Everyone has made choices they knew would, at best, postpone issues to be decided at a later date. Some of us go to grad school because we know we aren't adults (Me). Others of us put off joining the work force because the life of laziness seems much more accommodating than one with strict time requirements. Fortunately, these examples have little real world impact outside of our own experience. Sometimes, this is not the case.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision today which will certainly require some other decision in the future.
The case seems to harkens back to the history of free speech and religious expression in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 for those interested in reading it, but the Court took it in another direction today. The religious sect of Summum sued the city of Pleasant Grove, asking the court for an injunction requiring the placement of their particular religious symbols in a local park alongside the Ten Commandments, which already have a home in the park. Also in the park are non-sectarian monuments, such as a September 11 monument, all of which (including the Ten Commandments) were donated by private individuals. The Court refused their request.
A few notes of mention exist in the decision: (1) John Lennon's "Imagine" had its lyrics, in entirety, contained in the decision. It is of no legal significance, but I find it interesting that the Supreme Court of the United States, a body charged with upholding the constitution of a nation bound by centuries old doctrines, would cite a song about the disestablishment of society. That, and it is cool. (2) The Supreme Court bypasses real issues of Establishment clause violations.
The court bypasses this issue by holding (as it has before) that a distinction exists between "a government entity . . . speaking on its own behalf or . . . providing a forum for private speech . . ." This must be true. Without this, how could anyone advocate for any action, belief, or idea on government property? And, here, the government found that the placement of these monuments constituted an act of governmental speech. So, then, where was the Establishment Clause?
First, it is worth noting that the Establishment Clause couldn't be cited by the Summum because it would equally exclude their donation at the same time as removing the Ten Commandments. Second, this is the first time I have seen an application of the Court's innability to hear cases not before them; neither party argued the issue of Establishment conflict, and so neither did the Court.
The third point worth noting has come as a surprise throughout the entirety of this year's cases: The decision was unanimous. Concurrances were written, but the final count was 9-0. While I disagree with most everythign he says, I have to give credit to Chief Justice Roberts: he has created the Court he promised, one of unity.
I am still bugged by the decision (because this is obviously a vioaltion of the First Amendment), but this is an interesting case anyways. I guess I like the law. . .
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
I Had a Dream
First, in the dream my brother and I were towing our boat into his friend's lagoon (which doesn't exist). We needed to rinse our shoes which had become sandy, so we went through this friend's father's strictly off limits room.
In there we climbed up on rickety wooden ladders. For some reason, possibly deterrent, bricks of asbestos were stacked in this ladder area. They were labeled with (I kid you not) "Warning: Asbestos! Sorry..." Why anyone posts an apology to their asbestos bricks I do not know. I sure don't... I mean, wouldn't.
We reached the top of the ladder, where we found ourselves in an arms warehouse FILLED with pirates. Don't think Johnny Depp; think of the tip of the ivory coast, machine guns, and ruthlessness unseen anywhere else in the world. My brother, genius and hero that he is (only in my mind and dreams), decides his need to rinse his shoes outweighs the risk of plunder from pirates, and he runs off.
There I am forced to choose between going into the den of theives and turning back (Ali Babba would be proud) when I feel something on my leg. There is, and it should be said that this is my absolute worst fear barring any other event possible in the entire world from contention, a black widow on my leg.
As I begin to weigh my options and survey my surroundings I notice HUNDREDS of spiders around me.
And then, in Looney Toon-esque fashion, I look up. Wile E. Coyote should never have looked down, and I should never look up.
A spider (I am literally frightened by the mere thought of this, and so in describing it I am freaking out... Man.) that can only be described as a black basketball with legs, two recessed red marbles for eyes, and the will of Satan, is suspended above me like the Sword of Domacles.
My dream self, faced with the prospect of a giant spider's imminent attack, utters "Fuck. Alright, time to wake up."
And here I am, two hours later, at 4:16 AM. The only object visible in the blackness of my room is the nonexistant spider in the corner. My eyelids close and conjure the same spider.
I bet you thought it was going to be a good dream because of the lagoon. Yeah... I did too.
Welcome to my world. Lagoon=secret, apologetic asbestos filled ladder ways=pirates=Satanic spider.
Since I can't sleep, I am going to do property.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Infuriating
Just read this waste of blog-space.
