A Mosaic Life

BBQ and Fair

2010-08-11T01:46:00.000-05:00

Portfolio

2010-08-09T14:08:00.000-05:00

Some of my favorite pictures that I've taken over the years....

Change of Pace

2010-08-08T12:34:00.000-05:00

I'm not really blogging anymore in the traditional sense (obviously) but rather I have come to embrace photography. This blog will now serve as a photo blog. A record of things interesting and pretty (at least to me). The occasional written piece may come along, but really I just want to take pictures. Cheers!

Snook Rodeo

2010-08-02T00:36:00.000-05:00

Western bw

2010-08-02T00:34:00.000-05:00

2010-08-01

2010-08-02T00:33:00.000-05:00

Cannon Rogers

2010-07-08T00:09:00.000-05:00

http://picasaweb.google.com/katie.a.kelly/CannonRogers

Rachel's Wedding

2010-06-24T15:22:00.000-05:00

Team Ropers

2010-06-24T15:14:00.000-05:00

Yeah, it's been forever... I'll explain later

2008-10-07T21:24:00.001-05:00

Many Thanks to MH...

One sunny day a rabbit came out of his hole in the ground to enjoy the
fine weather. The day was so nice that he became careless and a fox
snuck up behind him and caught him.
"I am going to eat you for lunch," said the fox.
"Wait," replied the rabbit, "You should at least wait a few days."
"Oh yeah? Why should I wait?"
"Well, I am just finishing my thesis on On The Superiority of Rabbits
over Foxes and Wolves."
"Are you crazy? I should eat you right now! Everybody knows that a fox
will always win over a rabbit."
"Not really, not according to my research. If you like, you can come
into my hole and read it for yourself. If you are not convinced, you can
go ahead and have me for lunch."
"You really are crazy!" But since the fox was curious and had nothing
to lose, it went with the rabbit.
The fox never came out.

A few days later the rabbit was again taking a break from writing and
sure enough, a wolf came out of the bushes and was ready to set upon
him.
"Wait!" yelled the rabbit, "You can't eat me right now."
"And why might that be, my furry appetizer?"
"I am almost finished writing my thesis on On The Superiority of
Rabbits over Foxes and Wolves."
The wolf laughed so hard that it almost lost its grip on the rabbit.
"Maybe I shouldn't eat you; you really are sick...in the head. You might
have something contagious."
"Come and read it for yourself; you can eat me afterward if you
disagree with my conclusions."

So the wolf went down into the rabbit's hole...and never came out.

The rabbit finished his thesis and was out celebrating in the local
lettuce patch. Another rabbit came along and asked, "What's up? You seem
very happy."
"Yup, I just finished my thesis."
"Congratulations. What's it about?"
"On The Superiority of Rabbits over Foxes and Wolves."
"Are you sure? That doesn't sound right."
"Oh yes. Come and read it for yourself."

So together they went down into the rabbit's hole. As they entered, the
friend saw the typical graduate abode, albeit a rather messy one after
writing a thesis. The computer with the controversial work was in one
corner. And to the right there was a pile of fox bones, on the left a
pile of wolf bones. And in the middle was a large, well-fed lion.

The moral of the story:
The title of your thesis doesn't matter.
The subject doesn't matter.
The research doesn't matter.

All that matters is who your advisor is.

I'm Confused

2008-07-31T10:24:00.001-05:00

So if gas prices aren't the gas companies fault, then how are they making these astronomical profits?!? I'm missing something.

What could be more European than Sitting Down with a Hamburger and a Budweiser... Wait a Minute

2008-07-17T11:06:00.002-05:00

Can I just say HA HA to us all. Through American cultural expansion that has been widely criticized for the past 60 years, and our pursuit of the highest bidder, America is no longer the land of hamburgers or Budweiser. HA HA. Yes, we still make hamburgers, and there are MANY people who will never stop drinking their Budweiser, but now neither of these iconic products are solely "American Owned and Operated". The French have reclaimed the hamburger and turned it into fine dining, while Bud sold out to a Belgian brewer (the makers of Stella Artois no less) and all reported in the last week by the New York Times. Please note, this is not a complaint. I'm actually very excited about a potentially better tasting brew. Perhaps in a few years someone might mutter: "What could be more french than a hamburger, Budweiser, and of course french fries?" HA HA

Charlton Heston isn't Rolling Yet...

2008-06-26T10:00:00.000-05:00

For those of you who have been following the case, the Supreme Court ruled today to strike down the D.C. Gun Ban on 2nd Amendment grounds. I am waiting on the arguments to come up on Oyez before I make too much of a commentary on the decision... I'm eager to see what their reasoning is. Cheers!

What Goes Around...

2008-05-27T01:32:00.000-05:00

It looks like the vast right wing conspiracy is at it again...

The push of the Clinton camp to ignore the opinion of the people and the super delegates for the democratic nomination does nothing but highlight why HRC should stay the hell away from Pennsylvania Ave.

A Long Overdue Post

2008-05-24T10:15:00.002-05:00

It's not often that I personally go head to head with what I study, however, a few weeks ago my 97 year old great aunt began dying. I say began dying because death did not come suddenly, or really without warning. Rather, her body just began to break down slowly until death. I was witnessing death with an attempt at dignity. Her dignified death was bittersweet. First, some back story. At 97 she, we'll call her Stephanie, was nearly deaf and blind. Her knees had long since stiffened, and osteroperosis was a daily challenge. With her body falling apart her mind was left crystal clear... a clarity that became a nightmare as it was becoming trapped in a shell with a diminishing ability to communitcate. Stephanie suffered a fall a few months ago that bruised her, but she survived with no breaks. Her body, however, seemed to have had enough. Less than a week later she was back in the hospital. Stephanie was clear with everyone... doctors, family, and nurses... that she was dying and she didn't want the process delayed. When she loss the ability to swallow she quickly and firmly made a command desicion. Stephanie refused a feeding tube. She knew that without a feeding tube she would die, and in her weakened state it could be anywhere from 2-5 days for her to starve to death. As days slowly passed Stephanie spent her time talking and even joking with family or sleeping. She, the oldest of 8 siblings, was the last. Her little brother, the youngest of the 8 (and my grandfather) had passed away a little over a year before. She was tired, lonely, and in a way looking forward to moving on. The family discussed her choice, as well as her courage in facing death. She chose to die, which is a oppurtunity that many people don't get, and she was happy. We couldn't hope for anything more, but that death would be soon and painless. Doctors and nurses did the best they could to keep her comfortable, and Stephanie was adament that she was in little pain. She retained the ability to communicate until the day before she died. One of her last actions was to remove her wedding rings and pass them on after over 60 years of faithfully wearing them. After almost a full week of refusing food Stephanie passed on, quietly in her sleep.

This was not an easy process for our family. The loss of any family member is of course painful, but here we watched daily as a member of our starved herself rather than die a slow and drawn out death with the help of medicine and doctors. This is why I say that her dignified death was bittersweet. She chose to die, and I would argue that action as granting her a dignified passing. However, to starve to death is a laborious and potentially painful death. My blogs have been clear about my feelings toward allowing people to choose death rather than suffer, and to see such a senario played out in my family reaffirmed these opinions, as well as opened my eyes to the pain that such decisions might cause family members of the dying. I was reminded of my need to write this post when I saw this article in the BBC regarding Non-resesitation card and death with dignity. In the end I am thankful to Stephanie for making such a tough decision for our family, and I am furthermore blessed to have such a strong character to fondly remember.

Crazy Old, but Thats What Happens When I Don't Keep Up w/ the Blog

2008-05-23T07:02:00.003-05:00

So a while back Obama said that there are "bitter" people who "cling to guns and religion". Hillary jumped at the chance to catch the golden child doing something wrong, and the debate on semantics began. Honestly, most of these people are bitter toward the government... Obama wasn't "wrong"... he just wasn't being Presidential either. I think the operative word in the line is "cling"... not bitter. People are bitter... thats why Obama's campaign of change is doing so well. But there is a part of the populace that is not only bitter, but desperate to find protection and security. If the government doesn't offer it, then they will... through guns, and a moral justification through religion. It might not be the best plan, but they see it as all they have. Admittedly I was a little offended the first time I heard the comment, but I've gotten over it. Do I cling to my guns and/or religion? No... I embrace them, but I don't cling to them. And I definately don't embrace them out of a bitterness. But for those of you who might, here's what CNN had to say on the (rather old) matter.

An interesting argument... What do you think?

2008-05-18T11:17:00.001-05:00

I saw this article a while back... its an interesting argument. Does someone have a rebuttal?

http://peternbiddle.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/trust-isnt-transitive-or-someone-fired-a-gun-in-an-airplane-cockpit-and-it-was-probably-the-pilot/

Trust Isn’t Transitive (or, “Someone fired a gun in an airplane cockpit, and it was probably the pilot”)
I’ve been saying that trust isn’t transitive for years, using this example:

We all have a cousin Bubba we trust to change the transmission in our 1970 AMX, but we wouldn’t trust him to babysit the kids for the weekend. Both involve trusting him with our kids lives, but trust isn’t transitive and we know from experience that Bubba is a hard-drinking and hard-living roustabout with greasy fingernails who can certainly keep track of little things like screws, but certainly can’t keep track of little things like children.

Bruce Schneier has pointed out many times that he thinks that arming pilots is stupid. I’d say that arming pilots is stupid only insofar as you don’t make sure they are as, or more, experienced with firearms as they are with airplanes.

Experience will make them predictable, and predictability is critical to trust.

This bring us to this: Someone ND’ed in an airplane cockpit. For those of you who aren’t gun-nuts, an ND is a “Negligent Discharge”. It is the better term, far more preferable than “AD – Accidental Discharge”, because modern guns don’t just accidentally go off. Modern guns built by reputable makers – and I guarantee that the gun this pilot had fits that category, much as the plane he had would fit it – are designed to go BANG when you pull the trigger, and to NEVER go bang when you don’t.

Just as modern cars don’t steer themselves into things they aren’t supposed to, guns don’t accidentally discharge. They go BANG when you pull the trigger. That’s it.

So someone was holding the gun, and it went BANG. There are a few ways this could happen. The pilot could have been checking the condition of the weapon. (Is it loaded? Ooops. Yes.) He (yes there are certainly female pilots, and some of them may be armed, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt in this case and say that all armed female pilots are too smart too shoot a gun in their own cockpit) could have been transferring it from a case to a holster. He could have been loading it… He could also have been showing it off to a flight attendant, which happens to be my favorite potential example:

“Do you guys really carry GUNS?”

“Why yes little lady, some of us sure do. I carry a Sig .357, it’s the same gun those air-marshals use!”.

“Ooooh, can I hold it?”

“Of course, but you need to understand that I’m a trained professional, you can’t just ”

“oh shit”

Now, how does this relate to trust not being transitive? Let’s look at this quote from the article in question, attributed to Mike Boyd: “if somebody who has the ability to fly a 747 across the Pacific wants a gun, you give it to them.” This is a horribly flawed assumption, because it assumes that trust is transitive, when clearly it isn’t.

The reason trust isn’t transitive is because trust is most often based on data regarding the past which allows us to make assumptions about specific competence, quality of performance, and behaviors in the future.

We can assume that a trained pilot, when facing piloty thingies, will act like a trained pilot. WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT A TRAINED PILOT WILL ACT LIKE A TRAINED LION-TAMER WHEN FACING A WILD LION.

Skills from one domain cannot simply be moved from that domain to another. Saliently, the pilot in question must have thousands of hours of flight time, has done the pre-flight check hundreds or even thousands of times, has been steeped in pilot-ness and thus pilot-safety, probably since he was a late teen. He’s very likely an extraordinarily safe pilot. We can assume that every experienced 747 pilot has a keen awareness of the potential lethality of full loaded 747. In the past we can assume that they at least had a deep appreciation of the potential for harm to their own passengers, and post 9/11 we can assume that they appreciate the harm their plane can be to thousands of additional people.

But this can’t just be automatically carried to guns – guns aren’t planes anymore than they are motorcycles, and many pilots will tell you that jet pilots are much more like to die on a motorcycle than they are on a plane, because they act stupid on motorcycles.

Good gun-nuts know that you learn specific skills for your weapons and then you do them over and over and over again. In my case, ensuring a gun is unloaded will consist of a series of discrete steps that I’ve repeated at least hundreds of times to ensure that only the things I want to happen will happen.

I always check the condition of a weapon which has been handed to me the exact same way, even if the woman who handed it to me is mrs super gun chick and I watched her remove the magazine, repeatedly work the slide back and forth and then lock it back, stick her finger in the chamber and then visually inspect the chamber and mag-well. Guess what? I’ll do whatever of those things are possible myself, too. And I still won’t paint her or anything I don’t want to destroy.

If you want to trust someone, you need to know about their innate trustworthiness, and you need to know about their experience. Some people are simply more trustworthy than others because, well, they are, and you can trust them more in new situations than other people.

But these people aren’t necessarily the ones well trained in , so you can’t build security systems around them. If you want to build a system that scales across many users, you want a system that mandates everyone be predictable enough for the system to work. Judging the innate trustworthiness of a person is very hard, so while you may do that you also wind up forcing people you must have a high degree of trust in to do things that makes them appear to be more predictable in the ways you need them to be.

In other words, you train the living shit out of pilots before you let them fly a plane. The same should be said for guns, and I can pretty much guarantee that the armed pilots in the sky today have probably more than 100 times more experience in flying planes than in handling guns. So – either stop the armed pilot experiment, OR train the armed pilots well enough so that they are as predictable as you need them to be, so that you can make some assumptions about their trustworthiness.

Will there be ND’s anyway? Of course. But there are also plane crashes, and that has to be okay. What is important is that the system be predictable, and of course that it have a real, tangible and measurable result. Number of plane crashes vs. flight hours is a simple equation. Now that we’ve had an ND in a cockpit, lets’ take a look at number of ND’s vs. gun-handling hours…

I have related thoughts about guns and training that apply to personal gun ownership, but that’s for another post…

I'm Back, and I'm Sorry for the Wait

2008-05-16T17:54:00.008-05:00

It's been a crazy couple of months, but that's no excuse for my lack of blogging. I'm sorry.

As a special treat, however, you all will be first up to read an article that I wrote for my hometown newspaper on my recent trip to Russia!

When asked if I’d like to write up an article on my recent trip to Russia I had to jump at the chance. The ten day trek through Moscow and St. Petersburg was such a fascinating experience I was thrilled at the opportunity to share my adventures with everyone. When I first told my family and friends that I was going to Russia they all had the same question: “Why would you want to go there?”. The answer to this question is threefold: 1) As a government major in college, and a doctoral student of political communication Russia is prime study ground. 2) I had a friend from college who had been teaching and living in Moscow for about three years who could translate and guide me. 3) Why not?

Of course, like most Americans traveling to Russia, I had no idea what to expect. Many of us are still recovering from the communist paranoia from the Red Scare of our past, and even today Russians are all too often cast as the villains in our films. The Communist USSR hasn’t even been gone 20 years, and its political footprint is still in America’s history, memory, and imagination. I landed in Moscow the morning of May 1, 2008, and I flew out the 10th; I could not have picked a better time to experience Russian cultural, political, or military pride. May 9th is Victory day in Russia, and the whole time I was there the country was buzzing preparing for the inauguration of a new President, Prime Minister, and for Victory Day. While I was there I got to visit with a close friend; Veronica Armendariz went to Berry College with me, and she has been studying post-Soviet Russian politics in Moscow for the past few years. Considering our mutual interest in Soviet and Russian politics a lot of our trip was organized around the many military demonstrations, political party rallies, and political speeches that were scheduled for the week.

Victory Day is of course the celebration of the victory over the Nazis in WWII. (Think a celebration on the scale of Memorial Day and July 4th combined.) From an American perspective it can be easy to forget just how many Russians died in WWII (most estimates put the casualties at somewhere around 25 million Russians); not to mention the struggles of the Russian citizens on the Eastern Front, such as the siege of Leningrad (for you movie buffs, it’s the inspiration behind Enemy at the Gates, which is based on the book, War of the Rats). On V-Day each city celebrates its WWII veterans, most of which decked out in their old uniforms, and everyone remembers those who died during the war. This Veterans Day was also celebrated with the largest showing of military force since the fall of the Soviet Union. Veronica and I got to watch as tanks, missiles, and troops were paraded through Red Square in Moscow just as they were 20 years ago. We had a particularly surreal moment in St. Petersburg as we watched troops parade on the Winter Palace Square in preparation for the V-Day celebrations. Watching the formations one couldn’t help but parallel them to the old photos and footage of soviet troops from years ago. We were disappointed to hear that the inauguration ceremonies and celebrations were to be closed to the public. We did, however, watch Medvedev’s first speech as President on television. This was a historic moment for Russia, and for her people… it was an honor to get to experience it all in person.

View Album

Get your own

I definitely remain amazed at the Soviet propaganda that remains throughout the cities, but Moscow in particular. The hammer and sickle, wheat bundles, as well as the red star, are prominent fixtures and themes on buildings, in the metro tunnels, and as decorations on a variety of public monuments, bridges, and artifacts. The years under communism are still a source of pride for many, especially older, Russians. The fall has been particularly hard on the generation that we refer to as the baby boomers here in the US. This older Russian generation grew up in an all inclusive welfare system where the government provided everything. No one had a lot, but everyone had something. After the fall this all inclusive support system dissolved seemingly overnight leaving a ruined economy and a smaller social welfare program than we have here in the States. Incredibly many Russians adjusted well enough to the new system to get by, some well enough to start emerging as a middle class. One point of interest- Capitalism as a economic system is steadily being embraced across the country, however, the political system has, in the past few years, been centralizing political power under Putin which seems to be reflective of late soviet corruption and authoritarianism. Shockingly, however, there does not seem to be a public outcry. Although some criticism can be found in newspapers, and from ever dwindling opposition parties, most of the populace seems indifferent at best. Putin is a very popular political figure among most Russians, and the economic stability and monetary gains, as well as the reemergence of Russia as an international super-power, seem to pacify any unrest from lost political freedoms.

While I was there we also got to explore some the more famous and infamous landmarks of the two cities. In Moscow we of course explored the Kremlin, Red Square, St. Basil’s Cathedral, the buildings that held the KGB, the Church of Christ the Savior, and the All Russia Exhibition Center. The Exhibition Center was an incredible collection of buildings, fountains and monuments celebrating communism and various achievements of the USSR. We witnessed the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and I was able to tour a variety of Eastern Orthodox Cathedrals, all of which were breathtakingly beautiful. Moscow was nice, but St. Petersburg was built to be admired and stunning. Founded by Peter the Great, St. Petersburg became the residence of the czars and royalty of Russia. It is home to some of the more recognizable Russian landmarks such as the Winter Palace, now known as the Hermitage Museum, The Church of the Spilt Blood, the Bronze Horseman, The Peter and Paul Fortress, the Kazan Cathedral, the Aurora battleship, the Yusopov Palace (where Rasputin was poisoned, stabbed, shot, and drowned), St. Isaac’s Cathedral, the northernmost Mosque in the world, and it holds the distinction as the home of the Communist Revolution. While we were in St. Petersburg we were able to catch Swan Lake at the Hermitage Theater. To see a Russian ballet in Catherine the Great’s private theater was incredible! St. Petersburg is built on a collection of islands, thus it has canals throughout the city with Palaces built on what seems like every corner. Hundreds of years of royalty, admiralty, and aristocracy built palace after palace. During the revolution most were torched, gutted, and the shells of the grand estates were used to store grain and industrial goods. The Russian government has gone to great lengths in recent years to restore these architectural and historical wonders to their former glory and the effort is certainly not wasted on the millions that flock here during the summer to tour and take pictures.

