.
On "Intelligent Design": Oh, Kris. Haven't you heard? ID is as scientifically reliable as evolution...If you disagree, you must be afraid of "truth"...The scientific community is really divided over evolution...We should rely on empirical evidence and testing and all that, but only until we come to the origins of life...then we should throw up our hands and say, "Oh, well. It looks like science can never handle this one, guys. Rather than pursuing further research, let's just say it was a higher intelligence and go play golf"...In fact, since there are some gaps in understanding the mechanism of evolution, it is just a pseudo-religion...all them there scientists who believe in it are part of the conspiracy to destroy religion...they are on the defensive!...ha! ha! ha!...Peppered moths!...Fossil record...the holocaust never happened!...Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...Wha ha haaaa!!!!.....
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Intelligent Design
If you hadn't heard, the newest internet fad to sweep the web is the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." The website is very funny, regardless of your thoughts on the matter. Anyway, what are your thoughts on these matters such as:
Intelligent design?
Evolution?
Religion?
Belief in God?
Belief in general?
What I think: Intelligent Design is NOT science. Therefore it should not be taught in a science classroom. Evolution is based on testable scientific hypotheses and despite flaws in the theory, IS science and should be taught in a science classroom. Religion has its place (we read The Bible in Senior English) and I am not against teaching of religion in public schools. However, religion (which more or less requires belief) does not belong in science. Intelligent design requires belief. QED and all that. Discuss.
Intelligent design?
Evolution?
Religion?
Belief in God?
Belief in general?
What I think: Intelligent Design is NOT science. Therefore it should not be taught in a science classroom. Evolution is based on testable scientific hypotheses and despite flaws in the theory, IS science and should be taught in a science classroom. Religion has its place (we read The Bible in Senior English) and I am not against teaching of religion in public schools. However, religion (which more or less requires belief) does not belong in science. Intelligent design requires belief. QED and all that. Discuss.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Go Bucks!
I'm still sore from the Texas loss. Damn! They should've walked away with that one.
They bounced back today althought the offense still concernes me. Unfortunately it wasn't the game abc carried down here. I think making Troy Smith the starter was the right call, but they haven't put together many sustained drives yet this year. This is a problem when facing good offenses like Texas or Michigan State, and makes otherwise easy-win games closer than they should be.
Oh, yeah. Forgot to gloat last Sunday. Go Bengals!
They bounced back today althought the offense still concernes me. Unfortunately it wasn't the game abc carried down here. I think making Troy Smith the starter was the right call, but they haven't put together many sustained drives yet this year. This is a problem when facing good offenses like Texas or Michigan State, and makes otherwise easy-win games closer than they should be.
Oh, yeah. Forgot to gloat last Sunday. Go Bengals!
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Nerdtastic!
I found this, for the nerdier kids here.
I think it puts to rest any Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer arguments.
New bands you've never heard of and MUST check out:
Drive-By Truckers (The Dirty South, Decoration Day, Southern Rock Opera)
Umphrey's McGee (Anchor Drops, Local Band does OK)
Ween (not new, but brilliant nonetheless) (The Mollusk, White Pepper)
And a question for Bert: was your prof implying federalists, Kennedy or the Jeffersonians were bad? Or good? And why didn't you smack him for his asinine comparisons in the first place?
Finally, my thoughts on Harry Potter:
Harry will discover he is the final horcrux and will have to sacrifice himself to defeat Voldemort. He may or may not live through the ordeal; I think it depends on how Christian Rowling wants to make the story. He will face Voldemort alone, although Ron and Hermoine (and others) will help him get to the final battle. Snape, I think, will ultimately turn out to be good. As far as I could tell the only person he killed in Book 6 was Dumbledore, who was always a pretty clever guy. The Unbreakable Curse and Dumbledore's final "pleadings" with Snape together seem to indicate (to me) that they knew this would happen. Snape will likely aid Harry in getting to Voldemort.
In all my second favorite book, despite the kissy-makeout stuff. Although I guess that is what the kids do these days anyway. If I were to rank the books I would put them in this order: 4, 6, 3, 1, 2, 5. But I've only read 5 and 6 once each.
I think it puts to rest any Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer arguments.