If the title of their article doesn't tip you off that my response is going to be long, rambling, and off the cuff, consider yourself warned. I am in a fiery mood, and all I needed was this.
Let's take the statistics one at a time:
First, lowering the corporate tax rates; what a grand idea. The rate suggested in the blog linked to is 20%. Current corporate tax rates are 39.8%. I understand the logic: allow for the corporations to invest the money, rather than taxing it and employing it for government works projects. One flaw: corporations are no longer about building up. Rather, they have developed into profit machines. If anyone thinks that the first thing a company will do is throw their extra money into R&D, they are about to have a share holder suit on their hands.
The current economic situation is one of the worst for R&D in recent memory. Investing your money into products that no one can afford to buy? Wow, what a great idea.
Even better, let the share holders have the money. So that they can do what with it?! Studies have shown that the current American household wouldn't splurge (I know the thought of Americans not needlessly spending is novel, but it is true), but would pay off their credit. Ultimately, the money would go to the banks. Who created the mess. Who are busy counting their money laughing all the way to the ba... wait... laughing all the way to themselves.
Lower the corporate tax rate for multinational corporations to 5%. I understand the idea from a globalist perspective, but our government is not a globalist government. The first priority of the American government is to create American jobs. Explain to me how the nation which requires a higher minimum wage than most nations in the world would benefit at all from a lowered tax rate? Corporations will not create jobs here. They can't afford it. They can, however, sell their products here, take their profits and invest it overseas.
Yes, this is a great idea which will absolutely stimulate the foreign economy. Wait, was that not the idea here?
Unleash America's energy industry? You cannot be serious... Really?! Honestly, where are you living? Global warming not at all an issue? It has been accepted nearly universally that it is happening, even if debate continues as to the extent and effect. There is only one person so conservative that they would go further to the right than President Bush: President Bush circa 2002. You do not want to join those ranks.
How about taking some of the money and creating oil independent energies? Perhaps hydrogen cells, battery cars, electric cars, hybrids, bicycles, and piggy back rides (I firmly believe this is a burgeoning market)? All I am saying is that this is not the solution, regardless of the GDP's bottom line.
Finally, restrain the federal government's spending so that it does not overburden the economy.
As Jon Stewart says only when frustrated, "WHAT THE FUCK?!"
Here is a little history lesson: Tax-cuts stimulate short term growth. Think Reagan era politics, and the early President Bush (W, not H). Times were a rockin', right? Then what happened? An inevitable crash.
Now, picture huge spending eras. Think President Clinton and post Great Depression economic policies. Nobody saw a substantial growth immediately. Matter of fact, it took 3, 4, 5 years. At the end of that time, though, we had a burgeoning economy. How can no one see the correlation?
Oh, and there will be those who disagree with me; I can someone saying now, "But the economy in the post Great Depression era was stimulated by war." Yes, I am sure it was. So, what was the excuse for the economic crisis on the heels of the Republican administration in the 1970s, the same time that Vietnam was going on? Or, what about the early 1990s, where a Republican administration had just finished tax cutting everyone off at the knees, and we had a war, yet a recession occurred.
IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
If you are wondering why I wrote this, it is because I am pissed at FedEx for losing my fucking package. I. Want. My. Hat. Rack. Now!
If the title of their article doesn't tip you off that my response is going to be long, rambling, and off the cuff, consider yourself warned. I am in a fiery mood, and all I needed was this.
Let's take the statistics one at a time:
First, lowering the corporate tax rates; what a grand idea. The rate suggested in the blog linked to is 20%. Current corporate tax rates are 39.8%. I understand the logic: allow for the corporations to invest the money, rather than taxing it and employing it for government works projects. One flaw: corporations are no longer about building up. Rather, they have developed into profit machines. If anyone thinks that the first thing a company will do is throw their extra money into R&D, they are about to have a share holder suit on their hands.
The current economic situation is one of the worst for R&D in recent memory. Investing your money into products that no one can afford to buy? Wow, what a great idea.
Even better, let the share holders have the money. So that they can do what with it?! Studies have shown that the current American household wouldn't splurge (I know the thought of Americans not needlessly spending is novel, but it is true), but would pay off their credit. Ultimately, the money would go to the banks. Who created the mess. Who are busy counting their money laughing all the way to the ba... wait... laughing all the way to themselves.