Overall Veronica and I had an incredible trip, and the people, places, and cities that we discovered while we were there made an impression that will last a lifetime. I left Russia with a new respect for the determination of the Russian people, as well as for the love and pride that they have in their country and its history. As with most travel opportunities it is wonderful to meet the countries and people behind the stereotypes. Just as Georgia is more than peaches and Atlanta, Russia is more than Vodka, communists, and Matryoshka nesting dolls… it’s an impressive, beautiful, and strongly patriotic culture that I look forward to visiting again.

A Shameless Plug:

2008-03-24T21:39:00.003-05:00

I am participating in another blog that I will be contributing to occasionally... it is a collection of politically minded folk that will be posting together. It is politicalcottoncandy.com and I encourage you to check it soon. We are currently doing site construction. See you all soon!!

Happy Easter Everyone!

2008-03-23T16:53:00.002-05:00

Nothing like bringing Christianity and Pagan Traditions together! Everyone have a great holiday! -kk

P.S.- The blog will be back soon, I promise, it's just been busy around here.

It's the Oldest Profession in the World... Get off their backs (figuratively that is)

2008-03-10T16:25:00.002-05:00

So the Governor of New York has been linked to an elite prostitution ring. Honestly, I don't see why we care. He's just stimulating the economy... among other things. I really think that we should just legalize prostitution across the board; the taxes will help pay for the war, drug and STD testing will be monitored, and with the process becoming more transparent we will know which politicians are cheating on their wives before it becomes a scandal. Embrace Capitalism! Embrace the brunette holding the whip on the corner for $500 an hour.

What really makes this whole situation a scandal, however, has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with how they caught him. A Federal WIRETAP caught him arranging to fly the call girl to D.C. and meet him in a hotel. Now, the Patriot Act okay'd wiretapping to fight terrorism. When did having some buxom blond spank you become terroristic?? Use wiretaps to find child porn rings and the 6ft middle eastern man on dialysis in the desert that we still can't find. If you ask me the only reason they were tapping the call girls' phones in the first place was for the free phone sex.

And they call it the "No Child Left With a Behind Act"

2008-03-07T22:57:00.002-06:00

So much for me making Honor Roll next quarter...

Hunting in the Education System... There's Hope For Us Yet

2008-03-07T22:53:00.001-06:00

YEAH!

Hello Strangers!

2008-03-04T20:20:00.004-06:00

Sorry about the break, but life's been pretty crazy considering I'm supposed to be taking a break right now. Today 4 states are conducting their primaries. And two of those states, the lonestar and the buckeye, have been the talk of the nation for almost a month now. I've been pretty open about my frustration with this year's political candidates, and I foresee a time of serious candidate research coming up. McCain is, officially (well as officially as you can be w/o the convention saying so) the Republican candidate. Some thoughts on this:

First, if (that is an IF) I choose not to vote for McCain this does not make me a libral or a democrat. I am beyond frustrated with people confusing a non-republican as a non-conservative. I turn the charge. I say that Republicans are NOT CONSERVATIVES ANYMORE! I AM a Conservative. What are you? You say small gov't and individual autonomy, but the party you serve has decieved and misled you for 8 years. Where is your outrage? Where is the accountability? When did conservative go from Edmund Burke to Bill O'Reilly? It is not hard to see why people call intellectual conservatism an oxymoron... look at the morons who are representing your political ideas. How many Republicans really (really really)idolize Ann Coulter, Nancy Grace, and Bill O'Reilly? There are no sound arguments coming from these "commentators". Just bullying and irrational rage at people who aren't just like them. This is not conservatism... it's not even human decency. Watch whatever news channel you wish, be thankful for the choices in political spin, but don't assume that people are your opposites if they are different. They could just represent a different octave of the same voice. America's polarization was invented to make pretty maps on television. The majority of Americans either don't care, or are so disillusioned they hate all politics. Everyone I've talked to this year is voting for their least hated option. And that my friends, is just tragic.

For the record: I hope Obama pulls out the democratic nomination. This DOES NOT make me an avid fan of Obama, nor does it make me a democrat or libral. It just means that I seriously dislike Hillary and I think that Obama would be the better candidate to run against McCain in Nov.

P.S.- Why David Brooks continues to Rock My Face Off...

One of Our Own...

2008-02-27T19:05:00.002-06:00

William F. Buckley Jr. died today. His memorable wit and writings demonstrated that intellectual conservative is not an oxymoron. They say he died at his desk, and I'm not sure that he would have wanted it any other way.

Syphilis is Back!! (Though I didn't know it had gone anywhere...)

2008-02-25T22:46:00.003-06:00

The health department where I live is doing a campaign entitled "Syphilis is Back!" Now, the first time I saw this it was on a large billboard and I was on the phone with a friend, at which point I casually threw in that Syphilis, was in fact, back. And she replied "Really? I didn't know it had gone anywhere." For some twisted reason I find this funny, and then, to my further amusement the Economist ran an article on what else, but Syphilis. So, my PSA for the year: "Syphilis is Back!"

Everyone is Seeing Green, and its Not Money or Greed

2008-02-24T18:31:00.003-06:00

Ralph Nadar is running for the Presidency under the Green Party... again. Democrats hate him for screwing over Al Gore. Republicans appreciate his splitting of the left, as well as his ability to serve as a party punchline. NYT had an interesting article on Candidate reactions as well as Nadar's announcement. Some interesting tidbits. Nadar got 95,000 votes in 2000. Wow. Yet more proof that one should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. My reaction? Stephen Colbert should continue his run for President, but as an independent. Colbert '08!!

I Forgot to Rant on the 20th, Sorry About That

2008-02-22T22:46:00.002-06:00

So the article from the 19th discussed that genetically modified and/or cloned beef may make Americans uneasy. Here's the thing, we've been eating genetically modified beef, corn, (insert any other agricultural product here] since we domesticated it. When farmers pick the biggest bull to breed with the biggest cows, they are modifying the genetic outcome. Cloning (in the agricultural food producing sense) allows for the mass production of the very best livestock. It's letting us breed the biggest bull to himself, thus giving us him all over. If he's great why risk inferior offspring? Genetic engineering does not effect the "health" of the food. For example, you aren't going to contract some mysterious illness from eating cloned hamburger. You will contract mad cow from eating hamburgers that came from cows that were fed other cows. Genetic engineering does not add preservatives, harmful additives, or radiation to your food. 70% of ALL processed foods on your local grocer's shelf contain genetically modified ingredients.

So, if this is nothing new then why is it a big deal all of a sudden? Americans have just now realized (thanks to a hyper-sensational media) that they are eating food that has been altered. Now how, you may ask, can someone not realize that their food has been tampered with at the genetic level? Many reasons I answer, here are just a few: 1) you can't tell by looking at it, 2) Americans are doing good to know that hamburger comes from cows, much less that the cows have been specially and scietifically bred to ensure lots of lean meat, 3) We are so far removed from the origins of our food we never asked where it came from (see point 2, and read the book Who Moved My Cheese), and 4) No one told us. Now, number 4 is VERY important. Lets imagine why.

Someone walks up to you, hands you a sandwich, and tells you to eat it. You don't know how it was made, what is was made with, or why they are doing this. What is your immediate reaction?

a) Oh boy food!
b) fear
c) blind submission to instruction
d) skeptical questioning

Now to review the possible answers (remember multiple choice has many right answers, but we are looking for the MOST correct response). Only Homer Simpson would pick a, so on to b. (B) is the most correct answer. Your FIRST and IMMEDIATE reaction would be a little freaked out, to paranoidly fearful of both the sandwich and the person who gave it to you. Just for fun, lets talk c and d. For c), well I did see invasion of the body snatchers last week, so its possible, but many of you probably picked D. Congratulations, you are above the average American in your quest for rationality and knowledge to confusing and mysterious situations.

Now lets talk turkey, and hamburger for that matter. Americans, as well as Homer Simpson, have been blindly eating their groceries and fast food without asking questions of origin. Now that it has been proposed that they were infact eating Frakenfoods, and that more genetically modified foods are to come they feel betrayed and fearful of what they are eating. The government allowed research and development on our food and didn't tell us. If the person who made the sandwich had told you why they made it, what was in it, and why its good for you, we all probably would have picked A. But, when there is secrecy involved we become anxious and distrusting. Great Britain has been struggling with a very hostile citizenry over the R&D of genetically modified row crops for years now. They lose millions annually to terrain terrorists who burn R&D crops in protest. What we don't know, we assume will kill us.

The blunt point of all this: The government (and food industry) has kept the populace in the dark about the process of genetic engineering in food and agriculture. This has resulted in the mistrust of these technologies and their products. Now that the populace only knows half of the story (the "you are eating genetically modified steak" part) they don't want anything to do with it. *If* the industry had been more upfront with Americans as to what they were doing, how they were doing it, and the advancements this R&D produced we probably would not be seeing the current backlash movements.

So, that is my rant that prefaces my "I told you so" on the 19th. Bon Apetite!

Maybe the Bear and Bull Market Expressions are Outdated; Maybe We are Going Into the Cub and Calf Markets: Cuter, Softer, and Much Less Intimidating

2008-02-22T22:36:00.005-06:00

When did the Economist go soft?

Is this the start of the "new" capitalism that I discussed a couple of weeks ago? Hmmm...

And Now for Something Completely Different...

2008-02-19T21:55:00.001-06:00

I told you so. Actually, as I write that I realize that I haven't gone on this rant with you all. So, read the article and I'll rant tomorrow. G'night! (ps: you guys have been really quiet lately, and that is disappointing. Please type something back, even if you don't agree.)

Why I Insist On a Toy Box in My Office, or at least this is NOW the Reason I Keep a Toy Box-

2008-02-18T00:37:00.003-06:00

Go Fly a Kite... and throw a frisbee, and play catch, and whatever else will allow you to explore the three dimensional world around you. (I prefer frisbee, darts, and the occasional game of beer pong.*kidding*) Seriously though- lighten up, loosen up, and take a lesson from your nostalgic memories of childhood. Playing with your friends is good for you.

Oh Say Can You See, By the Dawn's Early Light, that America's Future Isn't so Bright??

2008-02-18T00:09:00.004-06:00

One article on the hostility that Americans have toward intellectualism,

PLUS

One video demonstrating American priorities,

EQUALS

Beauty Queens are becoming the American Ideal of the Model Citizen (or in some cases "have become"). David Brooks refered to Americans as the Bimbos of the world. (See "On Paradise Drive") Not only do I agree, but I sadly believe that Americans are really starting to internalize that beauty standards have replaced any need for civic knowledge, understanding, and responsibility that demonstrate good citizenship.

Post Number 50... YEAH! (Oh, the celebration of mediocrity-)

2008-02-10T12:34:00.000-06:00

Quick Note: Today (if you can't or didn't read the title) is my 50th blog posting. This is exciting for any number of reasons, but mostly because I usually don't keep up with blogs very well (not that you've noticed long gaps without posts or anything...). So, hooray for you, my readers... life has given you the time to come visit with me on occasion and I am thankful for that. HAZAA! (huh-zah)*with enthusiasm*

Longer Note: Hillary Clinton cried again yesterday. It boosted her for New Hampshire primary at the last minute, but now, well now people are starting to wonder if it wasn't a political stunt, and that she might be losing it. Well, losing her composure, we all know that she's losing in delegate counts. I will say this for this year's primary though... the American public is getting a heck of an education on the electoral college, the various primary voting and caucus systems, as well as exactly how little their vote really counts.

Short Note: This is a feedback post... as in... if you read this YOU HAVE to write a comment. Well, you don't *have* to, but it would be most helpful. Political Humor: good, bad, indifferent? Does it have any effect on the public figures or the public that it engages? What say you?

Jon Stewart Toasts Romney's Dropping Out... and Not in the Good Way

2008-02-09T11:35:00.000-06:00

This is a pretty harsh farewell, though I can't say that I disagree. Romney's farewell was almost as unimpressive as his campaign.

Why Putin is Evil, part 58

2008-02-08T09:48:00.000-06:00

If anyone doubted his nostalgia for the good ol days of the cold war, I dare them to deny it now. Putin once again places himself against the world as he attempts to stare down everyone in an international pissing contest. (On a personal, and barely related, note: I will be traveling to Russia soon to visit a friend. I'm looking forward to getting the Russian view of Putin's politics.)

And then there were two... democrats that is.

2008-02-07T14:15:00.000-06:00

Romney is out. And does anyone know why Romney is out? The terrorists will win. At first I thought this was a funny knock calling Clinton and Obama terrorists... but no, he was serious. Its not like any of the candidates are making presidential decisions yet. Dropping out isn't going to get McCain to the Whitehouse quicker. And yet, Romney is gone because he doesn't want the terrorists to win. *sigh* I'll never understand politics.

Welcome back to Political Science Theater 3000… today we continue our commentary on W’s 2008 State of the Union