New bands you've never heard of and MUST check out:
Drive-By Truckers (The Dirty South, Decoration Day, Southern Rock Opera)
Umphrey's McGee (Anchor Drops, Local Band does OK)
Ween (not new, but brilliant nonetheless) (The Mollusk, White Pepper)
And a question for Bert: was your prof implying federalists, Kennedy or the Jeffersonians were bad? Or good? And why didn't you smack him for his asinine comparisons in the first place?
Finally, my thoughts on Harry Potter:
Harry will discover he is the final horcrux and will have to sacrifice himself to defeat Voldemort. He may or may not live through the ordeal; I think it depends on how Christian Rowling wants to make the story. He will face Voldemort alone, although Ron and Hermoine (and others) will help him get to the final battle. Snape, I think, will ultimately turn out to be good. As far as I could tell the only person he killed in Book 6 was Dumbledore, who was always a pretty clever guy. The Unbreakable Curse and Dumbledore's final "pleadings" with Snape together seem to indicate (to me) that they knew this would happen. Snape will likely aid Harry in getting to Voldemort.
In all my second favorite book, despite the kissy-makeout stuff. Although I guess that is what the kids do these days anyway. If I were to rank the books I would put them in this order: 4, 6, 3, 1, 2, 5. But I've only read 5 and 6 once each.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Science
Hey Bert, I suppose the first part is for you. I just read an abstract of an article that is supposed to be published in a physical chemistry journal about Pu 238 and its use as an energy source, specifically for long range space satelites and such. I guess some crazy ass group over in germany or norway have built a long range fuel supply system using Pu 238 that supposedly can power a small satelite for upwards of 50 years (I don't know how they calculated that as I am no good at that "math" religion).
Secondly, a group in Japan just published an article on the successful use of fetal stem cells to grow healthy adult cells. If I can find an online version of the article, I will post it.
Go Science!
Bam!
Secondly, a group in Japan just published an article on the successful use of fetal stem cells to grow healthy adult cells. If I can find an online version of the article, I will post it.
Go Science!
Bam!
Monday, September 12, 2005
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Con Law
yesterday my Con Law professor likened the Federalist Society to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Repulicans--which may be fair--but he went on to liken Jefferson's opponents, the Federalists, to Ted Kennedy. I nearly jumped out of my chair.
Nonetheless, it is an amusing tale of intellectual dishonesty and liberal dominance of higher education.
Nonetheless, it is an amusing tale of intellectual dishonesty and liberal dominance of higher education.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Sin City
I thought it was pretty good. I had no idea what was going on until about 2/3 the way through...so much jumping around and character overlap...having never read the comics may have set me back a bit...but I expect I would like it more the second time around since I won't be struggling to keep up with the plot. I was actually thinking about buying it. Maybe I should and I can use it to seduce you, Bert.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Harry Potter
I think it's interesting that you all assume Harry is going to survive his encounter with Voldemort and come out whole.
Once more on Potter....
Well said Nick. You make sense regarding Harry/Luke not defeating Voldemort/Emperor with strength but something else, and in order to really defeat the embodiment of "evil" it would certainly take something besides or instead of strength (like the mercy I somewhat jokingly referred to). Think of shitty action movies where the good guy wins by killing everyone else but is still good because he is the one the camera is focused on. I just don't get the sense Harry can survive a fight with Voldemort long enough to pull out a goodness/love trump card.
I thought about one more slight disappointment about books 1-6. I don't feel like the table is set for a true showdown, like when the #1 and #2 football teams in the country square off for a championship game. Remember when Nebraska got into the BCS title game instead of Oregon? Everyone knew Nebraska wasn't that great and would be crushed, which they were. I had hoped to close book 6 and say "Awwwww shit! It's on now!" Voldemort goes in to the Rose Bowl as wire-to-wire #1 and Harry is...#19. On the other hand, it is pretty cool when an underdog dethrones a heavily favored champ ("miracle on ice," Oklahoma beating FSU...or Ohio State v. Miami in 2002...remember how much better Miami was...OSU didn't have a chance...not enough speed...and that Kellen Winslow...dang). I just feel strangely stuck in some limbo between these two possibilities, and I can't really explain why.
Nick, I, for one, love (most) long posts, but could you break up some paragraphs? My crappy eyes keep getting lost in the middle.