Lower the corporate tax rate for multinational corporations to 5%. I understand the idea from a globalist perspective, but our government is not a globalist government. The first priority of the American government is to create American jobs. Explain to me how the nation which requires a higher minimum wage than most nations in the world would benefit at all from a lowered tax rate? Corporations will not create jobs here. They can't afford it. They can, however, sell their products here, take their profits and invest it overseas.
Yes, this is a great idea which will absolutely stimulate the foreign economy. Wait, was that not the idea here?
Unleash America's energy industry? You cannot be serious... Really?! Honestly, where are you living? Global warming not at all an issue? It has been accepted nearly universally that it is happening, even if debate continues as to the extent and effect. There is only one person so conservative that they would go further to the right than President Bush: President Bush circa 2002. You do not want to join those ranks.
How about taking some of the money and creating oil independent energies? Perhaps hydrogen cells, battery cars, electric cars, hybrids, bicycles, and piggy back rides (I firmly believe this is a burgeoning market)? All I am saying is that this is not the solution, regardless of the GDP's bottom line.
Finally, restrain the federal government's spending so that it does not overburden the economy.
As Jon Stewart says only when frustrated, "WHAT THE FUCK?!"
Here is a little history lesson: Tax-cuts stimulate short term growth. Think Reagan era politics, and the early President Bush (W, not H). Times were a rockin', right? Then what happened? An inevitable crash.
Now, picture huge spending eras. Think President Clinton and post Great Depression economic policies. Nobody saw a substantial growth immediately. Matter of fact, it took 3, 4, 5 years. At the end of that time, though, we had a burgeoning economy. How can no one see the correlation?
Oh, and there will be those who disagree with me; I can someone saying now, "But the economy in the post Great Depression era was stimulated by war." Yes, I am sure it was. So, what was the excuse for the economic crisis on the heels of the Republican administration in the 1970s, the same time that Vietnam was going on? Or, what about the early 1990s, where a Republican administration had just finished tax cutting everyone off at the knees, and we had a war, yet a recession occurred.
IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
If you are wondering why I wrote this, it is because I am pissed at FedEx for losing my fucking package. I. Want. My. Hat. Rack. Now!
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Time to Learn
My Dad is letting me borrow his old D70 until I am proficient enough
to buy my own.
Once I have stored up what I consider to be a decent number of decent
shots I am going to start a second photo journal, so be on the lookout.
A Mix of Fear and Joy
The person driving (who I assure you looks terrified) is engaging in
student driving. This was taken on what I would suppose was his first
attempt at joining the big kids on the freeway. Oh happy day...
If my readers have a memory from student driving, please share. Would
be glad to hear about all of our own anxieties from that first time
behind the wheel.
My first day student driving I received sage advice: if you want to
slow down, use the brake; letting go of the gas will NOT slow you down.
Because apparently that was not intuitive.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Night at the Rink
some guy get his face shoved into plexi-glass.
Oh, and Matt scored a goal.
For those keeping track, Matt plays defense for Stanford.
Broncos weren't meant to run on the ice. Apparently cardinals were
meant to fly over it.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
America, you are sick...
The diagnostics have returned from the lab, but it seems America has been infected with an insidious disease symptomatic of arrogance (read Republican Party) and a refusal to learn from your fallen counterparts (read Democratic Party).
Each of these posts exacerbate the problem President Obama, high ideals and all, has begun the process of rectifying.
First, the Republican Post. It is worth noting that Representative Price is junior congressman. He is not a podium through which the Republican party sends its official message. Actually, given the current national mood, the Republican party would be a masochistic at best to voice such an incendiary position right now. Then again, Rep. Price is from Georgia; the Democratic party will not be returning there for some time yet.
"Election Day 2008 produced a liberal governing majority that no one envisioned even as little as two years ago. The Democrats control both chambers of Congress as well as the Presidency. And while they are motivated by politics rather than solutions, Americans perceive them as the true agents of change and reform."
First, EVERYONE envisioned this majority two years ago. Those who missed the blatantly obvious message on that were, apparently, in Georgia. The House of Representatives AND Senate (that no one expected, though it was a nice Christmas gift) had been handed to the Democratic party by a President adverse to change, a Congress divided in partisan deadlock. Things weren't working, and change was coming. Face the music, Congressman, everyone knew that come the election cycle, you would be in the minority. Then again, apparently Georgia doesn't get CNN or Fox News.