2008-02-06T10:09:00.000-06:00

Trade brings better jobs and better choices and better prices. Yet, for some Americans, trade can mean losing a job. And the federal government has a responsibility to help.
(APPLAUSE)
I ask Congress to reauthorize and reform Trade Adjustment Assistance, so we can help these displaced workers learn new skills and find new jobs.
(APPLAUSE)
To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Brazil already has the technology and a lot cheaper too. If we can buy our oil, why can’t we buy our alternative fuels at cheaper rates until our technology develops?
(APPLAUSE)
Our security, our prosperity and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together, we should take the next steps. Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Last year this is all he talked about, but I haven’t seen a difference. In fact oil prices are through the roof.
Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions- free nuclear power.
(APPLAUSE)
Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. I foresee the next big car manufacturer: RC Cars and Trucks… buy a big boy toy and get the little one for the kids free!
(APPLAUSE)
Let us create a new international clean technology fund which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. I believe it was called the Kyoto Treaty… and we didn’t participate. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. Again… does Kyoto ring a bell?
(APPLAUSE)
This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. Right again, so why didn’t we sign this treaty years ago? The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change, and the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology. If we replace a few words here it’s a completely different sentence. I think that Bush’s speech writers give him a mad lib for his state of the union, watch this: “The United States is committed to strengthening our ________ security and confronting ________, and the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of ____________ and more _____________ technology.” <- Freaky huh?
(APPLAUSE)
To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow. As long as it doesn’t tic off the pope, or the evangelicals…
Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding. This funding is essential to keeping our scientific edge.
So I ask Congress to double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences and ensure America remains the most dynamic nation on earth. Congress tried to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research, and you vetoed it. Jerk.
(APPLAUSE)
On matters of life and science, we must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries. How come moral boundaries become a big deal when they are in a regulated lab, but not when it comes to Presidential decisions? It seems like you are just picking the moral cards that work for you. Oh wait, that is what you are doing.
In November, we witnessed a landmark achievement when scientists discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY DID!!! NO WONDER AMERICANS CAN’T PASS SCIENCE! This breakthrough has the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life.
(APPLAUSE)
So we're expanding funding for this type of ethical medical research. And, as we explore promising avenues of research, we must also ensure that all life treated with the dignity it deserves. The Pope says invitro shatters human dignity too… what about that? How are you going to draw this line??
And so I call on Congress to pass legislation that bans unethical practices such as the buying, selling, patenting or cloning of human life. So much for empowering our clinical scientists….
(APPLAUSE)
On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says. What does it mean when it doesn’t say? Abortion, Embryonic Stem Cells, Gay Marriage, etc… these are not in the Constitution. No founder could have seen these coming. Nostradamus didn’t even see us getting this mixed up. (APPLAUSE)
I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Many of these nominees are being unfairly delayed. They are worthy of confirmation, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote.
(APPLAUSE)
In communities across our land, we must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need.
Over the past seven years, more of our fellow citizens have discovered that the pursuit of happiness leads to the path of service. Americans have volunteered in record numbers. Charitable donations are higher than ever. Faith-based groups are bringing hope to pockets of despair with newfound support from the federal government.
And, to help guarantee equal treatment of faith-based organizations when they compete for federal funds, I ask you to permanently extend Charitable Choice. What about “thou shalt not fund religious groups” is difficult to comprehend. You liked the Constitution two paragraphs ago… what happened?
(APPLAUSE)
Tonight, the armies of compassion continue the march to a new day in the Gulf Coast. America honors the strength and resilience of the people of this region. We reaffirm our pledge to help them build stronger and better than before.
And tonight I'm pleased to announce that, in April, we will host this year's North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans. Nevermind the cheaper hotel rooms and meeting spaces...
(APPLAUSE)
There are two other pressing challenges that I've raised repeatedly before this body, and that this body has failed to address: entitlement spending and immigration.
Every member in this chamber knows that spending on entitlement programs -- like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- is growing faster than we can afford.
We all know the painful choices ahead if American stays on this path: massive tax increases, sudden and drastic cuts in benefits, and crippling deficits. Of course, its entitlement spending that causes all that. Not a 7 Trillion dollar war. And its all Congress’ fault.
I've laid out proposals to reform these programs. Now I ask members of Congress to offer your proposals and come up with a bipartisan solution to save these vital programs for our children and our grandchildren.
(APPLAUSE)
The other pressing challenge is immigration. America needs to secure our borders. And, with your help, my administration is taking steps to do so. We're increasing work site enforcement, deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings.
We've effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border. And by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents.
Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy.
(APPLAUSE)
This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm.
We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved, and it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.
(APPLAUSE)
This is the business of our nation here at home. Yet building a prosperous future for our citizens also depends on confronting enemies abroad and advancing liberty in troubled regions of the world.
Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace. Except Iraqis, we choose for them.
In the last seven years, we have witnessed stirring moments in the history of liberty. We've seen citizens in Georgia and Ukraine stand up for their right to free and fair elections. We've seen people in Lebanon take to the streets to demand their independence. We've seen Afghans emerge from the tyranny of the Taliban and choose a new president and a new parliament.
We've seen jubilant Iraqis holding up ink-stained fingers and celebrating their freedom. Of course we saw them, we engineered, directed, and cast those performances.
These images of liberty have inspired us.
(APPLAUSE)
In the past seven years, we've also seen the images that have sobered us. We've watched throngs of mourners in Lebanon and Pakistan carrying the caskets of beloved leaders taken by the assassins' hands.
We've seen wedding guests in blood-soaked finery staggering from a hotel in Jordan, Afghans and Iraqis blown up in mosques and markets, and trains in London and Madrid ripped apart by bombs.
On a clear September day, we saw thousands of our fellow citizens taken from us in an instant.
These horrific images serve as a grim reminder. The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists -- evil men who despise freedom, despise America and aim to subject millions to their violent rule.
Since 9/11, we have taken the fight to these terrorists and extremists. We will stay on the offense. We will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to our enemies.
We are engaged in the defining ideological struggle of the 21st century. The terrorists oppose every principle of humanity and decency that we hold dear.
Yet, in this war on terror, there is one thing we and our enemies agree on. In the long run, men and women who are free to determine their own destinies will reject terror and refuse to live in tyranny.
And that is why the terrorists are fighting to deny this choice to the people in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories.
And that is why, for the security of America and the peace of the world, we are spreading the hope of freedom.
Let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time.
(APPLAUSE)
From expanding opportunity to protecting our country, we've made good progress. Yet we have unfinished business before us, and the American people expect us to get it done.
In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. Didn’t he already use this line? When did we decide that THIS was our great philosophy?
And so, in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions and empower them to improve their lives for their futures.
(APPLAUSE)
In Afghanistan, America, our 25 NATO allies and 15 partner nations are helping the Afghan people defend their freedom and rebuild their country.
Thanks to the courage of these military and civilian personnel, a nation that was once a safe haven for al Qaeda is now a young democracy where boys and girls are going to school. New roads and hospitals are being built. And people are looking to the future with new hope.
These successes must continue. So we're adding 3,200 Marines to our forces in Afghanistan, where they will fight the terrorists and train the Afghan army and police.
Defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda is critical to our security, and I thank the Congress for supporting America's vital mission in Afghanistan.
(APPLAUSE)
In Iraq, the terrorists and extremists are fighting to deny a proud people their liberty and fighting to establish safe havens for attacks across the world.
One year ago, our enemies were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos, so we reviewed our strategy and changed course.
We launched a surge of American forces into Iraq. We gave our troops a new mission: Work with the Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in his strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country.
The Iraqi people quickly realized that something dramatic had happened.
Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw tens of thousands of American forces flowing into their country. They saw our forces moving into neighborhoods, clearing out the terrorists and staying behind to ensure the enemy did not return. And they saw our troops, along with provincial reconstruction teams that include Foreign Service officers and other skilled public servants, coming in to ensure that improved security was followed by improvements in daily life.
Our military and civilians in Iraq are performing with courage and distinction, and they have the gratitude of our whole nation. All of that and not one sentence explicitly saying that the surge worked. Hmmm.
(APPLAUSE)
The Iraqis launched a surge of their own.
In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising called the Anbar Awakening. Over the past year, similar movements have spread across the country.
Today, the grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists.
The government in Baghdad has stepped forward as well, adding more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year.
While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago.
(APPLAUSE)
When we met last year, many said that containing the violence was impossible. A year later, high-profile terrorist attacks are down; civilian deaths are down; sectarian killings are down.
When we met last year, militia extremists, some armed and trained by Iran, were wreaking havoc in large areas of Iraq.
(TED KENNEDY SNORES LOUDLY)
When we met last year our troop levels in Iraq were on the rise. Today, because of the progress just described, we are implementing a policy of return on success, and the surge forces we sent to Iraq are beginning to come home.
This progress is a credit to the valor of our troops and the brilliance of their commanders.
This evening, I want to speak directly to our men and women on the front lines, soldiers and sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast you and more.
Our nation is grateful for your courage. We are proud of your accomplishments.
And tonight, in this hallowed chamber with the American people as our witness, we make you a solemn pledge: In the fight ahead, you will have all you need to protect our nation.
(APPLAUSE)
And I ask Congress to meet its responsibilities to these brave men and women by fully funding our troops. This ladies and gentleman is an age old rhetorical trick, implemented, albeit crassly. By addressing the troops, in front of the people and making a promise that is out of his hands, W literally wrote a check that HE doesn’t have access to, and then turns to Congress to pass it. This is why we will never get out of Iraq. If Congress attempts to cut funding to the war then they are cutting funding to the troops, and they are witch-hunted for “not supporting the troops” when in fact it is the war they don’t support. Its impossible for anyone to be “anti-war” without them being called “anti-troop”, when in fact the two are separate issues.
(APPLAUSE)
Our enemies in Iraq have been hit hard. They are not yet defeated and we can still expect tough fighting ahead.
Our objective in the coming year is to sustain and build on the gains we made in 2007, while transitioning to the next phase of our strategy. American troops are shifting from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces and eventually to a protective over-watch mission.
As part of this transition, one Army Brigade Combat team and one Marine Expeditionary Unit have already come home and will not be replaced. In the coming months, four additional brigades and two Marine battalions will follow suit.
Taken together, this means more than 20,000 of our troops are coming home.
(APPLAUSE)
Any further drawdown of U.S. troops will be based on conditions in Iraq and the recommendations of our commanders.
General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in, quote, "the disintegration of the Iraqi security forces, al Qaeda- Iraq regaining lost ground, and a marked increase in violence."
Members of Congress, having come so far and achieved so much, we must not allow this to happen.
(APPLAUSE)
In the coming year, we will work with Iraqi leaders as they build on the progress they're making toward political reconciliation.
At the local levels, Sunnis, Shiite and Kurds are beginning to come together to reclaim their communities and rebuild their lives. Progress in the provinces must be matched by progress in Baghdad.
(APPLAUSE)
We're seeing some encouraging signs. The national government is sharing oil revenues with the provinces. The parliament recently passed both a pension law and de-Baathification reform. They're now debating a provincial powers law.
The Iraqis still have a distance to travel. But, after decades of dictatorship and the pain of sectarian violence, reconciliation is taking place and the Iraqi people are taking control of their future.
(APPLAUSE)
The mission in Iraq has been difficult and trying for our nation, but it is in the vital interest of the United States that we succeed.
A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will show millions across the Middle East that a future of liberty is possible. A free Iraq will be a friend of America, a partner in fighting terror and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world.
By contrast, a failed Iraq would embolden the extremists, strengthen Iran and give terrorists a base from which to launch new attacks on our friends, our allies and our homeland.
The enemy has made its intentions clear.
At a time when the momentum seemed to favor them, al Qaeda's top commander in Iraq declared that they will not rest until they have attacked us here in Washington.
My fellow Americans, we will not rest either. We will not rest until this enemy has been defeated.
(APPLAUSE)
We must do the difficult work today so that, years from now, people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America.
(APPLAUSE)
We're also standing against the forces of extremism in the Holy Land, where we have new cause for hope. Palestinians have elected a president who recognizes that confronting terror is essential to achieving a state where his people can live in dignity and at peace with Israel.
Israelis have leaders who recognize that a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state will be a source of lasting security.
This month in Ramallah and Jerusalem, I assured leaders from both sides that America will do and I will do everything we can to help them achieve a peace agreement that defines a Palestinian state by the end of this year.
The time has come for a Holy Land where a democratic Israel and a democratic Palestine live side by side in peace.
(APPLAUSE)
We're also standing against the forces of extremism embodied by the regime in Tehran.
Iran's rulers oppress a good and talented people. And wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it.
Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land.
Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon.
Our message to the people of Iran is clear. We have no quarrel with you. We have respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom. People of Iran, be emboldened that we said the same thing to the people of Iraq, and just look at how well we are doing.
Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear. Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions. Stop your oppression at home. Cease your support for terror abroad.
But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops; we will stand by our allies; and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf.
(APPLAUSE)
On the homefront, we will continue to take every lawful and effective measure to protect our country. This is our most solemn duty.
We are grateful that there has not been another attack on our soil since 9/11. But this is not for the lack of desire or effort on the part of the enemy.
In the past six years, we've stopped numerous attacks, including a plot to fly a plane into the tallest building in Los Angeles, and another to blow up passenger jets bound for America over the Atlantic.
Dedicated men and women in our government toil day and night to stop the terrorists from carrying out their plans. These good citizens are saving American lives, and everyone in this chamber owes them our thanks.
(APPLAUSE)
And we owe them something more. We owe them the tools they need to keep our people safe. And one of the most important tools we can give them is the ability to monitor terrorist communications.
To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to, what they are saying and what they're planning. So now I am admitting to wire-tapping, but we are only monitoring the terrorists, I swear.
Last year, Congress passed legislation to help us do that.
Unfortunately, Congress set the legislation to expire on February 1st. That means, if you don't act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger.
Congress must ensure the flow of vital intelligence is not disrupted. Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America. We've had ample time for debate. The time to act is now.
(APPLAUSE)
Protecting our nation from the dangers of a new century requires more than good intelligence and a strong military. It also requires changing the conditions that breed resentment and allow extremists to prey on despair. So America is using its influence to build a freer, more hopeful and more compassionate world.
This is a reflection of our national interests. It is the calling of our conscience. America opposes genocide in Sudan.
(APPLAUSE)
We support freedom in countries from Cuba and Zimbabwe to Belarus and Burma. What is up with the random list of 3rd world countries thrown in at the end for good measure?
(APPLAUSE)
America's leading the fight against global poverty with strong education initiatives and humanitarian assistance. We've also changed the way we deliver aid by launching the Millennium Challenge Account.
This program strengthens democracy, transparency and the rule of law in developing nations, and I ask you to fully fund this important initiative.
(APPLAUSE)
America is leading the fight against global hunger. Today, more than half the world's food aid comes from the United States. Today? 20 years ago it was at least half if not more. He can’t take credit for that!
(APPLAUSE)
And tonight, I ask Congress to support an innovative proposal to provide food assistance by purchasing crops directly from farmers in the developing world, so we can build up local agriculture and help break the cycle of famine. What about America’s farmers? They are dying too!
(APPLAUSE)
America is leading the fight against disease. With your help, we're working to cut, by half, the number of malaria-related deaths in 15 African nations. And our emergency plan for AIDS relief is treating 1.4 million people.
We can bring healing and hope to many more. So I ask you to maintain the principles that have changed behavior and made this program a success. And I call on you to double our initial commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS by approving an additional $30 billion over the next five years.
(APPLAUSE)
America is a force for hope in the world because we are a compassionate people. And some of the most compassionate Americans are those who have stepped forward to protect us. we might live in freedom and peace.
Over the past seven years, we've increased funding for veterans by more than 95 percent. And as we increase funding...
(APPLAUSE)
And as we increase funding, we must also reform our veterans' system to meet the needs of a new war and a new generation.
(APPLAUSE)
I call on Congress to enact the reforms recommended by Senator Bob Dole and Secretary Donna Shalala so we can improve the system of care for our wounded warriors and help them build lives of hope and promise and dignity.
(APPLAUSE)
Our military families also sacrifice for America. They endure sleepless nights and the daily struggle of providing for children while a loved one is serving far from home.
We have a responsibility to provide for them. So I ask you to join me in expanding their access to child care, creating new hiring preferences for military spouses across the federal government, and allowing our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.
Our military families serve our nation. They inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them.
(APPLAUSE)
The secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. When the federal convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." Constitution, he offered an important revision, and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."
By trusting the people, our founders wagered that a great and noble nation could be built on the liberty that resides in the hearts of all men and women. By trusting the people, succeeding generations transformed our fragile young democracy into the most powerful nation on earth and a beacon of hope for millions. WHAT??? I didn’t know that W was a revisionist historian! Our founders didn’t trust the people any farther than Washington could spit his false teeth. The Articles of Confederation gave the people and the states too much power. The Constitution was a federalizing document… not a democratic one.
And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure and the state of our union will remain strong.
(APPLAUSE)
So tonight, with confidence in freedom's power and trust in the people, let us set forth to do their business. God bless America. And let us celebrate in the fact that I will never have to read another Bush State of the Union again.

My Belated SOTU Commentary, Complete with Sarcasm: Part 1

2008-02-05T07:58:00.000-06:00

For a man with such low approval rating, Bush received at least (not counting the entering, and much louder leaving applauses) 68 rounds of applause. If someone didn't know any better they might think he was popular. Here is the CNN transcript of his speech, with commentary.

Madam Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:
Seven years have passed since I first stood before you at this rostrum. In that time, our country has been tested in ways none of us could have imagined. We faced hard decisions about peace and war, rising competition in the world economy, and the health and welfare of our citizens.
These issues call for vigorous debate, and I think it's fair to say we've answered the call.
(LAUGHTER)
Yet history will record that amid our differences we acted with purpose, and together we showed the world the power and resilience of American self-government.
All of us were sent to Washington to carry out the people's business. That is the purpose of this body. It is the meaning of our oath. It remains our charge to keep.
The actions of the 110th Congress will affect the security and prosperity of our nation long after this session has ended. In this election year, let us show our fellow Americans that we recognize our responsibilities and are determined to meet them.
Let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time.
(APPLAUSE)
From expanding opportunity to protecting our country, we've made good progress. Yet we have unfinished business before us, and the American people expect us to get it done.
In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy (Singular) that made our nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. power of individuals + collective wisdom= Swarm Theory makes America Great!
And so, in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions and empower them to improve their lives for their futures. Except Iraqis, we have to make decisions for them.
To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy. (again, except Iraqis, we haven’t figured out how to make them work, while getting cheap oil) As we meet tonight, our economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. America's added jobs for a record 52 straight months.
But jobs are now growing at a slower pace. Wages are up, but so are prices for food and gas. Exports are rising, but the housing market has declined.
At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future. In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth, but in the short run, we can all see that that growth is slowing.
So, last week, my administration reached agreement with Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner on a robust growth package that includes tax relief for individuals and families and incentives for business investment.
The temptation will be to load up the bill. That would delay it or derail it, and neither option is acceptable.
(APPLAUSE)
This is a good agreement that will keep our economy growing and our people working. And this Congress must pass it as soon as possible.
(APPLAUSE)
We have other work to do on taxes. Unless Congress acts, most of the tax relief we've delivered over the past seven years will be taken away.
Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase.
Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who will see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.
(LAUGHTER) <- When the President makes a joke I guess you have to laugh... maybe they have those signs like they use on sitcoms...
(APPLAUSE)
Most Americans think their taxes are high enough. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about the federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There is only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: Make the tax relief permanent.
Members of the Congress should know, if any bill -- raises taxes reach -- reaches my desk, I will veto it. We need to give money to the citizens, beef up education, fuel R&D, throw more men and money at Iraq, and all the while spend the exact same budget that has been inadequate for 7 years. Now, I don’t like higher taxes, but it just means that the money is going to come from us somewhere else.
(APPLAUSE)
Just as we trust Americans with their own money, we need to earn their trust by spending their tax dollars wisely.
(TED KENNEDY HOLDS UP A BARACK THE VOTE SIGN)
Next week, I'll send you a budget that terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion. The budget that I'll submit will keep America on track for a surplus in 2012. That just means that in 8 years we can start to think about reducing the national debt.
American families have to balance their budgets; so should their government.
The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks, special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. committee reports that never even come to a vote. What is the difference between “Congressional Earmarks” and signing statements?
Unfortunately, neither goal was met. Not the first time the administration failed to meet goals *cough-benchmarks*
So, this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I'll send it back to you with my veto. <- wow, Bush is getting a little cocky…. This is his desperate attempt at telling Congress he’s not a lame duck yet. Rather, he’s just lame. (APPLAUSE)
And tomorrow I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress.
If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote. My signing statements on the other hand….
(APPLAUSE)
Our shared responsibilities extend beyond matters of taxes and spending. On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of home ownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market.
My administration brought together the Hope Now alliance, which is helping many struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.
And Congress can help even more.
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, modernize the Federal Housing Administration, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages.
(APPLAUSE)
It's been a difficult time for many American families and, by taking these steps, we can help more of them keep their homes.
Mr. President, I would like to offer a Public Speaking Tip: TRANSISTIONS!
To build a future of quality health care, we must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options.
We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control.
(APPLAUSE)
So I propose ending the bias in the tax code against those who do not get their health insurance through their employer. This one reform would put private coverage within reach for millions, and I call on the Congress to pass it this year.
(APPLAUSE)
Congress must also expand health savings accounts, create association health plans for small businesses, promote health information technology and confront the epidemic of junk medical lawsuits. For a call for government to get out of healthcare, there sure is a pretty big “honey do list” for Congress here…
(APPLAUSE)
With all these steps, we will ensure that decisions about your medical care are made in the privacy of your doctor's office, not in the halls of Congress.
(APPLAUSE)
On education, we must trust students to learn, if given the chance (HA HA, that W… he’s such a kidder.), and empower parents to demand results from our schools. The most obvious thing in the past 7 years about Bush’s education policies is that he never had an education.
In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams. And a decent education is their only hope of achieving them.
Six years ago, we came together to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, and today no one can deny its results. You’re right… we can’t… you however, have been in denial since it started crapping up our school systems.
Last year, 4th and 8th graders achieved the highest math scores on record. Reading scores are on the rise. African-American and Hispanic students posted all-time highs. Now we must...
(APPLAUSE)
Now we must work together to increase accountability, add flexibilities for states and districts, reduce the number of high school dropouts, provide extra help for struggling schools.
Members of Congress, the No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan achievement. It is succeeding. And we owe it to America's children, their parents and their teachers to strengthen this good law.
(APPLAUSE)
We must also do more to help children when their schools do not measure up. Thanks to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships you approved, more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our nation's capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other nonpublic schools.
Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America's inner cities. So I will convene a White House summit aimed at strengthening these lifelines of learning. Why encourage poorly regulated private school in inner cities? Encourage the growth and development of public schools if the NCLB Act is working so well.
And to open the doors of these schools to more children, I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential.
Together, we've expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let us apply the same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.
(APPLAUSE)
On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas.
Today, our economic growth increasingly depends on our ability to sell American goods and crops and services all over the world.
So we're working to break down barriers to trade and investment, wherever we can.
We're working for a successful Doha round of trade talks. And we must complete a good agreement this year.
At the same time, we're pursuing opportunities to open up new markets by passing free trade agreements.
I thank the Congress for approving a good agreement with Peru. And now I ask you to approve agreements with Colombia and Panama and South Korea.
(APPLAUSE)
Many products from these nations now enter America duty-free.
Yet many of our products face steep tariffs in their markets. These agreements will level the playing field. They will give us better access to nearly 100 million customers.
They will support good jobs for the finest workers in the world, those whose products say, "Made in the USA." That’s right, we don’t put lead in our toys or anything.
(APPLAUSE)
These agreements also promote America's strategic interests. The first agreement that will come before you is with Colombia, a friend of America that is confronting violence and terror and fighting drug traffickers. If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere. Chavez, you’re listening right?
So we must come together, pass this agreement, and show our neighbors in the region that democracy leads to a better life. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!
(APPLAUSE)

Which Will Make Feb 5th 2008 More Memorable? Super Tuesday or Fat Tuesday

2008-02-03T10:24:00.000-06:00

Some things to think about:
Obama v. McCain

Poster Children vs Questionable Visionaries

McCain has been vocally sure of his campaign going into Tuesday; most media outlets have started to assume that he will take the Republican nomination. This has caused sensational unrest within the party, with many right wingers "flipping their shit" so to speak. Most notably, Ann Coulter saying that she would vote for Hillary before McCain. This is of course great news, for with such an endorsement from Coulter, Hillary's goose is getting ever closer to the fire. I will profess that I am uncomfortable with McCain as a presidential nominee. His obsession with "winning" the war in Iraq, and spending more money fighting terrorism abroad is unsettling. Not to mention his age, temper, and wavering political stances. His record in Arizona is poor, with many Arizona citizens saying that he didn't accomplish anything. His fear appeals and war rhetoric are just extensions of what we see now from the Bush Admin, and exemplifies what we saw with his pal Guilliani.