I thought about one more slight disappointment about books 1-6. I don't feel like the table is set for a true showdown, like when the #1 and #2 football teams in the country square off for a championship game. Remember when Nebraska got into the BCS title game instead of Oregon? Everyone knew Nebraska wasn't that great and would be crushed, which they were. I had hoped to close book 6 and say "Awwwww shit! It's on now!" Voldemort goes in to the Rose Bowl as wire-to-wire #1 and Harry is...#19. On the other hand, it is pretty cool when an underdog dethrones a heavily favored champ ("miracle on ice," Oklahoma beating FSU...or Ohio State v. Miami in 2002...remember how much better Miami was...OSU didn't have a chance...not enough speed...and that Kellen Winslow...dang). I just feel strangely stuck in some limbo between these two possibilities, and I can't really explain why.
Nick, I, for one, love (most) long posts, but could you break up some paragraphs? My crappy eyes keep getting lost in the middle.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Alas...
Law homework prevents me from attempting a decent commentary on Harry Potter. Perhaps I shall get some time soon and make up for my first.
Sin City
It's been a while since this movie came out, but I wondered if anyone saw it and had any thoughts.
Surprisingly, I liked it, and upon a second viewing I liked it even more.
Surprisingly, I liked it, and upon a second viewing I liked it even more.
Thanks E-money
Eric has ably pointed out Potter flaw's which were much less formed in my mind as evidenced by my weak post Nick jumped on and flogged. It's good to see that you still derive some malicious pleasure at my expense.
Nonetheless, Nick, I think I agree that it will be more of a suprise if Book 7 does not satisfy. Glad you are enjoying the Helprin. It would do you all good to try some out. I highly recommend Memiors from Antproof Case and Soldier of the Great War.
Nonetheless, Nick, I think I agree that it will be more of a suprise if Book 7 does not satisfy. Glad you are enjoying the Helprin. It would do you all good to try some out. I highly recommend Memiors from Antproof Case and Soldier of the Great War.
Harry Potter the Hero
Eric takes a hard swing at the series’ namesake protagonist, and while I don’t want to shoulder the task of rehabilitating Harry Potter as hero, I just feel like pouring more words onto this blog, as that seems to get John’s goat.
First, let me say that to a large extent I agree with Eric. Harry Potter hasn’t yet reached the stature of any of our more well-known titular heroes. But to be fair, his understanding of the prophecy and his fate has been evolving over the course of many books, and while I’m not sure when he knew that he would be facing Voldemort with the fate of the world on the line (book 4 or 5, I suppose… sometime after Voldemort became embodied again) he has only just at the end of Book 6 come to terms with the idea that he must face Voldemort. So let’s be fair to the kid, and wipe the slate clean of any previous slackings—if he spends his time in Book 7 guzzling Butterbeer and playing Quidditch I’ll jump on the E-train line of thought, but let’s at least give him the chance to buckle down now that he knows what’s at stake.
Yes, in a world full of strange and fantastical things, Harry is kind of a lackluster character. At times Ron and Hermione (and other members of the supporting cast) are much more interesting, and Harry is merely the spoke of the wheel around which they all revolve. By comparison, his father seems a much more engaging character—a rougish, swashbuckling wizard, perhaps (I imagine James Potter rendered in film or on stage by… wait for it… Timothy Dalton!). If I can make the following point without reverting to psychoanalysis, I’ll win myself a cookie: Harry is a flat protagonist because he serves as the vessel on which the multitudes of readers who are children project themselves. A child reading this book has the nearly-blank slate of Harry to exist in a marvelous world of wizardry, to be chosen for the sports team at the most important position, to inherit a ton of money, to get attention and have stalwart friends. As adults (or… nearly so) we (the posters to this blog) are suitably disappointed by this rendering. It could be that in her construction of Harry, Rowling has been too accurate to the model of the modern teenager, attributing Harry with few worthwhile traits to aspire to.
Growing up without his parents (and then learning of their murderer) should have been a soul-forging type of experience of Harry, and it really hasn’t been. He’s not driven by revenge. I still maintain that Harry’s heroism has and will stem from the same vein as Frodo’s—noble spirit, bravery, and perseverance. It became clear to me in Book 6 that Harry, if not exactly a hero himself, is the anti-Voldemort, in the sense that both came from similar beginnings (no parents, lots of raw talent) and from there diverged along wildly different moral paths. But Lt. Columbo Harry is not. The various mysteries that speckle each book are never solved in time by Harry.
I think its silly toss stones at Harry for being a mediocre wizard—or rather, for not being as accomplished a wizard as you all would like him to be. That characterization is unfair. Harry is consistently right behind Hermione (sometimes far behind… but still ahead of most of the other students) in his studies. In a Hogwart’s ranking, I challenge you to name a student more accomplished than Harry other than Hermione.
