At the very least, the Thai people refuse to give into their greater "sensibilities."
Spiderman, the greatest superhero, exists.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
New Rules of the Game
I consider myself to be a man of tolerance. I attempt (though fail often) to be calculating, emotionally divested, and generally impartial in my consideration of opposing experiences and views. Perspectivism, which finds that true enlightenment comes from a baseless approach to any activity involving human nature, rather than facts, is the name of the game. (Admittedly, perspectivism requires the admonishment of at least the view that the “human condition,” making it hypocritical in nature.)
Best efforts aside, there are those who deserve no consideration. These people (if they deserve the title of human beings) are the perfect example.
Religion justifies any action; the fear of God, whatever nomenclature we term him by, and eternal damnation trump moralistic objections to acts otherwise considered vile. When these cleanser’s of sin (as I would imagine the Taliban term themselves) take the “sword of God” to a child (read: rocket launcher), destroying or mutilating the most powerless of any society, and what ultimately represents God’s perfect creation (assuming one believes in the creation of man, directly or indirectly) the demarcation should be drawn.
Children, incapable of determining religious convictions, support for a cause, or even the most mundane of adult decisions (my five year old sister’s daily wardrobe takes a considerable amount of time each morning) should never be the target of violence.
Perspectivism be dammed. I hope President Obama takes a zero tolerance approach to any who direct their assault toward those who have committed no wrong. The President should declare the following immediately: From this day forth the death of one child is one too many, and America will not stand idly by; these are the crimes of humanity our conscience should never permit to rest, and our military power employed to resist; no people, regardless of any extant justifications shall be subjected to such terror.
To put it lightly, I will quote comedian Christopher Titus (who admittedly wrote the following regarding priestly “errors” with their alter boys and girls): You fucked a kid? Get the fuck out.
You killed a kid? Your day, along with an armada of tanks, jets, soldiers, and every available resource to stop you, is on its way.
Best efforts aside, there are those who deserve no consideration. These people (if they deserve the title of human beings) are the perfect example.
Religion justifies any action; the fear of God, whatever nomenclature we term him by, and eternal damnation trump moralistic objections to acts otherwise considered vile. When these cleanser’s of sin (as I would imagine the Taliban term themselves) take the “sword of God” to a child (read: rocket launcher), destroying or mutilating the most powerless of any society, and what ultimately represents God’s perfect creation (assuming one believes in the creation of man, directly or indirectly) the demarcation should be drawn.
Children, incapable of determining religious convictions, support for a cause, or even the most mundane of adult decisions (my five year old sister’s daily wardrobe takes a considerable amount of time each morning) should never be the target of violence.
Perspectivism be dammed. I hope President Obama takes a zero tolerance approach to any who direct their assault toward those who have committed no wrong. The President should declare the following immediately: From this day forth the death of one child is one too many, and America will not stand idly by; these are the crimes of humanity our conscience should never permit to rest, and our military power employed to resist; no people, regardless of any extant justifications shall be subjected to such terror.
To put it lightly, I will quote comedian Christopher Titus (who admittedly wrote the following regarding priestly “errors” with their alter boys and girls): You fucked a kid? Get the fuck out.
You killed a kid? Your day, along with an armada of tanks, jets, soldiers, and every available resource to stop you, is on its way.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Our Past Refuses to Leave
The ghosts of American failures, mistakes, and blatant abuses of our political theory continue to haunt us through to this day. The nature of a society reliant upon the forced servitude of African laborers defines social relations across America despite a 150 year respite from slavery, and rightfully so. The protectionist nature espoused by President George Washington became dicta in the realm of foreign policy. A fledgling nation, incapable of self-defense (do remember, our capital was burned to the ground in the War of 1812), needed to keep free from the complicated ties brought on by international relations. Treaties, as I have recently learned, trump all other law, effectively granting foreign nation a hand in the legislation of our laws.
The failures of the 3/5 compromise, and the genius underlying President Washington's declaration of foreign policy are the history we embrace; one as a constant reminder of the potential abuses a majority may impose upon a "discrete and insular minority" (For those law students reading, the quoted phrase will become a mandate from God himself in ConLaw II.) and the other as proof positive of the astoundingly impressive nature of our founding fathers.
Surveying recent history, however, provides a tale we American's wish were less salient to the modern context. President Obama, the "Champion of Change," has developed a revolutionary platform. . . except that his ideas aren't revolutionary: they are derived from a contrary nature. President Obama, while intelligent, capable, and the leader of the American Spirit, received the final push (though, please note, he deserved his position more than any other person in the nation) into the seat of power from his stance as the opposite of our past.
