Friday, January 27, 2006
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Supreme Court pretty confused about.....things
So now the Supreme Court totally reverses its stance on federalism with the Oregon assisted suicide decision? Thomas' dissent is dead on, Scalia is right but where was he for Raich? Bein' a bitch, thats what. Decision and dissents can be found here (need Adobe Acrobat)
Somebody give me an explanation. Mister lawyer Bert, I'm looking in your direction.
(edited to add a title)
Somebody give me an explanation. Mister lawyer Bert, I'm looking in your direction.
(edited to add a title)
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
This may be embarassing...
...but I don't care. I can't get that damn new Madonna song "Hung Up" out of my head. I really like that song. I dropped the $.99 to download it from itunes and have been listening to it constantly. I highly recommend it if you haven't heard it already. I will listen to it twice on my way home from work. At least twice.
As for football, I want a NE-Wash SB. That would be the ultimate borefest punishment for Nick. Also Clinton Portis is the best person ever. Not just in football, but EVER.
As for football, I want a NE-Wash SB. That would be the ultimate borefest punishment for Nick. Also Clinton Portis is the best person ever. Not just in football, but EVER.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Football
Yeah,
While I agree that Palmer's injury hurt the Bungles, I still don't think they win that game. They just don't have a playoff caliber defense. They are like the Colts of years past: offensively dynamic and defensively inferior, not a good playoff team. While it's possible to win with a very good defense and mediocre offense( a la 85 bears, 00 Ravens), the opposite just doesn't happen.
That being said, I think you are about done watching New England for the year. I'm rootin for Mike Anderson and Tatum Bell to run all over the Brusci love fest and lead Denver to its first playoff win since Elway left (providing, of course that Plummer doesn't do stupid things like throw four picks). I also think that if either Seattle or Indy is gonna lose, this will be the week. If they both win this week, that's your Super Bowl. But they are both playing the only teams I see in their respective conferences that will beat them at home (Den might be able to beat Indy if it were this week since I think Indy will be a little rusty, but next week...no way).
On another note, I think you have to throw in college football as being nearly as terrible as pro football. After watching a few bowl games, I wanted to puke on myself listening to the announcers verbal overgratification of almost every player - "Oh, he's such a great athlete and so smart. What an asset to his community. Blah blah blah. Here Mr. College football player/coach, let me put your penis in my mouth for a while." Terrible. Just terrible. You'd think that every D1 player was a heisman candidate. They are ALL definately going pro. Definately. And they are so smart - 3.3 GPA in their physical education classes. Gimme a break.
While I agree that Palmer's injury hurt the Bungles, I still don't think they win that game. They just don't have a playoff caliber defense. They are like the Colts of years past: offensively dynamic and defensively inferior, not a good playoff team. While it's possible to win with a very good defense and mediocre offense( a la 85 bears, 00 Ravens), the opposite just doesn't happen.
That being said, I think you are about done watching New England for the year. I'm rootin for Mike Anderson and Tatum Bell to run all over the Brusci love fest and lead Denver to its first playoff win since Elway left (providing, of course that Plummer doesn't do stupid things like throw four picks). I also think that if either Seattle or Indy is gonna lose, this will be the week. If they both win this week, that's your Super Bowl. But they are both playing the only teams I see in their respective conferences that will beat them at home (Den might be able to beat Indy if it were this week since I think Indy will be a little rusty, but next week...no way).
On another note, I think you have to throw in college football as being nearly as terrible as pro football. After watching a few bowl games, I wanted to puke on myself listening to the announcers verbal overgratification of almost every player - "Oh, he's such a great athlete and so smart. What an asset to his community. Blah blah blah. Here Mr. College football player/coach, let me put your penis in my mouth for a while." Terrible. Just terrible. You'd think that every D1 player was a heisman candidate. They are ALL definately going pro. Definately. And they are so smart - 3.3 GPA in their physical education classes. Gimme a break.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Re: Who Dey?
C'mon John, be fair. Yes, your prediction came true, but it took Palmer going down on the second play and a few other injuries on the path to fruition. And for the first half it even looked like the Kitna-led Bengals might pull it out.
In either case, it's all for naught. The Steelers aren't getting past the next game. And the Patriots still = most boring team to watch, hands down. If I have to hear anything more about Tedy Bruschi inspiring the Patriot defense, I'mma commit seppuku by eating a frisbee.