I wonder why it is so important that Harry be a very powerful wizard—other power wizards have been killed by Voldemort before. I think it’s pretty obvious that Voldemort won’t be beaten by tossing around a few curses or attacks spells here or there. Luke wasn’t going to beat the Emperor—it took something else. Likewise Harry won’t be defeating Voldemort by use of his wand alone. Eric’s analogy is fun but overly simplistic—it implies that there is a singular method to achieving the desired end (i.e. throwing strikes, Harry’s training in Book 6 was to understand Voldemort and his origins, and it’s a lesson that Dumbledore saw as especially important, more important even than learning curses and Defense Against the Dark Arts.
For those who are upset that Harry’s not the greatest role model for children, I sympathize. But if you’re fretting because he’s a so-so wizard and seems at this stage incapable of realistically defeating Voldemort, then might I humbly suggest that you’re getting ahead of yourselves?
In Revenge of the Sith, George Lucas plainly did not deliver the goods, even though many of us had held out hope after the dismal Ep. 1 & 2. There are many more reasons to expect that Harry Potter 7 will turn out good—the real surprise would be if it falls flat and does not satisfy.
I really liked the book as well. Sadly, I was fooled by Snape’s deception and was shocked by his dastardly deed. You all make good points about his remaining ambiguous.
Though I enjoyed reading it and can’t wait for the next one, I have a major reservation about the series which only became more pronounced after this installment. Harry Potter is a lousy protagonist. He’s a swell kid who can readily summon a patronus...and that’s about it. He is not a compelling hero at all and doesn’t deserve to have his name on the front of seven books. Here’s why.
A hero (it seems to me—this isn’t intentionally based on any critical framework) needs to have some exceptional quality to earn his/her hero/heroine status. It can be strength, courage, intelligence, perseverance, maybe even luck to some extent, but it has to be some advantageous quality that sets him apart from his peers and adversaries. I will sort these into special skills/abilities, character traits, and moral qualities. Harry just isn’t exceptional enough in any category to be a good hero.
First, Harry is a good wizard, but not a great one by a long shot. He has a reputation for greatness at defense against the dark arts, which is based largely on the aforementioned and woefully overworked patronus charm. The "love" thing is retarded and the end of book one sucked, in my opinion. He is totally inept at occlumency, a skill which would be indispensable in the struggle against Voldemort. His OWL scores were above average, but not even good enough to become an auror, much less the title “chosen one.” He is deplorably mediocre at potions, which seems to be one of the most important subjects for a wizard. He does have unusual skill as a quiddich seeker, which, in conjunction with $1.09, will get him a cup of coffee in the war against Voldemort. He has come up with some clever solutions to problems (jamming the tooth in Tom Riddle’s book, for example), but more often he relies on someone else’s thinking and advice.
Strength or skill aren’t the only ways to be a hero, though. When other heroes have lack some applicable skill, they often make up for it with a character attribute, such as perseverance or work ethic. Harry is a lazy piece of crap. While this book shouldn't be a tract on the importance of doing your homework, you guys are too hard on Bert. Not only is Harry not a model student, he is inexplicably careless. He knows his past and throughout the series has at least some idea about the showdown in his future, yet this fails to motivate him in an meaningful way, which would be to work harder...not because it's the "right" thing to do, but because he and everyone else he loves will be killed if he doesn't. In book after book he would rather whack off with Ron and roll his eyes at Hermione than, say, figure out what the next Triwizard clue means before the day of the trial (and studying for OWLs doesn’t count—even the most lazy-ass college students get religion during finals week and cram). I can’t speak for you guys, but if I knew the fate of the world depended on my ability to strike out Barry Bonds sometime during the 2007 season, I’d be spending every waking moment out back pitching at my tire swing. If I were lucky enough to be attending a pitching boarding school where Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens were my teachers, there’d really be no reason for me to not hone my skills to perfection. But Harry, who goes to such a school and has a work-horse ace in his dorm to work out with (Hermione), is content to half-ass his way through most classes (oh, but he really loves defense against the dark arts, the little dear) and stew with immature, unfocused anger (“Oooh, that damn Voldemort!”). A real hero who was a better-than-average wizard with a prophesy might actually study potions and charms harder on the off chance Voldemort doesn’t appear as a dementor in the last book.
