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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)