The Democratic race is closer, but Obama has been the media darling by a landslide. Bill ended up being an embarrassment yet again for Hillary, the Democratic party, and for American politics as a whole. His hogging of the spotlight, and disparaging remarks about Obama may have pushed Hillary's campaign closer to the edge than anything else. Obama may be running on nothing except "ambiguous change"... but Hillary is running on old-fashioned dirty politics and people actually seem to care. I certainly hope that Obama takes the nomination for a few reasons: 1) He's not Hillary, 2) He's the most bi-partisan, moderate candidate out there, and 3) IF his running mate ends up being who the rumors say it will be, then he will be deftly defeated by the republican candidate in the presidential election.

As a final thought. I really believe that whatever party wins the '08 race will lose in '12. The issues that are of the most concern by the American public cannot be fixed or even substansially lessened in 4 years (Iraq, economy, national debt, gasoline prices, etc). The public, frustrated and angry at the inability of Washington to enact change, will vote in the other party. So to the Republicans out there who demonize Obama: 1) He's NOT HILLARY, 2) We get to take '12 (and be in a better position (both as far as timeline and political leadership goes) to "fix" the current political/economic fiascos that the public is worried about. His entire campaign touts "change" but the wheels of the Constitution and of government are purposefully rusty. No one can produce those levels of "change" in 4 years. Not without starting a war, and he can't afford to repeat the show of the current admin.

Hollywood Continues to Inform Us, While Washington Continues to Entertain Us

2008-01-30T08:22:00.000-06:00

I saw this episode a while back and fell in love. It not only mocks the ridiculous nature of primary season, but the ridiculous candidates as well. If only there really were a Ralph to run...

Wealth of Nations: Reconsidered

2008-01-25T19:41:00.000-06:00

This week has been particularly economically focused for everyone. Today, things started coming together in a way that made me question coincidence vs. a strong indication that I should look into something further. I went with the second option. First, I was told this week that Wednesday marked the end of Capitalism. Of course we all know that the world and U.S. economies are perilously balanced at the top of a very precipitous economic volcano right now, today I saw this article on Bill Gates sudden turn toward helping the economic crisis through not being a jerk, and I started reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman. So, in light of all this I decided to devote tonight to processing what I'm learning.

First, neo-liberalism and Capitalism have been losing momentum as political and economic solutions for sometime.

So maybe Reagan and Thatcher weren't right... building up debt to support producers while screwing the working class consumer might not create ideal long-term economic stability. Allowing large coporations into third world countries does not raise the common person's standard of living, rather it raises the top 2% high enough to bring the total average up. Adam Smith can still be right... governmental deregulation of economics isn't bad. But the government's regulatory tendencies should not be replaced by multi-national corporations and banks. That defeats the purpose of deregulation in the first place.

Secondly, we are going into an economic recession and that might be a good thing socially.

Corporations, such as Dell and Microsoft, will turn to developing resources (both environmental and human capital). The real motives I don't know... consumer creation and cheap new resources are at the top of my skeptical list. The PR motives are to solve hunger and poverty world-wide. Whatever their reasons their "creative Capitalism" may focus on the benefits that Capitalism has been claiming since the 1700s, a rise in welfare and salary for everyone. (My arguments are NOT to be confused with socialism or communism... I'm not looking for equality... just oppurtunity. Go see MET's blog for socialism.)

Thirdly, (this is where everyone is going to disagree with me, and I'm putting my cards on the table, probably when I shouldn't) I think that the U.S. is going to fall as the world hegemonic powerhouse within the next 10-20 years.

We are in debt, and I don't just mean the 9 Trillion or so dollars that the treasury keeps up with, I'm talking about the billions of dollars in government stocks and bonds that China, Russia, and other countries hold. Our country is built on economics, and our economics are not built within our borders. That is a problem. Our socio-political stability relies on exports from other nations (and not just oil). We also continue to repeat mistakes in the Middle East. Did anyone catch the list of weapons we just sold to Saudi Arabia? It wasn't that long ago when we gave loans and sold military equipment to Iraq and Saddam. Surely this time, though, it won't bite us in the ass. We became a world power during one of the strongest isolationist periods in US history that ended when we were drug (kicking and screaming) into WWII. Since then as we have spread ourselves around the globe we risk becoming an empire similar to the one we overthrew starting in 1776. The Age of Empire has returned, and like all of those before it the fall from grace is not going to be pretty.

And for your enjoyment a link to the "debt clock" which calculates the U.S. National Debt total, not to be confused with the Death Clock which counts down to December 21, 2012 when the world is supposed to end (according to the Mayans anyway).

Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock

And finally, what might the government's solution be? Checks. Checks that they aren't sure they can cash. Brilliant.

My conclusion? I don't have one yet. I'm waiting for a good debate from some of you economists out there. I need contrary arguments and evidence to restore by belief in neo-liberal Capitalism. I keep telling myself that this is an ideal economic system when it isn't corrupted by human ambition, but hell that's what they said about Communism too.

My Book Review

2008-01-24T15:40:00.001-06:00

This is a preview of my first academic publication, a book review in an upcoming Rhetoric and Public Affairs Journal:

Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens
Whole. By Benjamin R. Barber. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007; pp 416. $26.95.

Since Francis Fukuyama touted the “End of History” in 1989, scholars have debated the durability and isomorphous nature of democratic governments, their citizenry, and their culture. Western neo-liberal democracies, and the capitalistic economies that they share, have come under attack for their failure to remain politically active domestically and culturally distinct internationally. America, in particular, stands as the shallow, materialistic, politically ignorant poster child for the horrors of capitalism and Western Democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville observed in Democracy in America, that democratic citizenry are prone to self-indulgence, alienated from their communities, families, and political systems. They exist as individuals with civil rights and freedoms, but no social or cultural obligations to tie them to others. A plethora of literature has erupted critiquing the dangers that laissez-faire liberalism and invasive marketing have both on democracies and their citizens.

Benjamin Barber joins this array of literature with his recent book Consumed. Barber’s assertion that consumer culture has weakened the American citizenry is an astute one. He contends that the market’s constant creation of supposed “needs” for consumers to demand has created an “infantilist ethos” that is corrupting the public’s ability to be good citizens. When instead of a society, or political public, we identify ourselves as a consumer or individual we forget to think in the best interest of the group rather than ourselves. Barber describes this ethos by social and cultural observations of American life. For example, children today are expected to “mature” to be rampant consumers at increasingly early ages. Conversely, marketing departments are struggling to keep adults in a persistent state of adolescence in order for the fad spending of youth to continue for decades to come. Americans, and implicitly for Barber, other neo-liberal democracies, want products, but they do not need them; they want them easier, rather than harder; simple, rather than complex; and faster, rather than slower. In essence we become infants in our self-absorbed, reflexive demand for what we want.

Barber blames this infantilist ethos on the market’s evolution from a needs based capitalism to a wants based system. For Barber, the first few decades of capitalism were “purer” and more supportive of the Protestant ethos that melded with capitalism so well. Later, however, only the work habits of the Protestant ethos survived and the “ethical heart” of capitalism was removed for robber barons to make more money quicker. Once the “every man for himself” mentality became entwined with American culture, then people began breaking down their social and cultural ties in an attempt to get ahead and please themselves. Thus Barber’s infantilist ethos was born. The market’s insatiable need for more consumers and higher demand led to the “creation” of demands for a surplus of useless, luxury products. By forcing the markets to cater to imaginary demands the whole economic system has become inflated to almost unimaginable heights, which Barber claims are dangerously unsteady both economically and politically.

In the end, Barber calls for a “transformation of capitalism back into a needs-satisfying economic machine, and a transformation of democracy back into the sovereign guarantor of all domains private, the market domain included.” (290) Barber is painfully silent on how this regression of 100 years of socio-economic evolution is to take place except to say that it will have to come from industries themselves. Readers are left with a chicken and egg scenario that Barber never clears up. Barber sees corporate responsibility stemming from civic consumerism, but he does not say how consumers are to break the marketing spells that he claims earlier in the book cripple them as wise consumers and as citizens. Thus, which will come first, the spontaneous civic consumerism, or corporate responsibility?

Although Barber’s premises are obvious, and his observations are undeniable, his conclusions and solutions are idealistic, at best. Some of Barber’s examples are weak, and the conclusions that are drawn from them are even worse. His chapter describing the “Infantilizing Consumers: The Coming of Kidults” uses phenomenal observations from which to draw dubious conclusions. For example, Barber berates the “infantile” sports industry: “Basketball in its new simplified, high-speed, offense-minded form is only the most popular and perhaps global of the many sports that in their commercial incarnation today both benefit from and reinforce the infantilizing inclinations of the current corporate ethos.” (93) Athletics, and the adoration of athletes, is not new to democracies or capitalistic motive and opportunity. Barber acts as a cultural “purest” who is threatened by any change or advancement in classical capitalism or “culture” although he offers no working definition of either “pure capitalism” or American “culture” that is not consumerist. There is no distinction between enjoying hard earned money through fun and vacations, and the infantile ethos that Barber claims is the downfall of contemporary democratic politics.

His distinct categorization of people, political structures, and cultures leave no room for compromise or blending. For example, Barber does not recognize that people can be self-disciplinary and hardworking as well as fun, and adventurous. Barber even tries to claim that Americans prefer the bland and simple diets that fast food chains offer to slow home cooked meals based upon their simplicity and speed, rather than their convenience and cost. He forces exceptions and phenomenal circumstances to hold as the norm for his conclusions about American consumer culture, and the infantilist ethos that he observes to be so rampant.

Consumerism alone cannot be powerful enough to demolish Western democracies; it can, however, be a symptom of a larger problem that is rampant in both democracies and capitalism, and that is the social trend toward individualism rather than community focused thought. Consumed is useful for research on the opinions, trends, and effects of neo-liberal capitalism on democratic citizenry world-wide. It could, however, do with some reanalysis of its empirical evidence, as well as the conclusions drawn from it.

Seperation of Church and State anyone?

2008-01-23T15:40:00.000-06:00

I took this photo the day after MLK day on my way to work. After pitching a fit for two days this is what I've resolved myself to ask:

Which is worse?

a) That the church didn't know that these words were from the Declaration of Independence.

b) That no one caught this.

c) That when I shared this picture with someone they didn't get why I was upset.

The answer is, and always will be, "d", all of the above. I'm using this moment to rant about another political faux pas. In January 28, 2008 Newsweek there was on the "Perspectives" page (pg 21) a quotation from Mike Huckabee. "I believe its's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God." Living Constitution vs Living God... I defer to my Martin Luther quotation "It is better to be ruled by a wise Turk, than a foolish Christian." Reason 582 to NOT vote for Huckabee? Seperation of Church and State. He has called for 2 new Constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage in order to bring U.S. law in line with "God's standards". Christianity is not designed to rule states or nations... its supposed to guide individuals. This is REALLY SCARY! First, Presidents are not supposed to be calling for laws... thats the legislation's job. The executive is supposed to execute the laws from the legislature. If the people wanted their states or this country to ban abortion or homosexual marriage then they would. Forcing them to comply with a single religous standard is tyranny. Where does Huckabee stand on religous freedom? I'm sure as long as everyone is worshipping a Judeo-Christian God in a Church on a Sunday he's fine with it. This is NOT RIGHT! Everyone has the right to worship their own religion. There should be no endorsed religion by the state... so what message would we be sending electing a preacher to the Presidency?

As citizens, we must be the wall of seperation between the Church and the government. Both entities have noble functions, but both are ambitious and tyrannical if left unchecked. And for those that ask, "What's the worse that could happen?"... check out the period of European history from 740-1500 AD. This crusade could turn out to be a very dark age indeed.

Hell Froze Over

2008-01-11T11:36:00.001-06:00

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/11/iraq.snow.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

It's snowing in Baghdad... enough said.

The Election and Gun Control... Clarifications

2008-01-08T22:40:00.000-06:00

I read poor information months ago, and because of it I have misjudged a candidate. After scouring the news resources I found this list of the candidates and their positions. I hope this helps:

Joe BidenVoted for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Voted for requiring extensive background checks at gun shows. Supports mandatory trigger locks for handguns. Says he has had a gun in the house during his adult lifetime.

Rudy GiulianiHas supported gun control measures as New York City mayor, but says a person's individual right to bear arms should only be limited for strict Constitutional reasons. As a Senate candidate, supported licensing and registration of handguns and extended background checks at gun shows. As mayor, signed legislation requiring trigger locks for all gun sales. Banned sale of toy guns that resemble real guns. Supported the federal assault weapons ban.

Hillary ClintonVoted for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Voted for requiring extensive background checks at gun shows. Supports licensing and registration of handguns, mandatory trigger locks for handguns, holding adults responsible for their children's use of guns, raising the youth handgun ban from age 18 to 21, limiting gun sales to one per month and allowing the Consumer Products Safety Commission regulate guns.

Mike HuckabeeOpposes reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. Opposes mandatory trigger locks for handguns. Opposes waiting periods for gun purchases. Owns a variety of firearms. NRA member. Has a concealed carry permit.

Chris DoddVoted for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Voted for requiring extensive background checks at gun shows. Supports mandatory trigger locks for handguns. Says he has had a gun in the house during his adult lifetime.

Duncan HunterVoted against the 1994 assault weapons ban. Opposed 3-day gun show background check requirement in favor of a 24-hour check. Has an A rating from the NRA

John EdwardsVoted for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Voted for requiring extensive background checks at gun shows.

John McCainSponsored legislation requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted against a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Opposed legislation requiring trigger locks for handguns. Opposed 1994 crime bill, which contained the assault weapons ban. Has a C+ rating from the NRA.

Mike GravelSupports requiring that potential gun owners be licensed and undergo training before they can own a firearm. Says he has had a gun in the house during his adult lifetime.

Ron PaulOpposed 3-day gun show background check requirement in favor of a 24-hour check. Has a B rating from the NRA.

Dennis KucinichCo-sponsored legislation to extend and strengthen the assault weapons ban. Voted for extensive background check requirement at gun shows. Says he has had a gun in the house during his adult lifetime.

Mitt RomneyAs governor, signed into law a permanent ban on assault weapons. Supported the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Supported the Brady Bill requiring waiting periods for handgun purchases, but says it is no longer needed due to instantaneous background checks. Joined the NRA as a lifetime member in 2006.

Barack ObamaSupports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel. Supports limiting gun sales to one per month.

Tom TancredoOpposed 3-day gun show background check requirement in favor of a 24-hour check. Has an A rating from the NRA

Bill RichardsonOpposed the 1994 assault weapons ban, but voted for the crime bill that included it. Later voted to repeal the assault weapons ban. As governor, signed law allowing adults 21 and older who pass background checks and take a gun safety class to carry a concealed weapon. Has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Says he has had a gun in the house during his adult lifetime. Has an A rating from the NRA.

A Word to the Wise

2008-01-04T20:38:00.001-06:00

Remember this the next time you have to check your e-mail, watch TV, or answer your cell-phone.

Reason 582 Rudy Sucks, and My Committee Rocks

2008-01-02T14:11:00.000-06:00

I had a class with Desch, and he sat on my committee. I don't think I've ever been so proud. *sniffle*

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=desch_on_rudy

DESCH ON RUDY.

Mike Desch, a rightish faculty member with isolationist tendencies who works at the Bush School at Texas A&M (and was once Director of the Patterson School) has a fine article in the new American Conservative about Rudy Giuliani's visit to Texas A&M:
I was so appalled by the mayor’s simplistic message that terrorists were attacking us because they “oppose our freedom and ... want to impose their ideology on us” that I ignored protocol and challenged him during the Q&A. To the accompaniment of hisses from the rabidly pro-Rudy students, I reminded the mayor that Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and elsewhere in the Middle East have taken our side against al-Qaeda at various times. Like the students, Hizzonor was not amused, and I got five minutes of unvarnished Rudy chiding me for just not getting it.
To the cheers of the partisan crowd, Giuliani argued that my “failure to see the connection between Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups [was] a recipe for disaster.” In his view, the campaign of radical Islamic terrorism began back in the 1960s and 1970s and included things like the Black September attack upon Israeli Olympic athletes at Munich in 1972. He ridiculed my call to disaggregate the terrorist threat, saying it ignored the fact that Yasir Arafat, whom, he lamented, we helped win the Nobel Prize, was responsible for “slaughtering 29 Americans” over the years. I learned later that Giuliani was so annoyed by my hectoring that he complained about it at the reception after the talk. He was reportedly shocked to learn that I was not some lefty professor but a member of the faculty at the Bush School.
Desch goes on to discuss Giuliani's advisors in detail in an analysis that dovetails nicely with Matt's article of a couple months ago. He also includes this nifty bit from Giuliani advisor Stephen Peter Rosen ...
Humility is always a virtue, but the dominant male atop any social hierarchy, human or otherwise, never managed to rule simply by being nice. Human evolutionary history has produced a species that both creates hierarchies and harbors the desire among subordinates to challenge its dominant member. Those challenges never disappear. The dominant member can never do everything that subordinates desire, and so it is blamed for what it does not do as much as for what it does.
...the logic of which convinces Rosen to reject "humility" in foreign policy. For my part, I enjoyed Rosen's work more when he had sensible things to say about military doctrine rather than nutty things about human nature.
--Robert Farley

Happy New Year

2008-01-01T21:12:00.000-06:00

I hope that everyone enjoyed, or at the very least survived their holiday season. To those of you I got to visit with, I had a wonderful time and I hope to do it again soon, for those I missed... I miss you dearly and I will see you as soon as I can.

Of my readers I know very little. As a matter of fact there may be no one there to receive these thoughts and ramblings, but tonight I hope that there will be at least one, and that this post resonates with them. It will be more rambling than most, but I promise a hopeful ending.