Finally, a hero can win the job with some outstanding moral attributes. I give him credit for taking Luna to the party, but he blew her off constantly in book 4. Aside from being a nice boy, Harry fails on this count as well. The laziness outlined above is a moral taint, but he doesn’t even always take the high road: he spies on his enemies and even tries to use an unforgivable curse (which fails laughably) at the end of book 6. If his stupid "love" thing is to be meaningful, it would have to be something like mercy or Christ-like loving his enemy (someone else rightly noted how he felt for young Snape and Tom Riddle). But to have mercy, one must have power over another. For example, when Luke is about to kill Vader, he casts his lightsaber away and realizes his victory over evil. It is impossible for me to conceive Harry holding Voldemort's (or anyone else's) life in his hands because he is such an average wizard. It would be more likely to have Harry saying to Voldemort, who is standing with his boot on Harry's bleeding neck, "Aha! I've got you right where I want you. I won't kill you because it would be wrong!"
Luke Skywalker had the destiny thing going, but he was exceptionally gifted with the force. Bilbo Baggins was honest and clever. Frodo was pure hearted and brave. Bruce Wayne trained for years to become Batman. Neo (heaven forgive me for using a Matrix reference) was a savant at manipulating the program. Paul Atredies had the strategic cunning to get in with the Fremen. But what does Harry Potter have? He is like Forrest Gump: always in the right place at the right time. Harry’s victories are more often the results of someone else (Hermione, Dumbledore, winning the Triwizard tournament because bad guys are pulling strings) or dumb luck (getting Snape’s potions book and winning the felix felicis, receiving invisibility cloaks and ultra fast brooms from mysterious benefactors, priori incantatem, getting the marauder’s map from the Weasleys). Even in this last book, what did Harry actually do? Oh, right, he followed instructions and kept giving Dumbledore goblets of green potion. He couldn’t fight off the zombies and he didn’t even remember to pick up the friggin’ locket after the potion was gone.
After this book, it is clear Harry is only ¾ the wizard Hermione is (witch...whatever), 1/100th the wizard Snape is, and 1/1000 the wizard Dumbledore was. So, now that he’s dropping out of school (!), what is he going to do when he has to fight Snape and Voldemort? I’ll tell you what. He’ll play with himself for 100 pages, find some gadget under a park bench that happens to be a horcrux-melting talisman, kill Voldemort, be honored with a parade, and become the new defense against the dark arts teacher at Hogwart’s on the strength of his ability to use the expelliarmus spell.
Finally, you guys are all wrong about one thing. The book is totally anti-Christian. In chapter 16, Harry confronts the propagandist Minister of Magic for lying to the public about the War on Voldemortian Terror and imprisoning innocent people without due process. Clearly, this is thinly-veiled anti-Bush slander, which can be shown to be anti-Christian by the following syllogism:
1. Bush (W), the choice of believers and voters with morals, consults directly with Christ (C), who gives divine authorization for whatever the administration does.
2. The novel Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (H) opposes the administration’s policies.
3. To oppose the administration’s policies is to oppose Christ himself.
4. Therefore, the novel opposes Christ and is thus anti-Christian.
The argument can be symbolically rendered thus:
1. C ) W
2. H ) ~W
3. ~W ) ~C (corollary of 1)
.: 4. H ) ~C (2, 3 h.s.)
Q. E. D.
Other than that, it’s all good. For the record, I rank them in the following ascending order: 5, 1, 2, 6, 4, 3.
Though I enjoyed reading it and can’t wait for the next one, I have a major reservation about the series which only became more pronounced after this installment. Harry Potter is a lousy protagonist. He’s a swell kid who can readily summon a patronus...and that’s about it. He is not a compelling hero at all and doesn’t deserve to have his name on the front of seven books. Here’s why.
A hero (it seems to me—this isn’t intentionally based on any critical framework) needs to have some exceptional quality to earn his/her hero/heroine status. It can be strength, courage, intelligence, perseverance, maybe even luck to some extent, but it has to be some advantageous quality that sets him apart from his peers and adversaries. I will sort these into special skills/abilities, character traits, and moral qualities. Harry just isn’t exceptional enough in any category to be a good hero.