Second, who is the Republican party to claim that ANYONE is motivated by politics at this point in the game. Eat some crow, and do it quietly, Congressman. Learn some lessons on what American politics are meant to be about: discourse and dialectics (a word I learned, just as an aside, while reading the most un-American of philosophers: Marx). How I wish I could point to my party as an example of this, but unfortunately, they have replaced the Republican party's arrogance with a lack of hindsight.
"The Big Question" is: Do the Dem(ocrat)s need bipartisanship?
I am so very disappointed that the closest thing to a yes came from the Bonjean Company (a public relations firm located in Washington D.C.) who said, "If the Democrats want a public relations win, it is vital that they do everything possible to make the stimulus bipartisan." Neither of the Congressmen quoted on the page demonstrated any tact or foresight (perhaps saying "Yes, absolutely. Even if we ultimately have a bill that the opposing party vehemently disagrees with, I want them in the room. Perspective breeds excellence, and that is what our nation deserves." Seriously, Congresspeople, I am a 23 year old student with no practical experience in politics, and I came up with that off the top of my head.).
Even worse is that the answer which draws the most attention had this to say: "President Obama has been leading the way for Democrats by demonstrating a new way of doing business in Washington. To date, the Republicans haven’t gotten the message." If bi-partisanship is your goal, wouldn't it behoove you to not slam the opposing party at every opportunity? Granted, the author of that quote is from ACORN (think slightly to the left of the ACLU), but it still fails the modern political litmus test (or what I believe it should be): how does this comment lead to a resolution of the issues facing our nation.
America needs both of these sides to pull their collective heads out of each other's asses. At this point in the game, our nation's livelyhood might actually be on the line.
Each of these posts exacerbate the problem President Obama, high ideals and all, has begun the process of rectifying.
First, the Republican Post. It is worth noting that Representative Price is junior congressman. He is not a podium through which the Republican party sends its official message. Actually, given the current national mood, the Republican party would be a masochistic at best to voice such an incendiary position right now. Then again, Rep. Price is from Georgia; the Democratic party will not be returning there for some time yet.
"Election Day 2008 produced a liberal governing majority that no one envisioned even as little as two years ago. The Democrats control both chambers of Congress as well as the Presidency. And while they are motivated by politics rather than solutions, Americans perceive them as the true agents of change and reform."
First, EVERYONE envisioned this majority two years ago. Those who missed the blatantly obvious message on that were, apparently, in Georgia. The House of Representatives AND Senate (that no one expected, though it was a nice Christmas gift) had been handed to the Democratic party by a President adverse to change, a Congress divided in partisan deadlock. Things weren't working, and change was coming. Face the music, Congressman, everyone knew that come the election cycle, you would be in the minority. Then again, apparently Georgia doesn't get CNN or Fox News.
Second, who is the Republican party to claim that ANYONE is motivated by politics at this point in the game. Eat some crow, and do it quietly, Congressman. Learn some lessons on what American politics are meant to be about: discourse and dialectics (a word I learned, just as an aside, while reading the most un-American of philosophers: Marx). How I wish I could point to my party as an example of this, but unfortunately, they have replaced the Republican party's arrogance with a lack of hindsight.
"The Big Question" is: Do the Dem(ocrat)s need bipartisanship?
I am so very disappointed that the closest thing to a yes came from the Bonjean Company (a public relations firm located in Washington D.C.) who said, "If the Democrats want a public relations win, it is vital that they do everything possible to make the stimulus bipartisan." Neither of the Congressmen quoted on the page demonstrated any tact or foresight (perhaps saying "Yes, absolutely. Even if we ultimately have a bill that the opposing party vehemently disagrees with, I want them in the room. Perspective breeds excellence, and that is what our nation deserves." Seriously, Congresspeople, I am a 23 year old student with no practical experience in politics, and I came up with that off the top of my head.).
Even worse is that the answer which draws the most attention had this to say: "President Obama has been leading the way for Democrats by demonstrating a new way of doing business in Washington. To date, the Republicans haven’t gotten the message." If bi-partisanship is your goal, wouldn't it behoove you to not slam the opposing party at every opportunity? Granted, the author of that quote is from ACORN (think slightly to the left of the ACLU), but it still fails the modern political litmus test (or what I believe it should be): how does this comment lead to a resolution of the issues facing our nation.
America needs both of these sides to pull their collective heads out of each other's asses. At this point in the game, our nation's livelyhood might actually be on the line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