Today I read John Steinbeck's East of Eden. I realize this is something that most people have read long before now, probably in high school, and that my postponement of reading such a classic is probably inexcusable. I've been taking my time in between bar shifts to read some books that 1) I should have read long ago, and 2) have just wanted to read. I have never chosen a favorite among books because it would be like choosing a favorite among children... unfair to the unique beauty and memories shared within each. East of Eden, however, holds at the very least a unique spot in my heart. It made me sob. Not cry, but weep inconsolably- I want to say that this is the mark of a great book, or a book that entered my life when I needed it most. Either way it moved me.

My experience with Steinbeck is unfortunately limited to the high school dissection of Grapes of Wrath. Although it was one of the few books that I enjoyed reading in high school I did not pursue its thoughts and meanings beyond the response paper that was assigned to me.

I mean no insult to you, but I feel the need to summarize a few ideas to order my thoughts for discussion. "Grapes of Wrath" is commonly thought (and said by Steinbeck) to refer to the Battle Hymn of the Republic which gathers its terms and ideas from the Revelation passage about an angel harvesting the grapes of Earth and putting them through the press of God's wrath. "East of Eden" refers to the "Land of Nod, East of Eden" where Cain was banished after the murder of Able, as explicitly referred to within the book. East of Eden is also, supposedly the family history of John Steinbeck with some sides stories, and I would imagine some poetic licencing. I don't believe in giving away the main points or endings of books and movies, particularly when more will be gained from others reading it, so without discussing specifics of the book let me make my comments of a running theme (hopefully without giving away anything). If you would like to read the book, and then come back to my comments, stop now.

A few months ago I commented on my adviser's advice that one should not conduct there education in public. But what if someone else has the same questions that I do? Shouldn't they get to stand on my shoulders for a different perception?

This post is not a grand one, but it is a necessary one for me. If you do not want to read my "public education" you don't have to, but it helps me if no one else.

There is a word brought up in the book- "timshel"- Hebrew for "thou mayest". Long story short it allows a person choice. I've never given much thought to choice except once in college, when I got to thinking about the original sin. But that is another ramble for another day. Back to East of Eden and choice:

We choose everything.

Stop, go back and read that again. Think about it.

Not just, what to eat, or what to watch, or read, but who to love... who to trust... who or what to develop a sense of faith in... everything that we think or care about in our lives is because we chose to. I realize this is not a novel concept... and it may show my stupidity, immaturity, or naivety that I never really thought about it. These are not just choices, they are my choices. No one else should take the blame, or the credit... I should not blame or credit others. This does not make us an island. Rather, it is our choices and how we perceive them that make us human and connect us to others. We can blame the world for the filth we wallow in, or we can take responsibility and work to improve our shortcomings and our outlooks. This isn't new... its just a realization on my part I guess. Our past, the blood in our veins, or the experiences in our lives don't really make us. They are a part of us, and they can shape us, but they are not us. This is something I could have told you yesterday... it isn't new information... its just a revelation for me. There are no bitter grapes for children to reap that were sowed by their parents... everyone really will reap only what they sow. Thou mayest.... it is our own personal decisions to learn and grow from our sins and decisions, or to be destroyed my them. Guilt should not be a constant companion... we must get over ourselves in order to grow. I think that some people, maybe even myself, have grown to enjoy guilt. That pain or punishment felt deserved or at the very least comfortable. It is easier to think that God, or others, or the world is punishing you, rather than to know that it's only you punishing yourself.

Guilt is necessary for us to learn, but it is not a companion. In the Lord's Prayer it says: "Forgive us of our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespassed against us." Unfortunately it leaves out the self-forgiveness that is necessary for us to accept forgiveness from anyone else... maybe including God. If I still feel guilty, then I will refuse forgiveness when it is freely offered.

Thou mayest....

what?

Thou mayest move on? forgive thyself? overcome sin? return to God? burn in eternal hell?

What may I do? That is the curse and hope of free will. I may do what I choose.

Benevelant, Malicious, or Neutral?

2007-12-28T14:12:00.000-06:00

Has Christianity made the world a better or worse place?

Someone asked me this question the other day and it really threw me off balance. Admittedly I attempted some sort of utilitarian balance scale in my head, but of course that was a folly in the making. Honestly I think that the world is a better place, in part because of Christianity. I do realize though that many bad and unjust things have taken place in the name of a Christian God. I say better because a large number of people have found solace and inspiration in Christ... and if Christianity has made the life of just one person happier, or more bearable then the world is a better place. And if someone takes the Word and perverts it to hurt others, then I would have to question whether that was Christianity or the perverstion of the human soul.

Too bad I couldn't think of this answer when the question was asked.

Dictator = Person of the Year

2007-12-19T10:13:00.000-06:00

Vlad is Time's Person of the Year

Do you know what it apparently takes to become Time's Person of the Year? Become a steel fisted dictator who is actively attempting to respark the Cold War. Putin has pursued political opponents, poisoned them, thrown them in jail, and has hand picked his successor to the Russian Democracy (screwy rabbit) who has, in turn, hand picked Putin to take the number 2 position. In my opinion, this KGB agent never really put down his spy trade and is circumventing and undermining the U.S. at every turn. Time in their defense of choosing Putin has claimed that their choice is not an endorsement or an honor... then what is it? They claim it is a 'recognition'. What is that?? Their headline for their defense was "Order Before Freedom". Now I am all for order, and I recognize the ideological slippery slope that freedom has become the watchword for, but why are we rewarding the dictatorish, tyrannical, and corrupt behavior that embraces "Order Before Freedom" rather than "Order for Freedom". We need order to be free... we give up liberty for safety, order, and control, but when does Order replace a society's need for freedom. TIME, Please remember these words of potential wisdom: If we wait on order, freedom will never come.

So... I Told Myself I Wouldn't Do This sniffle

2007-12-13T23:18:00.000-06:00

This was, above all else, not supposed to become a personal blog. However, today is a big day for me and I want to share it with all of you. As of tonight at 11 pm Central time (when my grades were posted) I earned a Masters degree. And that is CRAZY. Also, (and this goes to show that I was not a particularly great student, but I git'er done so to speak) I made a 4.0 this semester for the first time ever which has me graduating my Masters with a 3.6. It's not great... and I am not bragging here. Rather I'm just in shock. It just hit me that I'm done. (Well at least until I start the next one.) I think that's all... just stunned silence on my end. Also, an apology for not blogging more. We've been packing. But next week marks a down time in my life, THANK GOD, so I should be able to get on here more often. Cheers!

P.S.- I want to tell you all that, without a doubt, I have the greatest friends ever. Without them I would have quit school long ago. Friends in Aggieland, I will miss you, but I will see you all again soon!

Thanks to the Anon. Internet comment-

2007-12-09T15:39:00.000-06:00

In regards to the "internet fuzziness" blogs... here is the U.S. legal code for such things. What do you think? It's really vague... (as laws tend to be.) Of particular interest to me is the simultaneous protection and prosecution of the "obscene". Does anyone know of any new technologies or programs that would nullify any effective part of this law? Read the Anon. comment under more internet fuzziness and riddle me this Batman- does the commentary of the Yale Law School case fall under the stalking and harrassment part of this code thus still encouraging and allowing the prosecution of the website manager and those involved?

United States Code
TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION
SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS
PART I - COMMON CARRIER REGULATION
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04 Section 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material (a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other
interactive computer services available to individual Americans
represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of
educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over
the information that they receive, as well as the potential for
even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer
a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique
opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for
intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have
flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of
government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for
a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment
services.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States -
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and
other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer
services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize
user control over what information is received by individuals,
families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive
computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization
of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to
restrict their children's access to objectionable or
inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to
deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and
harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of
offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided
by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
held liable on account of -
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict
access to or availability of material that the provider or user
considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively
violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not
such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to
information content providers or others the technical means to
restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).(!1)
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of
entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of
interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by
the provider, notify such customer that parental control
protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering
services) are commercially available that may assist the customer
in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such
notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to
information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the
enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71
(relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation
of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand
any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State
from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this
section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may
be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with
this section.
(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State
law.
(f) Definitions
As used in this section:
(1) Internet
The term "Internet" means the international computer network of
both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data
networks.
(2) Interactive computer service
The term "interactive computer service" means any information
service, system, or access software provider that provides or
enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server,
including specifically a service or system that provides access
to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by
libraries or educational institutions.
(3) Information content provider
The term "information content provider" means any person or
entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation
or development of information provided through the Internet or
any other interactive computer service.
(4) Access software provider
The term "access software provider" means a provider of
software (including client or server software), or enabling tools
that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search,
subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

In Response to MET's Quiz: What Spice Are You?

2007-12-07T19:38:00.001-06:00

Your Score: Saffron

You scored 75% intoxication, 25% hotness, 75% complexity, and 25% craziness!

You are Saffron! Those other spices have nothing on you! You're warm, smart, and you make people feel really good (and with no side-effects!). You can be difficult to get to know and require a lot of those who try, but you're so totally worth it. *Sigh*

Why Jon Stewart Deserves A Medal... Maybe John Kerry's

2007-12-07T19:22:00.000-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

So... a couple of years ago Jon Stewart appeared on the now extinct show Crossfire. (Extinct btw largely due to his SCHOOLING the hosts.) Above is the link to that fateful show. I show this clip in all of my classes. Can Anyone Guess Why?? Because Jon Stewart points out two very important truths: 1) cable news channels are theater not debate, or news; and 2) EVERYONE, the citizenry, media, and politicians have an obligation to provide good debate and public discussion to the public sphere. Now, Jon is not without some blame. He (rightly so) holds Crossfire to a higher standard of mediated action and reporting, but he (as a member of the media) should be held to the same standards that he holds to them. That being said Tucker is an infantile idiot. Politics is not Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal, or Black/White. Any representation thereof is falliciously simplistic and misleading.

ps- I'm not really sure why I put the John Kerry comment. It's an old joke and in poor taste, but it sounded good at the time. Until something better comes along it stays. Salude!

More Internet Accountability Fuzziness

2007-12-05T17:13:00.000-06:00

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/09/autoadmit-lawsuit-update-ciolli-dropped/

So, I've been sitting on this case for a while, and I just wasn't sure what to do with it.

It is has some very interesting components. First, can you hold pseudonyms legally responsible? It seems that unless you had video of the person writing the offending text all the evidence would be circumstantial. Do we have a right to anonymity? How far (if it exists) would that right carry offensive material? At what point did these guys (I assume) cross the line? Was it the call to rape? Should the website hold any accountability for refusing to take down the posts? How does this case stand to complicate or broaden our understanding of jurisdiction and the Internet? or free speech? or sexual harassment?

As morally reprehensible as this behavior was, I am not sure that all of it was illegal. The calling for the girls to be raped crosses a line in my opinion, but I don't know what that line would be. Also, I would bet there are TONS of conversations like this all over the web that are not as publicized. I am tempted to side with my opinion that I had with the myspace debacle... that public shunning might be more appropriate than legal action. This is a highly problematic answer considering that as they are using pseudonyms they can't be shunned. If I were to look for legal reference for this decision I would look at the Nuremberg Files website. As a refresher, this was a website that listed doctors and nurses who work in abortion clinics' names, addresses, etc... and scratched them off as they were killed or found dead. I think the applicability of legal precedent lies in the "calling to action" of the website on individuals. The breaking point, however, is that there is no real life action that one can point to the website as a cause.

The point of today's talk is this: The Internet is increasingly difficult to monitor/enforce in, and this will be increasingly problematic. Our very modern/enlightenment legal system must learn to accommodate our very post-modern/fractured society.

Craziness and Humor

2007-12-02T17:29:00.000-06:00

So... its the end of the semester, and grading, papers, and life in general is piling up. Therefore, I will not be blogging as regularly as I had hoped.

That being said, I wish to be frivolous today. I am obsessed with humor. People without some sense of humor are arguably not human at all. I have a pretty bad habit (at least in academics) of finding a humorous reference for EVERYTHING. I teach using comedy for both public speaking and argumentation and debate. What better way to teach equivocation than “Who’s On First,” or amphiboly through Groucho Marx? I even associate things in class with examples from stand up routines and sit-coms. This has become a bit of a positive though. My office mate has been amazed at my ability to pull up random music and video clips to keep us distracted, *cough*, entertained, *cough*, informed… yeah, informed throughout the day. One was the soundtrack to my FAVORITE Broadway comedy, Avenue Q. Having thought that this time was completely wasted in his life he was shocked and amazed to hear one of his professors bring it up in class. (Kudos for me…) Anyway, I guess what I am saying is that humor should be more acceptable for use in academics. I think academics are fun, and others can too if they would only see their relevance to the rest of the world.

Which brings me to my second point: Stand up comedians are the greatest public speakers in the world, bar none. Humor requires a mastery of content, audience analysis, timing, and memory. I say memory for a nostalgic point. The ancient rhetoricians considered memory one of the canons of rhetoric. Granted the Canons were named a little in the "late-ancient" period, but you get the idea. (Invention, Organization, Delivery, Style, and Memorization for those needing the reminder...) However, Guttenberg changed the need for memorization with the printing press, and memory was dropped from the Canons. But, comedians still recognize the rhetorical significance of not having note cards between themselves and their audience.
So why would I be bringing humor and silliness up during finals? Mostly because I have been listening to a solid string of stand up to keep my spirits up as I work on stuff. Also, I wanted to leave a list of comedic favorites a la MET:

Clean Comedy: Not Clean Comedy:
Stand-up … Brian Reagan Christopher Titus
(Smart) Stand-up … Eddie Izzard (relatively speaking) George Carlin
Movie … Ratatouille Little Miss Sunshine
Song … The War of 1812 (Arrogant Worms) Everyone’s A Little Bit Racist (Avenue Q)
Book … Anything by Bill Bryson America: Democracy In-action (Jon Stewart)
Classic Comedy: Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man, Anything from Mel Brooks

Stupid Copyrights

2007-11-30T09:41:00.000-06:00

So... I used to have this incredibly funny video clip about graduate students and their "terrible life choice" from the Simpsons, however, Fox has decided that showing that clip is a violation of their copyright so they took it away. Therefore, I will be promoting the animated hysterics of PhD Comics instead.

Tragedy... Prevention or Punishment?

2007-11-28T20:35:00.000-06:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/28hoax.html?ex=1353906000&en=a29f1c615f59038a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This has been a topic in my classes, and in the news. Its a complete tragedy, and shameful. My gut says that this is so obscure and so rare that letitgation and legislation would be ineffective and counter-productive. Is the technology generation in over their heads? As a myspace participant I am reluctant to blame myspace... and I think that the adults that mislead the girl should issue a public apology, at the very least. I'm not a parent, and therefore I lack vital information to make an informed opinion on this. But, banning a child from myspace isn't going to save them, and getting so wrapped up in your child's business that you create a fake myspace in order to manipulate their friends or enemies is just unhealthy. This is a tragic result of bad familial communication and poor choices on the part of the parents that created the fake myspace page. Grade school girls break and create friendships all the time... don't get involved. Be there for your child in times of distress, but don't go looking to "teach" the other kid a lesson.

Why I Couldn't Talk Yesterday... It's insanely long, but interesting I think

2007-11-28T11:04:00.000-06:00

Justice Scalia: A Free Speech Jurisprudence of (Con)-Textualism

Justice Antonin Scalia has repeatedly touted himself as a defender of the text of the Constitution as well as its “original meaning.” Scholars have vilified and praised him for his consistent guiding ideologies, and he is considered a poster child for what conservatives want and look for in a Supreme Court Justice. In his opinions, and all too often his dissents, Scalia is usually quick to comment the inappropriateness of the Court’s involvement in some cases. His infamous dissent in the Court’s 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey is most notable: “I reach that conclusion … because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.”[1]Such clear lines and consistency are not obvious at first glance in Scalia’s Free Speech opinions and dissents. The Constitution obviously does say something about Free Speech, however, what American society permits and proscribed is often what speech must be defended from. Does Scalia’s reputation for consistency hold true for his Free Speech Jurisprudence?

Are the textualist principles of Justice Scalia consistent in his interpretations and opinions in Free Speech cases. The definitions, use, and conceptualizations of what “speech” is have shifted too drastically from what the text’s original intentions (as defined by Scalia in both opinions as well as outside speaking engagements) for them to be useful in legal reasoning. Thereby giving the circular and difficult opinions such as RAV v St. Paul that attempt to box speech for argument’s sake in his construction of “original intent” for circumstances that there is or was no original intent of. Scalia would normally argue against any ruling on a case that fell outside of what the Constitution dictates, however, this is not the case with unique or “fuzzy” free speech cases. Unfortunately, these constructed classifications for speech must be porous in their categories and definitions. The generability/ applicability of the classifications utilized by Scalia become temporal and impractical for legislation construction and enforcement. Thus, the Scalia is left to reinterpret Free Speech on a case by case leaving him open to shifting his usually consistent stances on Constitutional intent.
In order to isolate Scalia’s elusive Free Speech jurisprudence I start by looking at some of his public speeches concerning his understanding of textualism and originalism, then an analysis of a few key opinions and dissents that highlight his free speech ideologies, and finally draw some conclusions as to what Scalia’s free speech jurisprudence looks like.

In 1989, Justice Scalia spoke at the University of Georgia about the Constitution; in this speech he compares lines of the U.S. Constitution with “a more modern constitution.”[2] The result being a list of our rights juxtaposed with (what turns out to be) the rights listed in the constitution of the U.S.S.R. He goes on to claim that “a bill of rights only has value if the other part of the Constitution, the part that really constitutes the organs of government, establishes a structure that is likely to preserve against the lust for human power, those liberties that the Bill of Rights expresses.” Thus, rights mean nothing if the structure and abilities of government to perform their duties are hindered. Scalia notes to his audience that it is often the boring part of the Constitution (the part prior to the Bill of Rights), he refers to it as the “technical” that is the most often brought before the Court, and it is that part that takes precedence in his mind and his ruling.

He also goes on to discuss the influence of the public’s opinion on the Court. Scalia discusses the Court’s responsibility to resist public influence in legal matters until public opinions became the “persistent long-term view of the society at large.” His reason for the Court’s shift does not lie in any judgment of public opinion by the justices, but rather stems from the idea that “the Supreme Court cannot save this society from itself because, over the haul, the Court is no more than the society itself.” Scalia’s University of Georgia address gives a good foundation for us to build his jurisprudence on. Even if we did not already understand Scalia as a “textualist” or “originalist” we see characteristics of these schools in his speech. In his address of public opinion we also see a possible reasoning behind any deviation from textualism or originalist thought . . . the evolution of rhetorical understanding by the public (and therefore the Court).

In 1996 Scalia spoke to the Catholic University of America[3]. It was in this speech that he was the most explicit about his guiding legal ideologies:
“I belong to a school, a small but hardy school, called "textualists" or "originalists." That used to be "constitutional orthodoxy" in the United States. The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.”