First, Harry is a good wizard, but not a great one by a long shot. He has a reputation for greatness at defense against the dark arts, which is based largely on the aforementioned and woefully overworked patronus charm. The "love" thing is retarded and the end of book one sucked, in my opinion. He is totally inept at occlumency, a skill which would be indispensable in the struggle against Voldemort. His OWL scores were above average, but not even good enough to become an auror, much less the title “chosen one.” He is deplorably mediocre at potions, which seems to be one of the most important subjects for a wizard. He does have unusual skill as a quiddich seeker, which, in conjunction with $1.09, will get him a cup of coffee in the war against Voldemort. He has come up with some clever solutions to problems (jamming the tooth in Tom Riddle’s book, for example), but more often he relies on someone else’s thinking and advice.
Strength or skill aren’t the only ways to be a hero, though. When other heroes have lack some applicable skill, they often make up for it with a character attribute, such as perseverance or work ethic. Harry is a lazy piece of crap. While this book shouldn't be a tract on the importance of doing your homework, you guys are too hard on Bert. Not only is Harry not a model student, he is inexplicably careless. He knows his past and throughout the series has at least some idea about the showdown in his future, yet this fails to motivate him in an meaningful way, which would be to work harder...not because it's the "right" thing to do, but because he and everyone else he loves will be killed if he doesn't. In book after book he would rather whack off with Ron and roll his eyes at Hermione than, say, figure out what the next Triwizard clue means before the day of the trial (and studying for OWLs doesn’t count—even the most lazy-ass college students get religion during finals week and cram). I can’t speak for you guys, but if I knew the fate of the world depended on my ability to strike out Barry Bonds sometime during the 2007 season, I’d be spending every waking moment out back pitching at my tire swing. If I were lucky enough to be attending a pitching boarding school where Nolan Ryan and Roger Clemens were my teachers, there’d really be no reason for me to not hone my skills to perfection. But Harry, who goes to such a school and has a work-horse ace in his dorm to work out with (Hermione), is content to half-ass his way through most classes (oh, but he really loves defense against the dark arts, the little dear) and stew with immature, unfocused anger (“Oooh, that damn Voldemort!”). A real hero who was a better-than-average wizard with a prophesy might actually study potions and charms harder on the off chance Voldemort doesn’t appear as a dementor in the last book.
Finally, a hero can win the job with some outstanding moral attributes. I give him credit for taking Luna to the party, but he blew her off constantly in book 4. Aside from being a nice boy, Harry fails on this count as well. The laziness outlined above is a moral taint, but he doesn’t even always take the high road: he spies on his enemies and even tries to use an unforgivable curse (which fails laughably) at the end of book 6. If his stupid "love" thing is to be meaningful, it would have to be something like mercy or Christ-like loving his enemy (someone else rightly noted how he felt for young Snape and Tom Riddle). But to have mercy, one must have power over another. For example, when Luke is about to kill Vader, he casts his lightsaber away and realizes his victory over evil. It is impossible for me to conceive Harry holding Voldemort's (or anyone else's) life in his hands because he is such an average wizard. It would be more likely to have Harry saying to Voldemort, who is standing with his boot on Harry's bleeding neck, "Aha! I've got you right where I want you. I won't kill you because it would be wrong!"
Luke Skywalker had the destiny thing going, but he was exceptionally gifted with the force. Bilbo Baggins was honest and clever. Frodo was pure hearted and brave. Bruce Wayne trained for years to become Batman. Neo (heaven forgive me for using a Matrix reference) was a savant at manipulating the program. Paul Atredies had the strategic cunning to get in with the Fremen. But what does Harry Potter have? He is like Forrest Gump: always in the right place at the right time. Harry’s victories are more often the results of someone else (Hermione, Dumbledore, winning the Triwizard tournament because bad guys are pulling strings) or dumb luck (getting Snape’s potions book and winning the felix felicis, receiving invisibility cloaks and ultra fast brooms from mysterious benefactors, priori incantatem, getting the marauder’s map from the Weasleys). Even in this last book, what did Harry actually do? Oh, right, he followed instructions and kept giving Dumbledore goblets of green potion. He couldn’t fight off the zombies and he didn’t even remember to pick up the friggin’ locket after the potion was gone.
After this book, it is clear Harry is only ¾ the wizard Hermione is (witch...whatever), 1/100th the wizard Snape is, and 1/1000 the wizard Dumbledore was. So, now that he’s dropping out of school (!), what is he going to do when he has to fight Snape and Voldemort? I’ll tell you what. He’ll play with himself for 100 pages, find some gadget under a park bench that happens to be a horcrux-melting talisman, kill Voldemort, be honored with a parade, and become the new defense against the dark arts teacher at Hogwart’s on the strength of his ability to use the expelliarmus spell.
