OT: Students complain about liberal faculty bias ...

[Bloomfield]

I am NOT saying, "if you don't like go somewhere else", though that seems to be the inference from Bloomfield. Ugh to you too for trying to paint the Weekster into such a corner. And I am not living off the system either. Talk about getting personal, Bloomfield.

Touchy, touchy. And I am engaging and discussing with Pthou, you guys. He makes statements, I think about em and respond. Don't know what your problem is. And I accept that he feels that the things he likes about us are disappearing. I feel the same way for different reasons.

Yes, I am touchy on this particular point. Probably I overreact as a result, and let me apologize for getting personal. To me the inference of your question is clearly that as an immigrant to the US my opinion is worth less. I can either agree with each current administration, or shut up if I don't, or go back to where I came from. You were born here, and you don't have to let yourself be "asked" why you didn't leave during the horrors of the Clinton administration when you condemn Clinton for this or that. I wasn't born here and I have to let myself be asked such questions, at the peril of being a ninny. My opinion is worth less because of where I was born. What you are implying by asking that question is that my words have no merit on their own, because if someone who was American typed the same words that I might type, their argument would be taken at its face value while mine would not. As someone who believes in rational discourse, that is, on judging the argument on its merit an not on who made it, I am offended by that.

So sorry, Weekenders, but yes, I am touchy about this.

P.S.
On another level, I wonder about this implied notion that complaining about the government and elected officials is somehow un-American or undemocratic. It is the very essence of democracy, as has long been accepted in this country. In fact, the democratic right of complaining about administrations, governments, and officials is considered such a staple of free speech and democracy that you may do it in the USA, even in print, even if libellous, and even if you do it with actual malice. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

[The Weekenders]

Thanks for post, Bloo. But when did I ever say that Pthou's or your opinion is worth less than mine or other natives??? No lo comprendo. I feel more inclined to put up with it than leave, but if I had friends and family in another country, their economy was okay and the cheese and wine was magnifique, who knows?

I can see why you would feel more challenged and touchy as an immigrant TODAY. I thought further about asking Pthou the question then realized: he is experiencing a time in the US when, because of 9/11, native citizens are bound to be more patriotic, LESS rational or worldly, and feel more put upon to defend ourselves. If someone was to choose a time to live here and did not want to experience nationalism, this is not a good time. I truly don't know how long there will be a sense of threat and menace from Osama et al. Because this ain't a tv show, it might go on. And the ugly secret we all know is that Bush stays popular as long as we are engaged and well... sorta ...winning. I will never forget how GHWB had that 90% rating that plummeted in a year after pulling out of Iraq.

I know that Stout would add that the political/corporate brainwashing as well is factored in with the rise in nationalism. And I know that it scares those who are afraid of nationalism. Just trying to define conservative today in these posts has led me to reflect on just what is Bush's stripe of Republican or conservative? A rerun of Pat Buchanan guesting on Savage today had him using the term Populist Republican, which resonates to me regarding Bush's proposed amendment (say something that feels good to those who consider themselves conservative, but comfortable to stay vague about the implications of the "do something" approach of a lawmaker or executive, usually ascribed to more Leftist pols). Once again, not truly conservative but to Pthou, he is looking at a Prez that seems endorsed by conservatives and I can see how he would identify most as a group, even though NONE of us put people in boxes, nyuk.

Best wishes, Bloo and Pthou.

PS Editing in to add that yes, in these times of a sense of threat, the whole spectre of accused sedition rises where normally, free speech spouting is tolerated. Adams tried that with Alien and Sedition acts..He was a one-termer. Michael Moore, calling Bush a "deserter" yesterday, and other notables, like Natalie Maine,s brings the term to mind. Watch closely for scrutiny of John Kerry in 1971, when he joined Jane Fonda to accuse US GI's of horrific war crimes in Vietnam. Many vets will never forgive him, much less vote for him.

[ErikT]

Bloomy, I for one am happy to have you in this country We love ya, man.

Oh, and Pthouron, too!

[jim stone]

And, I thought about it a lot today, that "constitutional amendment" to make marriage between men and women only codified. I think that is populist nonsense on Bush's part, something for the dumber folk to feel good about it. I see it the same way I saw Hillary and others demanding an end to the Electoral College back in 2000. Disingenuous. Really, how likely would such an amendment ever really be?