He went on to discuss that he did not use “legislative history” in formulating his decisions and opinions because the intent of legislators is not what the Court decides. The Court should only look at the words of the law, and what consider what the American people thing the words mean. Scalia admits, however, that he does not have an ear to the public; that is the legislative branch’s role. Thus although he believes that “The words are the law.” The Court is not “bound” by the intent of legislators just “by the laws they enacted, which are set forth in words.” Thus if the public wants a law changed that is not, in its wording, unconstitutional, they must turn to the legislation to amend it. “If you want somebody who's in touch with what are the evolving standards of decency that reflect a maturing society, ask the congress.”

Thus, Scalia has almost always been a proponent of state and national legislation to create law. The Court, in his mind, is there to ensure that laws created by the legislation are not unconstitutional. Thus, legislating from the bench has been something that Scalia has hypocritically demonized, and yet participates in pretty freely in Free Speech cases, as we will come to see. In a 2005 address to The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C, Scalia vilifies the “interpretation” standard of the Supreme Court by using a First Amendment example:

“Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted. For example, the First Amendment, which forbids Congress to abridge the freedom of speech. What does the freedom of speech mean? Well, it clearly did not mean that Congress or government could not impose any restrictions upon speech. Libel laws, for example, were clearly constitutional. Nobody thought the First Amendment was carte blanche to libel someone. But in the famous case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said, “But the First Amendment does prevent you from suing for libel if you are a public figure and if the libel was not malicious” — that is, the person, a member of the press or otherwise, thought that what the person said was true. Well, that had never been the law. I mean, it might be a good law. And some states could amend their libel law.

Its one thing for a state to amend its libel law and say, “We think that public figures shouldn’t be able to sue.” That’s fine. But the Courts have said that the First Amendment, which never meant this before, now means that if you are a public figure, that you can’t sue for libel unless it’s intentional, malicious. So that’s one way to do it.”

Thus we see a prime example of Scalia’s infamous “the Court doesn’t belong in this discussion in the first place” reasoning. Regardless of what a “good law” might be, Scalia does not generally encourage legislating from the bench. Rather, his opinions tend to be structural defenses of government from ambitious abuse by individuals or groups. Is his first amendment jurisprudence any different? To try and answer this I turned to a selection of his written opinions and dissents concerning free speech. Before I get to those however, a brief aside: Eugene Volokh did a quantitative study to determine how the Justices Voted in Free Speech Cases from 1994-2000[4]. Now, these number are by no means deterministic or definitive in any way, but they are interesting none the less. From 1994-2000 Justice Scalia voted in favor of the free speech claimant almost 50% of the time (49.6% to be precise). According to Volokh, Scalia tends to deny the first amendment protection of campaign-related speech, religious speech via government facilities, and expressive association. He is also likely not to consider sexually themed speech as being covered by the first amendment. These statistics are not decisive, I understand them as serving as interesting food for thought as I go through the following opinions and dissents[5].

As far as cases that I will be addressing, I chose to focus on Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc; R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota; Waters v. Churchill; and National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley. In Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. Scalia joined the majority to keep expressive activity outside of the blanket of first amendment protection. The Court used a four part test to separate speech and non-speech components to uphold an Indiana law prohibiting nude dancing[6]. Scalia’s concurring opinion expressed his view that the law had nothing to do with first amendment expression to begin with considering that the law was against indecent exposure, and was generally applicable regardless of whatever specific expressions were being uttered or acted. This opinion is not surprising as far as Scalia’s jurisprudence is concerned. Through a strict textualist understanding exotic dancing is not an expression of opinion that free speech is freely associated with.

Unfortunately this is where Scalia’s opinions cease to be un-surprising. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, we see similar reasoning, but different arguments and a very different conclusion. [7] R.A.V. could very well be Scalia’s most confusing deviation from textualism or originalism regarding free speech cases. Here Scalia (who wrote the opinion of the Court) struck down the St. Paul ordinance because it was too general as far as the types of speech involved, and was too specific as to what the content of the offensive speech was. That the law was struck down was not what was surprising, rather the novelty of his reasoning is what is notable. Scalia spent most of the opinion discussing categories of speech, and the free speech jurisprudence of the Court.

“From 1791 to the present, however, our society, like other free but civilized societies, has permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are "of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." (Chaplinsky). We have recognized that "the freedom of speech" referred to by the First Amendment does not include a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations. See, e.g., Roth v. United States, (1957) (obscenity); Beauharnais v. Illinois, (1952) (defamation); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra ("`fighting' words”). Our decisions since the 1960's have narrowed the scope of the traditional categorical exceptions for defamation, see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, (1964); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (1974); see generally Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., (1990), and for obscenity, see Miller v. California, (1973), but a limited categorical approach has remained an important part of our First Amendment jurisprudence.(R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota)”

Scalia argued that the Court, and legislation, should be able to judge and legislate speech based on its parts rather than the acts as a whole. This is interesting considering that I think that Scalia would consider himself a minimalist as far as the involvement of the government with free speech. The added deconstruction of speech acts in combination with a “limited categorical approach” seems more artificially complex than Scalia’s other opinions.
“The proposition that a particular instance of speech can be proscribable on the basis of one feature (e.g., obscenity) but not on the basis of another (e.g., opposition to the city government) is commonplace and has found application in many contexts. We have long held, for example, that nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not because of the ideas it expresses - so that burning a flag in violation of an ordinance against outdoor fires could be punishable, whereas burning a flag in violation of an ordinance against dishonoring the flag is not.”

Despite Scalia’s claim that his deconstructed proscription is old news and “commonplace,” it should be noted that prior to this case speech acts were not broken into parts. Rather speech and expressive acts were judged more on their potential effects and contexts. As a rhetorician the process of cleaving a message from its medium is problematic for a number of reasons, most notably, as Marshall McLuhan famously claimed: “the medium is the message.” [8] This seems rather hypocritical on Scalia’s part when one looks at his response to Justice O’Conner in Waters v. Churchill.

This case was reviewing whether statements by an employee fell under the first amendment. (They do, so long as they are addressing a matter of public concern.) Scalia wrote a concurrence to O’Connor’s opinion. In her opinion (the official written opinion of the Court), Justice O’Connor asked that employers be required to conduct an investigation into all questionable remarks prior to taking action against the employee. Scalia berated this idea saying that “This recognition of a broad new First Amendment procedural right is in my view unprecedented, superfluous to the decision in the present case, unnecessary for protection of public employee speech on matters of public concern, and unpredictable in its application and consequences.” Scalia was hostile to O’Connor’s legislating from the bench in a “superfluous” manner, however, he was completely comfortable discussing at length the deconstruction of speech acts in R.A.V. Both opinions called for additional scrutiny of speech acts, and both gave specific and detailed processes for how the scrutiny was to be achieved, however, O’Connor called for additional legislation and Scalia called for judicial scrutiny of the acts. Is the jurisprudential line for Scalia legislative, as his speeches suggest?

If one had to find a first amendment, free speech case that exemplified Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence, then the National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley would be that case. It contains Scalia’s infamous sarcasm and criticism of his fellow justices, a direct reference to his textualist understanding of the law, and his hesitancy to input interpretations or judicial understandings into the law. His contentions here come down to enabling versus “abridging.”
“The nub of the difference between me and the Court is that I regard the distinction between “abridging” speech and funding it as a fundamental divide, on this side of which the First Amendment is inapplicable. The Court, by contrast, seems to believe that the First Amendment, despite its words, has some ineffable effect upon funding, imposing constraints of an indeterminate nature which it announces (without troubling to enunciate any particular test) are not violated by the statute here- or, more accurately, are not violated by the quite different, emasculated statute that it imagines.”

Funding, according to Scalia, is not a right and it is not an attempt at regulation, therefore the first amendment has nothing to do with it. The Court had not right, according to Scalia, to change or influence legislation that was Constitutional. The text was clear in its exceptions and regulations, and funding was never guaranteed, thus, it is in the National Endowment for the Arts’ right to refuse funding to anyone. The government is not under an obligation to enable all radical or disagreeable ideas, it must protect them. The inability of an artist to find funding is not the problem of the government. Even R.A.V. finds concurrence here; the message of the burning cross in the yard is under the protection of the law, however, there are arson laws that are not under the umbrella of free speech because the arson act of the speech act is not the message.

Rhetorically, the deconstruction of speech acts is problematic; legally, however, there is a cohesive jurisprudence in the protection of speech away from the acts that may accompany it. This explains Scalia’s tendency to not protect the “obscene” under free speech. Litigation against nude dancing, for example in Barnes, was not being tried on the constitutionality of the ideas, but was rather a case involving the breech of decency laws. Thus, Scalia’s jurisprudence for Free Speech cases is foremost textual, but unlike in other genre of cases, his Free Speech textualism is in a way con-textualism. If there is a component of a speech act that is illegal it is not protected under the first amendment, but rather, only the ideas being expressed are. The government should not proscribe the content (except in those instances discussed in R.A.V, libel, etc.) but it can still proscribe illegal action for the safety, order, and control of society. As the cliché goes, there is a method to his madness, and his Free Speech jurisprudence fits neatly with his meta-jurisprudence of textualism.

[1] Planned Parenthood v. Casey. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_744/
[2] http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/uga89.asp
[3] http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/cua10-18-96.asp
[4] Volokh (2001), 1191.
[5] It should be stated here that I did not look at every first amendment case since Scalia joined the Court, but rather I chose cases that I thought best represented or reflected his distinct free speech jurisprudence.
[6] Weizer, 63-65
[7] “In the predawn hours of June 21, 1990, petitioner and several other teenagers allegedly assembled a crudely made cross by taping together broken chair legs. They then allegedly burned the cross inside the fenced yard of a black family that lived across the street from the house where petitioner was staying. Although this conduct could have been punished under any of a number of laws, one of the two provisions under which respondent city of St. Paul chose to charge petitioner (then a juvenile) was the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, St. Paul, Minn., which provides: "Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (excerpt from the case via Oyez.com)"

[8] McLuhan, M. (1996) The Medium is the Message. Hardwired.

Still cheating, but I promise to post a REALLY good long post tomorrow: And Now for Something Completely Different

2007-11-28T00:12:00.000-06:00

I've had this stuck in my head all day... so I share it with you all so that you can go around singing it for the next few days. If you haven't heard it, and therefore don't know the tune, you can find it on youtube.

The Philosopher’s Drinking Song

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
'alf a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
and Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

-- Monty Python

Ok, so one more for today-

2007-11-26T18:56:00.000-06:00

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T5J4NG1&show_article=1

Cheney was found to have an irregular hearbeat today... the suprise? He had a heart!

I'm cheating, but hey everyone needs a laugh right?

2007-11-26T18:45:00.000-06:00

So I'm not charged with plagarism; I found this on the Center of Gravitas blog:

I want to give you some handy tips should you find yourself at a cocktail party with a brand-new academic. Actually, you should avoid asking these questions of any academic unless you want to lose the next half hour of your life listening to them:

What do you research?

I always wondered about the difference between [any topic] and [any topic]?

When you are not teaching, what do you do?

I was thinking about reading something in [whatever field of the academic in front of you]. Can you suggest something?

What inspired you to become an academic?

What's your name?

Those are just questions to avoid being bored. We academics are also a sensitive crew. These are things you should avoid asking unless you want to really piss off a recent Ph.D.

The last time that you walked out into the sunshine, did it hurt?

Do you think that anybody will actually read that?

Have you thought about what you are going to do when you are denied tenure? Or, er, I mean if you are denied tenure?

Aren't you [name of another professor in same field]? Your work is genius!

Wait – Are we just talking about your first footnote? 'Cuz I am not sensing there's enough in that story to make a whole article/book.

Look, I am just trying to order a burger and fries here.

Nobody invited you to your high school prom, did they?

My life suddenly feels a lot shorter after listening to you.

Wow – I can tell how devoted you are to this project given how little attention you have given to your appearance.

What would you have done if you had a real job?

Huh – You smell like a library. (**Warning:** Senior professors will interpret this as a come-on).

Yeah, but will you write anything important?

I just read an article/book about that exact same research topic – only it was a lot more interesting than they way you are describing it.

Now I understand why they never make television shows about academics.

They always say those who can't do, teach. Maybe you can ask for extra classes next term.

Wow – I can't imagine spending my twenties in grad school working on something like that. I was way too busy having lots of fun at that age. I mean, you have a Ph.D.! All I have are some truly excellent memories that will last a lifetime and a sexual history that would have made Kinsey blush.

You remind me of a prof I had in college. We used to call him old marble nose. I think that he died alone.

They will publish almost anything today, won't they?

Oh, I get it! So your next project will be the interesting one, right?

And my tax dollars actually pays for part of this?

I only trust academics who appear on Sunday-morning talk shows.

But could that story ever be made into a movie?

Have you ever had sex? Ever?

Than again, maybe you will meet one of the [very] few sexy academics. If that is the case, here are several lines that will guarantee that prof will follow you to the bedroom:

I wish that [renowned scholar in the same field] had talked to you before writing that last book.
It would have been so much better with your insight.

Tell me more about your research. I could listen to you talk all night!

Your gravitas is so refreshing.

Your c.v. must be really long.

Drink?

I am surprised that you are not teaching at [name of more prestigious university (and there is always a more prestigious university)]!

If there is one thing that you are absolutely not, it's socially awkward!

If you give me a night, I bet that I will make it into your next article's acknowledgements.

If I had professors like you in college, I would have gone to graduate school for sure.

I would love to see your rare editions.

No One is Rid of Me That Easily...

2007-11-25T22:53:00.000-06:00

I hope that everyone had a great holiday... I took a brief hiatus from blogging, but I'm back. To quote Monty Python: "And there was much rejoicing... yea..." That was probaby my only movie quotation that I'll ever give you a heads up on. You're just going to have to pay attention to the rest. Today's topic of discussion was laid down by MET and myself. For those of you who haven't been paying attention, MET is the author of the "Seriously? Who Says That" blog listed on the right handed portion of the blog. She and I are in the same graduate program, under the same advisor, and well, that's where the similarities run out. We are good friends, and great antagonists for one another on here. Sorry, I got off on a personal track, I apologize. Back to business. MET does not agree with my politics, and I don't agree with hers, so we've decided (at least for today's blog) to lay out a key fundamental difference in our perspective of the world. That of equity versus equality. Thus, I begin (see her blog for her ideological explanations):

eq·ui·ty /ˈɛkwɪti/ –noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality of being fair or impartial; fairness; impartiality: the equity of Solomon.
2. something that is fair and just.
3. Law.
a. the application of the dictates of conscience or the principles of natural justice to the settlement of controversies.
b. a system of jurisprudence or a body of doctrines and rules developed in England and followed in the U.S., serving to supplement and remedy the limitations and the inflexibility of the common law.
c. an equitable right or claim.
d. an equity of redemption.

e·qual·i·ty /ɪˈkwɒlɪti/ –noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
2. uniform character, as of motion or surface.
3. Mathematics. a statement that two quantities are equal; equation.

I normally hate to start anything with denotative definitions, however, when discussing the definitions and roles of two different, but often confused words I think it can be helpful. Now… if we asked the average American what value the founding fathers held dear, equity vs. equality, they would most likely answer equality. Why? Because nowadays people thinks that equity has to do with finance, and because every major rights movement since abolition has screamed equality. This seems natural considering the Declaration of Independences’ infamous line: “All men are created equal…”. But is this really what the founders thought? Jefferson, maybe, although he remained a slave holder even after the revolutionary war; Madison, Adams, Hamilton, etc…? Definitely NOT! Madison was terrified of the vulgar masses, and his infamous warning concerning the Tyranny of the Majority was a fear that the popular would outweigh the enlightened judgment of the American aristocracy. And yes, there was an American aristocracy… our founders weren’t poor farmers who joined together to fight unjust British tyranny… they were American born gentry who were upset because they were hitting a colonial glass ceiling. (I must move on, but if you wish to debate or discuss these claims comment on them.)

So why then would the founders have written “equality” in the Declaration if they didn’t mean it? Well they did mean it… in the Declaration anyway. They were arguing that the King, nor the British subjects, were more entitled than they were, and so they demanded equal POLITICAL OPPURTUNITY. “All men are created equal, with basic rights, that cannot be taken away, and that governments are formed to protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. *Pause* Did the Declaration ever mention anything about the government providing a means, or even an end in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? No. The government is just supposed to make sure that the opportunity for the citizenry to act within these rights is protected. The real argument eventually made is that, should a government not protect these rights, or EVEN WORSE, should the government itself become destructive of these rights, then it’s the people’s obligation to revolt. I give the history lesson for this point: The Declaration of Independence was written to tear down a government. It is impossible to have a functioning government that performs solely according to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Thus, the ideologies of the Declaration (aka equality) should not be a standard that we hold the US government to.

Hmm… for those of you still with me… riddle me this… How do I know that we can’t develop a government founded on the principles of the Declaration? Please refer to the time in American History under the Articles of Confederation. Economic ruin, political unrest, and utter socio/political/economic confusion. The founders found themselves between a rock and a hard place. Any stronger central government and they risked tyranny, the status quo, however, risked anarchy. A Constitutional Convention was called. Now, there are many wonderful accounts of this time, and so I will leave the history here and get to the meet of the new argument: If the Declaration is a document to control the government and free the people, then the Constitution is a document to free the government and control the people. This often understated founding document is where the government’s true role and obligations are laid out. And does the Constitution have the word equal anywhere in it?? Yes… ha, got you. But does it have the word equal as it is used in the Declaration? No… it only uses equal when discussing split votes in Congress and such. Equity? Yes, and this time it involves the Judiciary Branch and its power to “extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, […]” Thus the government is only worried about maintaining equity, fairness, just law, etc...

What about the amendments? Well let’s talk about the amendments. Well we do see the re-emergence of equal in the Amendments, but it’s not what many may think (or hope for that matter). In the 14th Amendment we have the “equal protection of the laws”… hmm… sounds like equity to me. Apparently the word pops up in the nuts and bolts for proper elections in D.C., and that’s it. Equity shows up in the 11th Amendment setting judicial limits, but only by reifying their obligations toward law or equity.

So, my problem with equality? (And where MET and I fundamentally differ.) Equality is impossible, and in the end unfair. It is unfair because when we place everyone at approximately the same socio/economic level then we cheapen and refuse to reward those who have made it higher. America’s poor, destitute, and disadvantaged are still some of the highest paid, educated, and healthy of the world’s poor. I understand the want and need to care for the less fortunate. My heart does bleed (contrary to popular belief), but I do not see it as the government’s job to set a level playing field. They are just there to make sure that it is a just playing field, and there are enough difficulties doing that. Am I a cold hearted bitch? Probably, but I still do not see the government as having the responsibility to provide social and economic welfare (this is not to say that I am against all welfare, or social programs… just most of them). If you want the poor to have more money then convince Sally Struthers to come to the states for her commercials.

Sesame Street Blues?