Finally, you guys are all wrong about one thing. The book is totally anti-Christian. In chapter 16, Harry confronts the propagandist Minister of Magic for lying to the public about the War on Voldemortian Terror and imprisoning innocent people without due process. Clearly, this is thinly-veiled anti-Bush slander, which can be shown to be anti-Christian by the following syllogism:
1. Bush (W), the choice of believers and voters with morals, consults directly with Christ (C), who gives divine authorization for whatever the administration does.
2. The novel Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (H) opposes the administration’s policies.
3. To oppose the administration’s policies is to oppose Christ himself.
4. Therefore, the novel opposes Christ and is thus anti-Christian.
The argument can be symbolically rendered thus:
1. C ) W
2. H ) ~W
3. ~W ) ~C (corollary of 1)
.: 4. H ) ~C (2, 3 h.s.)
Q. E. D.
Other than that, it’s all good. For the record, I rank them in the following ascending order: 5, 1, 2, 6, 4, 3.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Re: Mr. Governer
Whoa, I support ANYBODY named Grendel. F-ing awesome. Rage against the machine brother.
Octopus
I am not talking about some rinky dink zoo Octopus. Obviously, between a normal sized shark and octopus, a shark is much scarier. However, a giant octopus would be the most scarcy thing imaginable, with giant, numerous suckers, 8 long and powerful tentatcles, a fierce and powerful beak, the ability to dispense large amounts of ink, and a just plain fearful appearence. No contest.
Mr. Governor
Governor Taft pleaded no contest to criminal misdemeanor charges for failing to report various golf outings and gifts over the course of the last several years. He is, of course, the first Ohio governor ever indicted on criminal charges while in office. His former Cheif of Staff, Brian Hicks, has also been indicted on similar charges. Columbus is just a mess with the coin and MDL scandals, Taft's problems, and seeming GOP indifference, largely. It is difficult to gauge just how bad this will play with the electorate. I would be very concerned, save the fact that the Ohio Dems are disorganized and don't have a lot of money. That said, nobody is going to vote GOP if they think they are electing a criminal. Some of the Republican brass supports defending Taft vigorously with the reasoning that if Taft goes down, everybody goes down. Others favor isolating Taft to perform a kind of damage control.
Hard to say what the right thing to do for a Republican legislator is at this point. Some statewide candidates have come out and called for his resignation, others are mum. From what I know at this point, I don't see why Taft should not finish out his term. He was duly elected and his missteps don't seem to match up with the Ohio Constitution's requirements for impeachment. I don't really like impeachment as a rule, althought I did favor it for President Clinton (barely). I did not support the idea of a recall, as in California however.
The real issue, I think, is how this will affect the '06 races. Currently the Republicans control all 5 statewide offices and have a 22-11 majority in the Senate and a 61-38 majority in the House. Based on the current makeup of the Legislature and the way the districts are apportioned, I see it as extremely unlikely that the Legislature would overturn in either Chamber. The real danger is in the statewide offices. Ted Strickland, now a US rep from Southeast Ohio, is a serious threat to take the Governor's office. He is pro-gun, leans conservative on other things, and has been able to raise funds so far. The primary is his to lose at this point. From my point of view, the only viable candidate that the Republicans have is J. Kenneth Blackwell. He is well ahead of Petro and Montgomery in the polls, and has been able to raise a significant amount of money, always his bugaboo. (although a lot of it has come from out of state). Additionally, Blackwell has gotten a Tax and Expenditure Limitation Amendment on the ballot for Nov. '06, hoping to pull in some fiscal conservatives. Blackwell is anti-Establishment and has a reputation as a maverick. This will help him avoid the Columbus scandals and would prevent conservative votes from bolting to Strickland if Montgomery or Petro were the nominee. That is my personal view, others may disagree. Blackwell is not popular in Columbus, but it is now clear to everyone chances are he will be the nominee. No man can say how things will go, but a Blackwell-Strickland race will be fierce.