In either case, it's all for naught. The Steelers aren't getting past the next game. And the Patriots still = most boring team to watch, hands down. If I have to hear anything more about Tedy Bruschi inspiring the Patriot defense, I'mma commit seppuku by eating a frisbee.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
The Bengals
Admittedly, I'm a little disappointed in the Bengals. They had nothing to play for the last two weeks, however. I look for them to give Pittsburg a game again.
New England is the team to look out for. I wouldn't be suprised if they won it again.
New England is the team to look out for. I wouldn't be suprised if they won it again.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Who Dey?
Was that Bootsy Collins playing defense for the Bungles against KC? Holy God what a streak they are on....fallin to Bills, gettin blown out of the water by KC. Bert, your the Bungles authority...were they tryin to lose on purpose in hopes of not facing Pitts in the first round (N.E. win would have seeded Cincy 4th and Jax as an opponant)? What a bunch of hosers. One and done. Bungles once more.
Also, watch out for those Redskins! Cooley-tastic!
Also, watch out for those Redskins! Cooley-tastic!
Tman
The purpose of the divorce stastics was in refute to your post (some of which I include below for your reference). A nation with a high divorce rate hardly seems to be "an image of order and peace" nor would high divorce suggest to me that there is a significant emphasis of any sort on the concept of a family in this country. Maybe things changed since Tocqueville made his assertations (in what 1850?), but it would seem, stastically at least, that America is no better than or worse than most European countries today as far as staying together. I mean, read what you wrote in quotation of Tokie (as I will lovingly refer to him from here on out) about European countries. How is a nation with high divorce rate not "full of 'fluctuating desire', 'restlessness of heart', and 'agitated by tumultuous passions'"?
A homosexual couple can instill proper values just as well as, if not better than, a divorced heterosexual couple. Would you advocate the prohibition of divorce for sake of family stability and moral fortitude? If, as you say, "The creation of a good, upright citizenry is best done through the influence of traditional family life" it would seem that divorce should be at least as reprehensible as gay marriage (assuming you can prove that gay marriage is somehow deterimental to the moral development of an individual...which you haven't yet).
Hence the need to base laws on more than just tradition. The "Traditional American Family" is not the institution it once was. To make a law prohibiting something like homosexual marriage because it is abhorrent to the "Traditional American Family (TAF)" first requires you to define the TAF. Then, if you're being reasonable, you can't pick and choose which aspects detrimental to the TAF are acceptable and which aren't (such as allowing divorce while not allowing gay marriage - and I am still not sold that gay marriage will collapse society like you claim). So, for the sake of arguement, if you want to keep this going, define what you mean by TAF (and dno't put something stupid like a man, his wife and their kids." That doesn't explain where the proper moral development comes from or how it results in good, upright citizenry). That way, maybe we can get somewhere.
"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."
A homosexual couple can instill proper values just as well as, if not better than, a divorced heterosexual couple. Would you advocate the prohibition of divorce for sake of family stability and moral fortitude? If, as you say, "The creation of a good, upright citizenry is best done through the influence of traditional family life" it would seem that divorce should be at least as reprehensible as gay marriage (assuming you can prove that gay marriage is somehow deterimental to the moral development of an individual...which you haven't yet).
Hence the need to base laws on more than just tradition. The "Traditional American Family" is not the institution it once was. To make a law prohibiting something like homosexual marriage because it is abhorrent to the "Traditional American Family (TAF)" first requires you to define the TAF. Then, if you're being reasonable, you can't pick and choose which aspects detrimental to the TAF are acceptable and which aren't (such as allowing divorce while not allowing gay marriage - and I am still not sold that gay marriage will collapse society like you claim). So, for the sake of arguement, if you want to keep this going, define what you mean by TAF (and dno't put something stupid like a man, his wife and their kids." That doesn't explain where the proper moral development comes from or how it results in good, upright citizenry). That way, maybe we can get somewhere.
"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."
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Tocqueville
I have no idea why you reference divorce rates, or how that correlates to what I was trying to convey. If you were trying to say that divorce is more detrimental to soceity than homosexual unions, then I think that makes sense, but other than that, divorce rates are irrelevant. As a sidebar, since you pointed it out, divorce rates in the church run roughly the same as divorce rates in secular society. It has always been thus. But, unless you are trying to indict Christian society or make some broader point about possible church hypocrisy, I fail to see the relation to my post.