2007-11-21T09:26:00.001-06:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18wwln-medium-t.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Heffernan,%20Virginia

So, this was just random, and crazy, enough for me to want to blog about it. The new Sesame Street dvds are coming with WARNING LABELS! Why? Well apparently Sesame Street was teaching the wrong morals and self-esteem to kids who nowadays need better morals, and self-esteem? It turns out that Sesame street was just one more device for the man to keep people down. Whatever. I don't buy it. Yes, it may be the single greatest contributor to people's short attention spans, yes, it may have been influenced heavily by doped up writers, but really, what show wasn't in the late 70s? Even if these shows are P.C. outdated- that politically correct, not personal computer- why a warning label? Is there really a chance of harm to a modern preschooler in their watching Sesame Street? I've seen the Wiggles, and they are WAYY scarier than anything the acid dropping writers of Sesame Street came out with. What are they going to come out with next? The seasons of Mister Rogers Neighborhood with an R rating?

UPDATES!!

2007-11-21T09:20:00.000-06:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/washington/20cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1195794000&en=ce64ffff0f89c543&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

The Supreme Court has decided to hear the second amendment case!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html

Yet another stem cell breakthrough. Does this change anything from our previous discussion?

To Address:

2007-11-20T00:14:00.000-06:00

This was an e-mail from a friend in med school about the blog post yesterday:

Interesting blog post. Looking forward to seeing you refine the idea. Acceptance of death is actually something that got touched on quite a bit in ethics class. Maybe this has already been done, but I'd be interested to work with you on defining some of the core "first principles" of the bio/med ethics discussion.

A few ideas:

Perspective on death (fear/denial vs acceptance).
Cultural comparison could be informative (ie, I've heard that European & Japanese elderly accept end of life more gracefully, perhaps due in part to the less individualistic society
Health care: right vs privilege, rationing and equity (aka, should the rich be able to buy better care?)

-J

Dear J, (I feel like Dear Abbey doing this, and I get a kick out of it, so please humor me...)

I would love for our discussions on here, and otherwise to amount to something. I would also enjoy hearing what ya'll discussed in ethics class. If you haven't already read them, you can receive free copies of the President's Council of Bioethics reports from their website at : These are well worth the read, and they do set many of these core "first principles". Now, just because they have set their understandings and peremiters does not mean that we should blindly accept them. I think that they leave much left to be debated. This is all with the exception of your last food for thought which I considered the most interesting: Should the rich be able to buy better healthcare? I need more time to think about my answer. It is an interesting question. My instinct is to say that some newer, more radical (and therefore usually expensive) treatments should be reserved for those that can pay for them. This is actually better for all of us in the long run, I think, because it allows these techniques to be fine tuned and economized for mass usage. It won't be profitable for long for treatments to stay solely within the realm of the rich. But until I work this out, and figure out a humanistic answer to why the rich "deserve" these treatments more than the rest of us, then I will have to leave this a short and unfulfilling post. PLEASE, READERS, Post responses to these discussions... even if they are short and agreeable. J- thanks again, and I look forward to hearing back from you!

Biomedical Breakthroughs and Plato

2007-11-17T11:34:00.001-06:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7094215.stm

So, the above is an article discussing the cloning of an adult monkey. This was interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it was not a female, they did not use embryonic cells, and it was a monkey. Monkeys have been considered more complex and therefore difficult to clone than many other animals, and some are saying that this is going to lead to the cloning of humans <- which has been done once... but the embryo died very quickly and it hasn't been successfully repeated. My discussion for today is why we clone things, and why all of us should care (or not).

First a word from our sponsor- Socrates- as written by Plato:

"[...] before the time of Herodicus, the guild of Asclepius did not practice our present system of medicine, which may be said to educated diseases. But Herodicus, being a trainer, and himself of a sickly constitution, by a combination of training and doctoring found our a way of torturing first and chiefly himself, and secondly the rest of the world. How was that? he said. By the invention of lingering death; for he had a mortal disease which he perpetually tended, and as recovery was out of the question, he passed his entire life as an invalid; he could do nothing but attend upon himself, and he was in constant torment whenever he departed in anything from his usual regimen, and so dying hard, by the help of science he struggled on to old age." Plato's Republic Book 3:406b

As future posts will show, I enjoy studying biomedical influence on society. Now, bioethics really isn't that new (as Plato points out), but the technologies that are emerging are. The drive behind these technologies, however, are as old as modern man... we don't like to die. Modernity has been particularly phobic of death, as we (as a society) have looked for more and more ways to postpone death. This is not to say that the ancients didn't try, but such attempts were the obsession of the rich. As Plato goes on to explain (with Socrates as his mouthpiece), only men of leisure and wealth can afford to be sickly and take time to medicate themselves. He uses the counter-example of a carpenter: "When a carpenter is ill he asks the physician for a rough and ready cure; an emetic or a purge or a cautery or the knife- these are his remedies. And if someone prescribes for him a course of dietetics, and tells him that he must swathe and swaddle his head, and all that sort of thing, he replies at once that he has no time to be ill, and that he sees no good in a life which is spent in nursing his disease to the neglect of his customary employment; and therefore bidding good-by to this sort of physician, he resumes his ordinary habits, and either gets well and lives and does his business, or, if his constitution fails, he dies and has no more trouble." In other words, people who must work to survive can't afford to be sick. Therefore, they either want to get well, or be dead. The whole sick thing doesn't do anyone any good. Most alchemy in search for the sorcerer's stone, as well as infamous treatments for old age (there was an emperor in China who took mercury tablets) were funded by the rich and powerful. Now that (comparatively) in modernity everyone is in some sense richer and powerful than past generations they have the time and resources to obsess about their death as much as kings and gentry have done in the past.

That background rant is important for my commentary (as well as future commentary) on biomedicine and the breakthroughs it has and may hold.

So back to the monkey. And why we should/should not care. First, this is one of the few articles that I really like in the media on stem cell research. Secondly, it poses an interesting question: Is there any benefit to stem cell research, embryonic or not. Now, my bias should be put out there- I am generally pro embryonic stem cell research, and I do support the federal funding of it. I understand, and I am aware, that there are breakthroughs in adult stem cell research, however, I do not believe that the pluripotency of those cells hold the same potential as embryonic stem cells. This is a debatable issue, but preferably not on moral grounds (simply because the change for productive debate and consensus is nil). Back to benefit... could Superman or Reagan have been saved by stem cells (of any type) probably not. (That's not just my opinion there are credible scientific studies that claim the same thing.) Has there been some success with stem cell treatments in other diseases? Yes, and other areas look promising. So, it just dawned on me that I am rambling and I haven't tied Plato and the monkey together. Here was the attempted logical train of thought.

We (as a society) are turning to science and medicine to save us from our natural course. Our fear of death has reached an interesting point in social development. Interesting because more now than ever, everyone can afford (literally, in the monetary sense) to postpone death. Plato noted that medicine is, in a way, torture. That people end up living in miserable states just to stay alive. In bioethical debates this brings us to the dignity question. Is it better for someone to sustain physical life, or for someone to "die with dignity", and who decides what dignity is. To make this point, I ask you, "What is dignity?" I would say that no one can definatively answer this question... it has been and will continue to be debated for sometime. It is, however, impossible to proceed with policy or legislation surrounding stem cell research or assisted suicide, or really any medical research inbetween without having some idea as to what is more important, and who's dignity are we obligated to observe? The dignity of the fetus (assuming they have it(whatever it is), the dignity of the dying (assuming they can comprehend it (which is questionable is severe alzheimers or vegitative states)), or the wants/dignity/vanity/reputation of others (which can include, but is not limited to, parents, children, doctors, politicians, religous leaders, those suffering looking for a cure, those invested looking for a marketable return, etc...). But as the largest population of our country is nearing their "sunset" years, I ask, What will they choose? Or, is it my generation's job to choose for them? I mentioned in a previous article that I am pro-assisted suicide, and like Bill Maher, pro-death. I would like to add to that and say: I am pro-dignified life. Do I want people to die pointlessly? No. Do I want people to live in miserable torturous conditions? Even more emphatically No. I understand that we don't want our friends and family to die... but I would like to think that I want my friends and family to live... not sustain, but thrive. This was not a well defended point, and I apologize. I will blog again on this... soon. But for the time being, see you all soon. Same blog time, same blog channel.

My Plan to Fix Social Security-

2007-11-14T22:56:00.000-06:00

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/16/MNE8SQB50.DTL

So, last week (I know, I'm behind... I've been busy, what can I say??) the first baby boomer filed for social security. This my friends marks the first week of the beginning of the end. Why might you ask? Well, in case you haven't noticed, our economy isn't doing as hot as we would wish. (Check out the article from the NYT- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/us/politics/14web-elder.html) The largest generation is about to start collecting social security, and oh, did I mention that we don't have enough money to hand out? The social security "dilemma" is not a new one. As a matter of fact I remember debating it in middle school. I think our answer then was to allow individuals to manage their own money that they pay in. (For example, I pay in and decide to invest all my money in dot coms... you decide to invest yours in CDs. I jump out a window in 1999.) This plan (theoretically) would improve the national economy and solve for the government's inability to invest our money themselves. Anyway... this plan was great in middle school, but isn't going to cut it anymore. (At least that's what my econ friends tell me.) So I propose a new plan. Actually it isn't new, my undergraduate advisor let me in on it, and I've been such a fan that I am proposing it to you now. It is a two step plan: First, we all (EVERYONE) start smoking today. Secondly, all the girls go out and get pregnant TONIGHT. Genius huh? Unfortunately, no one seems too keen on it. So I have a second plan. It only has one step, and it has less of a chance of being passed than my first plan. We raise the Social Security eligibility age to 70 or better yet 75. Why you ask? Well first, we are living longer. Social Security is not a retirement plan. It's not even a great back up plan. Everyone should not receive social security. Social Security makes a convenient back up in case you end up living longer than your retirement account predicted. Hence, if we are living and working longer, social security should be postponed. If fewer people draw out, then there will be more money for latter generations. Why will this brilliant plan never happen? Because the AARP would have a stroke, well more strokes than they have already. The AARP owns some of the top lobbyists and politicians in D.C. it would be political suicide for anyone to propose that the social security age be raised. What will Washington come up with for their solution? No one knows, but I can guarantee it won't be as simple or as effective as either of my plans. :)

Because she and I discussed it, and thought it would be funny:

2007-11-12T17:15:00.000-06:00

I am refering you all to one of my "liberal" friend's blog simply because she referred her readers to me. Click on the "Seriously? Who Says that?" link to the right. There will be real blogs posted here tonight, just not right now. Have a great Monday evening!

Continuation of Second Amendment Discussion

2007-11-12T17:07:00.001-06:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/washington/13scotus.html?ex=1195534800&en=b3e6bd13813ef6c0&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Suprisingly there seems to be a wider interest in 2nd Amendment discussions than anything else that I have been writing about, so thanks to MET, I have some more fuel for the fire. It seems that the Supreme Court will possibly be reviewing the 2nd Amendment in a future session. A couple of things are interesting to me about the case.

First, that it has similar origins to the Scopes trial. The ACLU had issued a statement to defend anyone charged under Butler's Act and so a small group of men in TN asked John Scopes, the high school football coach who was substituting a science class to teach Evolution. In otherwords, a group with money created a case and brought it forward to test the Constiutionality of a legislative act. This is a great example of citizens taking the law into their own hands in protest of it. In the gun case, however, the CATO Institute gave permission for a CATO fellow to fund and organize a challenge to D.C.'s strict handgun and missile weapon legislation. (And who says academics don't live or act in the "real" world... For this I call on you all to go and hug an academic today.)

Secondly, I am confused as to how a person can only hold "abstract" objections to a law. If I have a gun, and you say that I can't, and that upsets me then I would call the gun that you are "prying out of my cold dead fingers" (Yeah for Charlton Heston shout outs, lol) a pretty "concrete" objection to the law. I ask this question in earnest... I would like readers to this blog who are versed in the law to describe to me what an "abstract" objection is.

Below are the three contentions of D.C.'s Attorney General with the appeals court's decision (as retrieved from the NYT article above):

"First, it says, the Second Amendment’s text and history, properly understood, show that the amendment grants a right that “may be exercised only in connection with service in a state-regulated militia.”"

"Second, the brief observes that the amendment was drafted as a limitation on the authority of the federal government, not of the states, and that even if the District of Columbia is considered the equivalent of a state, “legislation limited to the District can pose no threat to the interests the Second Amendment was enacted to protect.”"

"Finally, the District of Columbia argues that even if gun ownership is an individual right, the handgun ban is amply justified as a “reasonable regulation” by considerations of public safety and health, as well as by the fact that the law permits ownership of other weapons."

"The appeals court left the door open to “reasonable regulations,” like prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, or weapons in particular locations, or the ownership of guns by felons. But a flat ban on a type of weapon cannot be considered reasonable, the court said."

From the above excerpts I conclude the following.

Whoever wrote the Second Amendment "properly understood" either has a lot to learn or a lot to teach us all, because I'm not sure that there is any sentence of the Constitution that is or can be "properly understood."
Also, I was to understand that the Bill of Rights was a protection from government period, and that the state does not have some magic Federalism power to rise above the Constitution; and the last time I checked living in D.C. did not deny you from being covered under the Bill of Rights... soo when they say that legislation effecting only the District "is not a threat to the interests of the Second Amendment" what were they really saying? "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -MLK Jr.
I may not like the speech utilized by others, but I'll defend their right to say it because in essence I'm protecting my own right to say what I want. Even if someone were to say that handguns are potentially more hazardous than other missile weapons, they should still fight heartily for handguns to remain legal. Once you grant power for one right to be taken away you are weakening your positions to maintain the rest.
"reasonable regulations" seems to be the watchphrase for this case... is a blanket ban reasonable to you? Because the court certainly didn't think so. Their distinction here is reminicent of blanket speech bans for Free Speech doctrine. Free Speech judication has been categoried and sub-categoried to a point of absurdity and the court finds it increasingly becoming "fuzzy" law that is impossible to legislate.

My prediction? The court will hear the case and the law will be struck down with a split decision. My fear? That in the process they categorize guns (see speech categories created in R.A.V v St. Paul) and start a wave a "fuzzy" gun legislation that becomes increasingly complicated and difficult to act on/ within.

Hate Speech Codes

2007-11-12T17:02:00.001-06:00

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty_senate/Agendas/Agenda%2007-08/FS.1112.age.htm

So TAMU was considering this hate speech code yesterday, and thank goodness it was tabled... for the time being anyway. Hate speech codes are dangerous, and this one is ridiculous. I'm not sure that they are even necessary. Take a look and tell me what you think. Better yet, tell me what would not be considered hate speech under this code.

Social Contract Theory and Why Political Isolationism May Not be a Crackpot Idea-

2007-11-12T12:30:00.000-06:00

So, its really late, but I've had a lot of caffine, so I thought that I would finish up my thoughts on this and finally post this blog. It has been sitting around for a while and I never posted it because I didn't know how much I wanted to explain it. I think that I would rather (instead of explaining it) simply post the opinion and respond to criticisms or praise. This should be prefaced with the fact that the United States of America IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, we are a Republic, so "spreading democracy" as a political goal is stupid for more than just the following reason.

Lockean social contract theory is a DOMESTIC political theory not an international theory. Therefore, "spreading democracy" is just wrong.

What do you think?

This may be the worst idea EVER!

2007-11-10T10:56:00.000-06:00

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iR9YGlXZy-ZY5TanRGkamqY0DZ3AD8SQJ77O0

So gas for guns huh?? So they are taking away the guns through incentives today, who says they just don't take them tomorrow. (Slippery slope I know, I know, but really... I just can't believe that they are doing this.) I want to see similar campaigns... cars for coke for coke, pies for pedaphiles, turkey for terrorists. Anyone who participates in this is stupid. 100 dollars in gas? If you need the money then sell the weapon for what it is worth, or sell it for 100 bucks to someone who will appreciate it. Why would someone just give up their gun? Most likely they have it for a reason. Cleveland hopes that this will curb murders. Ya know, the other day I was listening to Bill Maher and he was saying that as a *cough* libertarian (yeah right) he thought that people should be allowed to smoke, have abortions, and assisted suicide and claimed that he was pro-death. (btw: I'm all for pro-death... I'm just not for double death standards) That people choose to commit actions and so its not cigarettes fault, or drugs fault, it was people's fault... but his next set was how horrible guns were. Tell me, why are cigarettes not to blame, but guns are? Cigarettes don't even have a use outside of killing people. Guns protect and serve the public as well as offer a sporting outlet for millions. Wow... gas for guns... I just don't know what else to say.

Disclaimer?

2007-11-08T19:54:00.000-06:00

My advisor reminded me today that "One should not to conduct your education in public." (You will notice that Seriously? in the links to the aside also wrote on this point... we share the same advisor.) I think that in writing this blog I am inherently conducting my education in public, but I am at a loss to imagine where anyone is not conducting an education in public; so to make myself feel better I am writing to say the following:

I will be conducting my education in public so that I may learn from those around me. The things that I write are not carved in stone, but rather are representative of ideologies in the making. I put them here to hear your thoughts, concerns, and rebuttals so that I may reflect more effectively on my own mind.

Thus, help me learn by leaving a comment on everything that you read. Thanks!

Book Review

2007-11-08T19:17:00.000-06:00

I'm kinda cheating tonight... I am posting a class assignment, but it is one that was well received and makes good points, I think.