The second most important race is Attorney General. Republicans vying for the spot are State Senator Tim Grendell, and most likely, Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien. Shameless plug here for clearly the best candidate. Senator Grendell is running on his abolition of the proposed parking fee in state parks, his work to kill E-Check, and his eminent domain work in light of Kelo. He has introduced Senate Bill 167 to put a mortorium on all eminent domain takings with the intention of transfer to a private works or company until December 31, 06 in order to give the Legislature time to develop a reasoned, measured response to the Kelo problem. Ron O'Brien will be responsible for any future prosecution of the Governor or any other officials, that is part of his campaign strategy to be sure should any more scandal or problems come to light. (Which is likely). So far the only annouced Democrat is Jane Campbell's legal counsel, but there is a scad of other possibilities.
As far as the other races go, there are probably a lot of candidates that have not yet announced, and most of them are lesser known. I sense a big shakeup in Columbus, which isn't neccessarily bad. Columbus Republicans have run into a lot of the same problems that DC Republicans have had, and that is they have been in power for over a decade, they spend to much, they tax to much, they are too relaxed. This is partly because not all of the Republican party is conservative, and partly because much of the Columbus Establishment seeks to isolate some conservative, anti-tax types. I
Taft has been an ineffective, detached Governor who loves to tax and spend. However, I am not sure if sufficient conditions exist for him to resign. I fear or believe that more will develop along this line with the various scandals in Columbus as time goes on. We will see.
Hard to say what the right thing to do for a Republican legislator is at this point. Some statewide candidates have come out and called for his resignation, others are mum. From what I know at this point, I don't see why Taft should not finish out his term. He was duly elected and his missteps don't seem to match up with the Ohio Constitution's requirements for impeachment. I don't really like impeachment as a rule, althought I did favor it for President Clinton (barely). I did not support the idea of a recall, as in California however.
The real issue, I think, is how this will affect the '06 races. Currently the Republicans control all 5 statewide offices and have a 22-11 majority in the Senate and a 61-38 majority in the House. Based on the current makeup of the Legislature and the way the districts are apportioned, I see it as extremely unlikely that the Legislature would overturn in either Chamber. The real danger is in the statewide offices. Ted Strickland, now a US rep from Southeast Ohio, is a serious threat to take the Governor's office. He is pro-gun, leans conservative on other things, and has been able to raise funds so far. The primary is his to lose at this point. From my point of view, the only viable candidate that the Republicans have is J. Kenneth Blackwell. He is well ahead of Petro and Montgomery in the polls, and has been able to raise a significant amount of money, always his bugaboo. (although a lot of it has come from out of state). Additionally, Blackwell has gotten a Tax and Expenditure Limitation Amendment on the ballot for Nov. '06, hoping to pull in some fiscal conservatives. Blackwell is anti-Establishment and has a reputation as a maverick. This will help him avoid the Columbus scandals and would prevent conservative votes from bolting to Strickland if Montgomery or Petro were the nominee. That is my personal view, others may disagree. Blackwell is not popular in Columbus, but it is now clear to everyone chances are he will be the nominee. No man can say how things will go, but a Blackwell-Strickland race will be fierce.
The second most important race is Attorney General. Republicans vying for the spot are State Senator Tim Grendell, and most likely, Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien. Shameless plug here for clearly the best candidate. Senator Grendell is running on his abolition of the proposed parking fee in state parks, his work to kill E-Check, and his eminent domain work in light of Kelo. He has introduced Senate Bill 167 to put a mortorium on all eminent domain takings with the intention of transfer to a private works or company until December 31, 06 in order to give the Legislature time to develop a reasoned, measured response to the Kelo problem. Ron O'Brien will be responsible for any future prosecution of the Governor or any other officials, that is part of his campaign strategy to be sure should any more scandal or problems come to light. (Which is likely). So far the only annouced Democrat is Jane Campbell's legal counsel, but there is a scad of other possibilities.
As far as the other races go, there are probably a lot of candidates that have not yet announced, and most of them are lesser known. I sense a big shakeup in Columbus, which isn't neccessarily bad. Columbus Republicans have run into a lot of the same problems that DC Republicans have had, and that is they have been in power for over a decade, they spend to much, they tax to much, they are too relaxed. This is partly because not all of the Republican party is conservative, and partly because much of the Columbus Establishment seeks to isolate some conservative, anti-tax types. I
Taft has been an ineffective, detached Governor who loves to tax and spend. However, I am not sure if sufficient conditions exist for him to resign. I fear or believe that more will develop along this line with the various scandals in Columbus as time goes on. We will see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)