Additionally, I didn't cite Tocqueville for the fun of it. I reference him because he has an acute understanding about the nature of American society, which I was contrasting with European sentiments. I do not understand which passages you refer to in Plato or Aristotle, or what relevance they have to the discussion.
Well, of course law is based upon reason. Whoever said it wasn't? And it is exactly Reason that has created legal tradition. Now, other factors go into it as well, but your attempt to seperate legal tradition from "reason", which by what you must mean is contemporary thought, is nonsensical. Otherwise, one would have to stick his digits into the wind to chart a legal course. I am sure you would prefer thumbing through old English property law books instead.
Additionally, I didn't cite Tocqueville for the fun of it. I reference him because he has an acute understanding about the nature of American society, which I was contrasting with European sentiments. I do not understand which passages you refer to in Plato or Aristotle, or what relevance they have to the discussion.
Well, of course law is based upon reason. Whoever said it wasn't? And it is exactly Reason that has created legal tradition. Now, other factors go into it as well, but your attempt to seperate legal tradition from "reason", which by what you must mean is contemporary thought, is nonsensical. Otherwise, one would have to stick his digits into the wind to chart a legal course. I am sure you would prefer thumbing through old English property law books instead.
Tocquevile...
Funny how you would reference a foreign look into American marriage and use the words he did about success and strength of marriage in America. Especially since the US is ranked something ridiculous like 12th in the world for divorce percentages. But at least we beat out such powerhouses as Moldova, the Ukraine, Latvia (the fact that I've only heard of one of those countries causes me to doubt the reliability of that page, but...). Further, The Barna Research group (whoever the hell that is) released their study on divorce which, funnily enough, reported:
The margin of error is within 2 percentage points. The survey found:
11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.
Now, I know all this is statistics and that it has to be taken with a grain of salt, and I know that this is running on for a post from me, so I'm going to stop on the divorce train.
As far as laws being based on tradition...what? I was under the impression that laws should be based on REASON which does not necesarily mesh with tradition. In the spirit of quoting philosophers (if that's what tocqueville is/was?) I'd refer you to the ideas of Plato (and Socrates by default, I guess) as well as Aristotle (who, interestingly enough argued that a large amount of what is considered law is also locally variable and arbitrary). As a bonus, I've used the grandaddies of philosophy since you seem to like tradition and what better traditional philosophers than they? I think Hume has a diatribe somewhere that deals with laws being more along the lines of arduous adherence to custom, so maybe you can delve through that and pull some quotes out to support you there. Either way, law should be based on reason not tradition since tradition isn't a uniform template on which to balance the issues governed by law. This would seem especially true in a nation such as ours, which hosts such a wide variety of people that it's not even possible to argue that tradition is in some way uniform among the residents. Unless we are picking and choosing which traditions are going to be used in the law-making? If your going to be objective in the passing of a law, you have to base it on reason, not tradition.
"The big brain am winning again! I am the GREETEST! Now I am leaving Earth for no apparant raisin!"
The margin of error is within 2 percentage points. The survey found:
11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.
Now, I know all this is statistics and that it has to be taken with a grain of salt, and I know that this is running on for a post from me, so I'm going to stop on the divorce train.
As far as laws being based on tradition...what? I was under the impression that laws should be based on REASON which does not necesarily mesh with tradition. In the spirit of quoting philosophers (if that's what tocqueville is/was?) I'd refer you to the ideas of Plato (and Socrates by default, I guess) as well as Aristotle (who, interestingly enough argued that a large amount of what is considered law is also locally variable and arbitrary). As a bonus, I've used the grandaddies of philosophy since you seem to like tradition and what better traditional philosophers than they? I think Hume has a diatribe somewhere that deals with laws being more along the lines of arduous adherence to custom, so maybe you can delve through that and pull some quotes out to support you there. Either way, law should be based on reason not tradition since tradition isn't a uniform template on which to balance the issues governed by law. This would seem especially true in a nation such as ours, which hosts such a wide variety of people that it's not even possible to argue that tradition is in some way uniform among the residents. Unless we are picking and choosing which traditions are going to be used in the law-making? If your going to be objective in the passing of a law, you have to base it on reason, not tradition.
"The big brain am winning again! I am the GREETEST! Now I am leaving Earth for no apparant raisin!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)