And what an ugly past we have. Former Vice-President Chaney, speaking of President Obama, stated on CNN that "(President Obama) is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack." Put aside questions as to what choices these are for a moment (though just a moment). The policies of the present administration operate to make us safe; the policies of the former breach basic tenents of rights guaranteed to t the citizens. Both, however, revolve around the same issues: should we torture?
So, then, raging liberal though I am, I cannot help but wonder where the distinction lies between these two. I love President Obama, but since his platform rests, of essence, upon rescinding the practices and policies of President Bush's administration, how do I justify his actions as "different" from the politics of yesterday?
Simply: He has created a conversation. Vice-President Chaney stated, " 'I think that’s a great success story,' he said. 'It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.' " Well, first, it was done legally. As is later mentioned, the "interrogations" were done by the military. This excuses any necessity of fair or unharsh treatment under the Bill of Rights. But the astounding part of this statement is the history behind it: the legality was never a question. The repricutions that might arise as a result of American blindness to the human suffering they were causing never crossed the desk of the President and Vice-President. They justified it: American's are safer.
As much as I appreciate the security blanket provided, I would have rather been consulted. The American conversation occurred as a reaction to the revelations that torture was being committed in the name of American Security. The closure of Gitmo has come as the result of that debate. Having a reasoned response to the facts as they have occurred, to this whining liberal, seems to be more in line with the dream of our founders.
So please, past (Vice-President Chaney), either make a reasoned argument (rather than an incendiary justification), or stop. 66,000,000 American's pressed for change. The least you can do, as a public servant, is respond.
The failures of the 3/5 compromise, and the genius underlying President Washington's declaration of foreign policy are the history we embrace; one as a constant reminder of the potential abuses a majority may impose upon a "discrete and insular minority" (For those law students reading, the quoted phrase will become a mandate from God himself in ConLaw II.) and the other as proof positive of the astoundingly impressive nature of our founding fathers.
Surveying recent history, however, provides a tale we American's wish were less salient to the modern context. President Obama, the "Champion of Change," has developed a revolutionary platform. . . except that his ideas aren't revolutionary: they are derived from a contrary nature. President Obama, while intelligent, capable, and the leader of the American Spirit, received the final push (though, please note, he deserved his position more than any other person in the nation) into the seat of power from his stance as the opposite of our past.
And what an ugly past we have. Former Vice-President Chaney, speaking of President Obama, stated on CNN that "(President Obama) is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack." Put aside questions as to what choices these are for a moment (though just a moment). The policies of the present administration operate to make us safe; the policies of the former breach basic tenents of rights guaranteed to t the citizens. Both, however, revolve around the same issues: should we torture?
So, then, raging liberal though I am, I cannot help but wonder where the distinction lies between these two. I love President Obama, but since his platform rests, of essence, upon rescinding the practices and policies of President Bush's administration, how do I justify his actions as "different" from the politics of yesterday?
Simply: He has created a conversation. Vice-President Chaney stated, " 'I think that’s a great success story,' he said. 'It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.' " Well, first, it was done legally. As is later mentioned, the "interrogations" were done by the military. This excuses any necessity of fair or unharsh treatment under the Bill of Rights. But the astounding part of this statement is the history behind it: the legality was never a question. The repricutions that might arise as a result of American blindness to the human suffering they were causing never crossed the desk of the President and Vice-President. They justified it: American's are safer.
As much as I appreciate the security blanket provided, I would have rather been consulted. The American conversation occurred as a reaction to the revelations that torture was being committed in the name of American Security. The closure of Gitmo has come as the result of that debate. Having a reasoned response to the facts as they have occurred, to this whining liberal, seems to be more in line with the dream of our founders.
So please, past (Vice-President Chaney), either make a reasoned argument (rather than an incendiary justification), or stop. 66,000,000 American's pressed for change. The least you can do, as a public servant, is respond.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
If Only...
If being a lawyer could be boiled down to a card game, my life would be all the better for it.
Oh wait, it can: http://www.ourcourts.org/play-games
I understand the purpose of the site, educating Americans on their country, (according to statistics Justice O'Connor cited, only 30% of the nation can state the three branches of the government), but a video game?
I have a feeling this will go down in history along with games like this, though I honestly wish it wouldn't.
Oh wait, it can: http://www.ourcourts.org/play-games
I understand the purpose of the site, educating Americans on their country, (according to statistics Justice O'Connor cited, only 30% of the nation can state the three branches of the government), but a video game?
I have a feeling this will go down in history along with games like this, though I honestly wish it wouldn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