DEMOCRACY AND THE PROBLEM OF FREE SPEECH
By Cass Sunstein[i]The Free Press, 1993, 300 pages

“[T]o the press alone; checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.” -James Madison's Report on the Virginia Resolutions (in the American Memory Collection of the Library of Congress)

“[T]he right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon…has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.” -James Madison, Virginia Resolutions, 1798 [ii]

Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech is Cass Sunstein’s attempt at establishing a single, coherent theory of free speech. Here he argues that the contemporary understanding of Free Speech as a “market place of ideas” is not effective at governing free speech; rather, an attempt to establish a Madisonian deliberative democracy would be a better approach to understanding the first amendment. Sunstein’s book is divided into two main flows of argument; first, he describes his new Madisonian paradigm for free speech, followed by a more detailed, policy driven section that defines and describes the application of his ideas.
Sunstein contends that contemporary interpretations of the first amendment are not what the freedom of speech was intended to protect. Modern speech protection has gone too far, and the consequences have been harmful to the quality of our democratic society. He begins his argument with a scathing critique of the insufficiency of the current system to distinguish different types of speech as well as protect “political” speech. Sunstein claims that one of the biggest problems with the present system is that it protects non-political speech while marginalizing more important “political” speech. The “free marketplace” of mass communication (radio, print, and television for Sunstein) actually restricts the amount of diverse speech. Mass media gate keeping restricts public ideas to support mainstream thought that encourages the protection of private property rights and free speech that benefits businesses and media empires. He sees that seeing speech as a commodity also causes companies to only spread viewpoints that are mainstream enough to be “bought” by consumers. Thus, minority or counter-cultural viewpoints are dropped to the wayside.
Sunstein maintains that a Madisonian perspective would allow the government to offer protection to all political ideas and speech while restricting private publication and communication that does not further a sound and healthy democratic society. Basing the majority of his analysis on the metaphor of “free marketplace” rather than actual practice, Sunstein claims that like economic public goods, the government must manage free speech to ensure that the public good is well-maintained and available to everyone. To achieve this Madisonian deliberative democracy Sunstein posits a “New Deal” metaphor/ plan from which to evaluate free speech. Like FDR’s bundle of invasive and controlling government programs, Sunstein suggests that the government be given the power to control and manage all areas of free speech. Private industry would be more regulated, and mandatory (diverse) propaganda hours enforced. Advertising dollars would be taxed in order to cut down on useless advertising “noise” in media, and the government would open currently “private” spaces such as airports, mailboxes, and shopping malls to be free speech forums. His plan is interesting, and a noble attempt at speech regulation on the national level. His critiques of the free market system are valid; however, his solution of a state run redistribution system for public speech broadcast time and content is no sounder economically, or academically than the status quo.
While the first half of Sunstein’s book is focused on the system of speech evaluation, the second half of his book deals more with the content of speech itself. It is here that we find his definitions for political speech, versus non-political speech, as well as detailed steps for the government to take in their content control of communication. Political for Sunstein is “when it [speech] is both intended and received as a contribution to public deliberation about some issue. (130)” Non- political speech is everything else. Sunstein takes these definitions to create a two tier approach to the First Amendment. All speech classified as “political” speech will be held a priori for protection, while all non-political speech is available for prosecution. In fact, some forms of communication currently protected under the first amendment should be removed from its protection; these include two very contestable genres of speech: violent pornography and racial epithets. Sunstein offers no system by which the public or the courts can distinguish either degree of expression from allowable “tamed” forms of similar expression. For example, Sunstein is very adamant in his pursuit of racial epithets, however, he does not define what a racial epithet is, or what the courts should do with new terms meant to be racial epithets. It does not take much for one to see the potential for a slippery slope of banned words to grow to infinite proportions. Similarly with violent pornography, Sunstein does not provide a way to distinguish intolerable violent pornography from tolerably aggressive pornography. He offers no enforcement suggestions, and one is left back at Justice Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” doctrine for the judicial implications of his claims.
Sunstein’s two tier system is a noble attempt at solving a contentious legal dilemma with a simple, but impractical solution. Allowing the government to prioritize speech leaves the people with little feedback or critical potentiality within the system. Madison, who was worried to the point of obsession about checks and balances within systems of government would be horrified by Sunstein’s faith in the government to make neutral and beneficial judgments concerning who is allowed within public debate, as well as deciding what speech is validated as political or not.
His final chapter outlines his guiding political beliefs in the assumption that they would clarify and support his claims and conclusions in the book; however, they simply cast light on his confusing use of political theories, histories, and metaphors throughout the book. Madison was never a proponent of “deliberative democracy” as Sunstein envisions it; as the quotations at the beginning of the article suggests Madison saw the people’s ability to speak freely, away from the government, as their assurance for rights and protection. It would be beneficial for Sunstein to give the historical justification for his terms and ideas regarding first amendment intentionality, as well as how Madison’s call for the open critique of government by the people can be assured in his politically micro-managed New Deal suggestions. All of his assumptions are based on the idea that the Constitution is not there to restrict government intervention into private life, but rather functions to restrict the public’s influence over the political system. He is both right and wrong in this perception; Sunstein equates the purpose of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which is a fallacious assumption. The Constitution does restrict any one faction or people from becoming too powerful or influential in the system (hence why Sunstein wants the government to control the people’s voices), but the Bill of Rights sets limits to that control by banning government involvement from those areas of private life. Only when Sunstein’s approach to first amendment interpretation takes this purpose seriously does his theory enter into a realm of probability and application.
Overall Sunstein’s book offers an important and controversial springboard for cross-discipline discussion and examination into the world of free speech legislation. In 1993 he was ahead of his time in foreseeing the importance of reevaluating and defining free speech. His goal of preserving and strengthening the deliberative roots of democratic social structures is important, and not one to be pushed aside in future debates. His evaluation of the current situation is both critical of shortcomings, while admirably hopeful of what progress can and should be made in dealing with very controversial and difficult issues. Unfortunately, his lack of acknowledging the power of the (then) burgeoning internet, and its implications for sharing voices around the world is, at the very least a disappointing shortcoming. This book is critical in understanding some of the more subtle differences in legal and political theory, as well as the structural influences in the realm of free speech. He concludes that his understanding of the free speech principle is focused on political thought, and although I agree that it should be, I disagree that the political thought of Madison and the New Deal are complementary- or even remotely comparable.

[1] Sunstein, Cass R. (2003) Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: Free Press
[2] http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/quotes/great/rights.htm, Last Access October 5, 2007.

What about secular politics is so hard to understand??

2007-11-07T13:56:00.000-06:00

“It is better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian.” —Martin Luther

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Pat_Robertson_endorses_proabortion_candidate_Rudy_1107.html

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov07/0,4670,RepublicansConservatives,00.html

(Please notice one conservative and one liberal source: I am the "fair and balanced" news source... LOL)

For those of you who may have missed the newest conservative endorsement, Pat Robertson has come out in support of the pro-abortion, dress wearing, socially liberal Rudy Giuliani. If hell has not already frozen over then I suggest that everyone grab a warm jacket. My prediction? This (un)holy alliance will doom Giuliani. Giuliani already comes across as power hungry and a mini-W. His politics are not consistent and he is resting his campaign almost entirely on 9/11. I think Americans (or at least I am) are tired of the fear tactic, war laden, God rhetoric that has been thrown around by W's administration since 2000. Pat Robertson even pulled this rhetoric into his reasoning for supporting Giuliani:

"To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists. [...] Our world faces deadly peril: nuclear-armed North Korea and the foreboding of nuclear arms in Iran; deadly violence from Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel; the possible overthrow of Pakistan’s government, and drawn out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all of the crises which confront our nation and the world, we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead."

Again with the fear appeals and war mongering. Our world does face "deadly perils"... religiously obsessed politicians who refer to wars, excuse me, "conflicts" in the Middle East as crusades. Terrorism is a serious threat; I acknowledge this, however, as true conservatives is Israel our problem? Is it really Pakistan's government that we are worried about or should we be more worried about a dictator arising in Pakistan at the guise of defending democracy through throwing out the Constitution and putting the country on military shut down? As conservatives should we not be concerned with slimming central government power and tackling the challenges of runaway spending? Has anyone ever wondered if it is our refusal to talk or listen to "terrorist" organizations that causes them to resort to acting out for attention? This will be discussed in more detail in later blogs, however, I state it now if hopes for getting some feedback. Moving on... back to Robertson's speech-

"[...] Today it is my pleasure to announce my support for America’s mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead, and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans. Rudy Giuliani stood tall as his city was rocked by the worst terrorist act in America’s history. [...] Today I wish Rudy Giuliani success in the caucuses and the primaries which will take place in a few months, and beyond that it is my hope and prayer that he will lead the Republican Party to victory in November of 2008."

Giuliani handled a disaster well... which is more than we can say for most political leaders today. Congrats... that was eight years ago and we are faced with harder, different, and more complex situations today that I am not convinced that he is responsible or level-headed enough to handle. Admittedly, I was a fan of Giuliani, but his recent stances and posturing within the race has led me to question his ability to control his ambition, temper, and jingoist tendencies. The evangelicals have been targeted as the death mark of the upcoming election. Intellectual conservatives, undecideds, and liberals are all blaming the evangelical conservatives on the mess we are currently in. Thus, (I hope) that this "coming out" of Robertson and Giuliani will doom them both to political purgatory.

By the way... there is some interesting, and surprisingly credible, scuttlebutt going around about Hillary Clinton. Look for the LA Times to release an article around primary time involving her and her "friend" Huma Abedin.

Just War

2007-11-06T14:33:00.000-06:00

What is a just war? How do we justify it?

"What is it about war that is blameworthy? Is it that mortal men die? It is the want to do violence..." -St. Augustine

Excluding strict pacificists (war is never justified) as well as war-mongors (war can always be justified) there exists a fairly vast middle ground (war can be justified, and conversely war can be unjust). For the sake of good argument I will focus most of the following discussion on the fuzzy middle area. (Argument requires a rational discussion with some hope or chance of a greater truth being discovered or arrived at... thus the extremes will not be considered.) Also, this discussion of the justification of war will focus on a judeo/(mostly)christian notion of justice. Definitions and grounds having been set (for the most part), back to our original question:

What is a just war? How do we justify it?

Historically, early Christians did not struggle with notions of Just War, this could be for a number of reasons. Most prodominantly in my opinion is that in the Old Testament war is justified by war being waged by the chosen against the gentiles. Any war by the chosen was justified as God's will. Early Christians had no wars to wage because they were not in a power stratification that allowed them to wage war in the first place. The New Testament and the Old Testament give two very differant approaches to war and statecraft that are at face value unreconcilable. The O.T. was not only a religous guiding document, but served as a national history of a people and nation... thus war and statecraft was a huge part of it. The N.T. however, was addressed to a blue collar, slave, and proletariat sect of society that couldn't wage war even if they wanted to. The N.T. focuses on the individual rather than the state, and mentions statecraft only as a power or structure to be subservient to. Another reason is that early Christians believed that the second coming was eminent, and so they lived "outside" of war and statecraft while waiting on Christ's return. As they began to realize that they might be on Earth longer than they had hoped then matters of the secular state had to be addressed. This became particularly relevant as Christians began to have high power positions within the Roman Empire.

It is around this time that we see the emergence of St. Augustine and The City of God. Augustine attempted to write a defense (as well as a guidebook) for Christians within the secular Roman states. It is here that we find one of the first Christian justifications to participate in war. Augustine had to find a way for Christians to be able to kill and fight in war. Because of the little to no scriptural evidence for justifying war in the N.T. he turned to the O.T. for his scriptural passages and took some creative poetic licensing for the interpretations. In the end Augustine settled his justification of killing others in war on the souls of the enemies rather than any sort of protectionist principles. So when a soldier is fighting (assumingly on the "right" side) he can justify the lives that he takes on the fact that he is preventing the soldier on the "wrong" side from committing more sins which would put his eternal soul at more risk. This sounds strange to us today, however, at the time ones eternal soul was much more at the forefront of thought and consideration as we see or hear about it today.

So what is just war today? Most just war theorists agree that there are 5 criteria for establishing whether a war is just or not. Today we generally justify war on a protectionist argument; from this goal we get the following five criteria:

1) War should only be fought for "right" causes
2) "Right" authority calls on war (the "right" authority today is generally considered the state)
3) There exists a reasonable chance of success
4) The actions taken are in proportion to the offense (if someone trips you, it is not proportionate to kill them. This is generally drawn from works by St. Thomas Aquinas)
5) The idea or code of non-combatant immunity

No these criteria are by no means clear or concise. Firstly, in the top two, two different definitions or connotations of the word "right" are used. It is often considered problematic to define a term using its synonem. Such definitions often lead to circular arguements and are useless for policy or action judgements. Really all 5 criteria are severely problematic in their own way. Even the idea of non-combatant immunity is a dramatic evolution of thought. Previously justice was perched on the prevention of sin, today we justify our actions in the protection of the innocent rather than the protection of the already stained soul. I have no solution to these issues. I believe that some war can be justified. I am not convinced that such justifications are found in Christian scripture. Like Augustine I do not think that Christians (or any religous person) can be true to their faith and still be involved in political processes. Concessions have to be made. This does not make politics amoral, or even always immoral; it just concedes the fact that a person cannot worship a higher power and still be a commanding figure in politics and governance. Government is morally dirty work and it is rarely compatible with religous teachings.

So what is just war? How do we justify it? Historically it was a religously sanctioned military action- today it is a morally/ethically acceptable military action. Unfortunately these determinations cannot often be made but in hindsight. Was WWII justified? It is often touted as the "true" just war, but our reasons for entering had nothing to do with the rape of Belgium, the holocaust, or even the rise of fascism. It was a retaliation moment for us that ended a lot of evil things. So its justification is derived post-war... that doesn't help us for deciding the justification of declaration of wars, or even current wars/conflicts. Must we really be left to allowing history to decide whether our actions are just? I don't know.

Some additional questions to ponder:
Is Just War an oxymoron?
Would Jesus be a soldier? politician? What would he do in these situations?
As Christians (I realize that this is an assuming question... please humor it.) are just war and politics even things that we should be considering and struggling with?

Steven Colbert and Our Absurd Political System

2007-11-05T19:01:00.000-06:00

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SNMDC00&show_article=1

So I will openly express disappointment in Colbert's failure to get on the South Carolina ticket. Being a native Georgian I was looking forward to the upcoming conflict in his declaration of war on my home state... I would go home to fight in that one :). But more importantly, I am sad that we could not demonstrate our displeasure at the current presidential candidates by voting for a spoof candidate in the primary. Thus, I begin my grassroots movement here- on an internationally available blog that no one will probably read: WRITE IN STEVEN COLBERT FOR ALL PRIMARY BALLOTS! I study politics, hopefully one day for a living, and I must say I was very torn when Colbert announced his candidacy. I finally realized I wasn't mad at him; I was frustrated with the system for being so absurd that he felt the need to run. Politics is not, has not, and probably will never be a "noble" profession or system. Unfortunately, it has become more laughable in the past 30 years than 250 years of American political development could have ever imagined.

For example, should, God Forbid, H. Clinton be elected almost half of the American population will have known no time at which a Bush or Clinton was not in the whitehouse (this is excluding Bush Sr.'s stint as V.P. when he was in the whitehouse, but not Pres). Not since 1987/8 (almost TWO DECADES!) has a member of two families not served as our commander in chief. THIS IS RIDICULOUS, not to mention scary as hell. Out of a population of 250 MILLION people, can we not find ANY other family trees worthy of that office???

At a lecture today by Karlyn Khors Campbell I learned that W has used over 750 Signing Statements while in office! 750!! Clinton and H.W. Bush combined had less than 20! This is NUTS! The president, has, in one (well 750) swift movement eradicated any check and balance of the legislative branch of the executive! This is as KKC put it "very scary"- to say the very least! This action was developed as a check to pork barreled legislation, but has been used as a method of nullifying laws that Bush doesn't like, but for popularity (or other) reasons he can't publically denounce or veto (or the even scarier reason is that he could not convince congress that it was a bad idea!). The only S.S. to be publically addressed was his signed statement revision of McCain's torture bill. This law was passed with such a majority that Bush could not veto it, so he revised and nullified all FBI oversight at 4:45pm on Dec. 30 (which happened to be a Friday!). Even with such snake tactics the Boston Globe ran a small story on his "adjustments" and McCain, as well as co-sponsors of the bill, filed a complaint. All they got was a published announcement of the whitehouse "acknowledging" that their changes might have been a little shady.

This is NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE!! I'm a fan of conservative politics (generally). This is an abomination to the Consitution herself! The Executive branch is throwing off the balance of the system and no one seems to care! I think the answer lies in the Judiciary Branch, but more research is needed. So yeah.... that's all I got, but I guarantee that more will be coming out about this!

Degas' Inferno

2007-11-04T18:42:00.000-06:00

The Only Poem I've Ever Gotten Published... and I still Love it!

The Devil hunts for souls
not in dark alleys,
but in Art Museums and Galleries,

Where passions are as exposed
as the artist's soul,
beared upon the cavnas.

The Devil's in the details
of an impressionist's dream,
away from priests and God.

Artists trade their soul
for money and power,
with every piece they sell.

The Devil shops at Sotherbys
every Friday night,
filling his home with tasteless art.

The benefits of pets...

2007-11-04T18:04:00.000-06:00

"There is something about a horse that is good for the inside of a man." -Sir Winston Churchill

So I've been riding horses for most of my life, and today someone made a comment that made me consider a new "When I am Queen" rule. First, a "When I am Queen" rule is a game that my father and I started when I was young (his of course being when I am king). Thinks such as "No one who is retired or without a job can drive prior to 9:30 or after 4 on any weekday." And such. Anyway... while I was working with a young draft cross (aka REALLY big horse) someone commented that anyone who wasted their time working with animals was doing just that wasting their time.

Now, this is problematic to me for a number of reasons, but the biggest being that working with animals forces people to care for more than themselves. In the hyper-individualistic world that we live in people should do more to think of beings outside of themselves. Studies show that children raised around animals, or more specifically, those kids who had pets are more empathetic to the plights of others as well as more responsible people. Certainly not a waste of time... Working with animals teaches patience, as well as discipline (for both the animal and the trainer). The individual commenting on my waste of time had a child that was running around a barn screaming and yanking on their pant leg. Yes... teaching children, (cough), I mean animals to listen and work with you rather than against you is a significant waste of time.

It has also been proven to be a health benefit for people to own animals. Dogs and horses are often used in the treatment of physical and mental handicaps. Studies show that petting a dog lowers blood pressure and releases endorphins. In our health obsessed society is should be a prescription for people to get pets. Which leads me to my "When I am Queen" rule: It will be mandatory for EVERYONE to spend at least one week a year (paid vacation time of course) working on a farm or helping a shelter care for pets. If you have allergies work at an aquarium. Animals are not "just" pets... they are a reflection of who we are.

I realize that this blog is a little more random than I was expecting to put up here, however, I feel that a defense of pet lovers and horse trainers needed to be made. That, and an encouragement for everyone to have a pet for your child. (Take the amphiboly as you wish) :)

David Brooks Rocks My Face Off, or at least something similar

2007-11-02T13:23:00.000-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/opinion/05brooks.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/David%20Brooks

Ok, so David Brooks is my favorite news and political commentator. That aside, he has written the definitive piece (in my humble opinion) of what is wrong with the GOP (besides W). As a Burkean conservative I am disheartened and frightened by the potential disastors of the upcoming election. I don't like any of the candidates, and for the first time in my life I am actually having to consider voting democratic. The GOP has gotten too socially involved, and they have forgotten what it is "conservatives" are supposed to be. Where oh where has my little government gone???

Salude!

2007-11-02T12:44:00.000-05:00

Seeing as how others will be able to read this I believe that an introduction is appropriate. This is my chance to manifest thoughts about life, the universe, and everything. (Somehow I don't think that the answer to life is 42... therefore I still plan to puzzle over all the little things because it is fun and interesting. )[If you haven't read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy then I guess that joke is lost on you.]

I might be one of the most random people I've ever met. I'm addicted to the news and e-mail. I coach a collegiate speech and debate team, and I'll soon be starting my PhD in rhetoric and public policy. I grew up on a farm with everything from chicken houses, cows, tobacco, and peanuts, to rodeo and competition horses. I still ride some, though I sold my last horse to pay for school. I love to hunt and fish, as well as shoot out at the range when I go home. Most of my days, however, are currently spent reading, writing, and playing darts at the bar. I say all that to forewarn you. My blogs will be random, opinionated, and probably offensive. Such is life.

Please, comment and add on to what you read. Conversation and debate is the goal here!