Further, it could be argued that to a conservative, it might be up to the individual states to make those decisions, not Big Mammy from DC.

Just a note on this. Yes, it's political posturing. Bush was loathe
to get into it but apparently thinks it will help him more than hurt.
Cheney has said his view is that the matter should indeed
be left to the states. The difficulty, though, is that, as things
are going, if BM in Washington doesn't decide it, the states
won't either; it will be decided by the courts.
Arguably the best hope for states having real input is
voting on a constitutinal amendment. The courts
really have buggered this one. Best

[Bloomfield]

The difficulty, though, is that, as things
are going, if BM in Washington doesn't decide it, the states
won't either; it will be decided by the courts.
Arguably the best hope for states having real input is
voting on a constitutinal amendment. The courts
really have buggered this one. Best

We are talking about the states here, like the state of Texas, who keeps anti-sodomy laws on its books in the 1990s, and enforces them against consenting adults in the privacy of their home? I am not so sure that sort of thing looks any better to me than BM in Washington. But I am sure that Texas buggered that one up, not the courts.

PS.
Thanks, Erik.

[jim stone]

The difficulty, though, is that, as things
are going, if BM in Washington doesn't decide it, the states
won't either; it will be decided by the courts.
Arguably the best hope for states having real input is
voting on a constitutinal amendment. The courts
really have buggered this one. Best

We are talking about the states here, like the state of Texas, who keeps anti-sodomy laws on its books in the 1990s, and enforces them against consenting adults in the privacy of their home? I am not so sure that sort of thing looks any better to me than BM in Washington. But I am sure that Texas buggered that one up, not the courts.

PS.
Thanks, Erik.

I don't understand how your post engages mine.
Will you explain? Best

[Bloomfield]

The difficulty, though, is that, as things
are going, if BM in Washington doesn't decide it, the states
won't either; it will be decided by the courts.
Arguably the best hope for states having real input is
voting on a constitutinal amendment. The courts
really have buggered this one. Best

We are talking about the states here, like the state of Texas, who keeps anti-sodomy laws on its books in the 1990s, and enforces them against consenting adults in the privacy of their home? I am not so sure that sort of thing looks any better to me than BM in Washington. But I am sure that Texas buggered that one up, not the courts.

PS.
Thanks, Erik.

I don't understand how your post engages mine.
Will you explain? Best

I was assuming that you were talking about Lawrence v. Texas when you stated that "the courts have really buggered this one" as I recall that you disapprove of the way that was decided. My opinion is whatever blame you might wish to attach to that decision, you should attach to the State of Texas. But perhaps you where thinking of something else that the courts buggered up.

[Tres]

And, I thought about it a lot today, that "constitutional amendment" to make marriage between men and women only codified. I think that is populist nonsense on Bush's part, something for the dumber folk to feel good about it. I see it the same way I saw Hillary and others demanding an end to the Electoral College back in 2000. Disingenuous. Really, how likely would such an amendment ever really be?

Further, it could be argued that to a conservative, it might be up to the individual states to make those decisions, not Big Mammy from DC.

I agree that a constitutional amendment is a bad idea. As a lawyer, my standard position is opposition to more laws, whatever their nature. However, the gay marriage issue seems to have hit a nerve and I would give it a better chance certainly that the continuously proposed flag burning amendment which really is nothing more than political blustering IMHO.

However, I'm not sure individual states can regulate this issue without some sort of constitutional amendment as the Full Faith and Credit Clause would force other states to accpt gay marriages sanctioned by other states. So, in reality, it appears that the only way to stop gay marriage is a federal constitutional amendment, which is why I think this issue has some legs.

Tres

[Tres]

On another level, I wonder about this implied notion that complaining about the government and elected officials is somehow un-American or undemocratic. It is the very essence of democracy, as has long been accepted in this country. In fact, the democratic right of complaining about administrations, governments, and officials is considered such a staple of free speech and democracy that you may do it in the USA, even in print, even if libellous, and even if you do it with actual malice. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Not trying to butt into this issue, but I agree that the ability to express dissent is one thing that makes this country great, and obviously is a right protected by our constitution. However, I do confess my annoyance at those who drive shiney new cars, wear expensive designer clothes, eat out at fancy restaurants, and who basically do not want for any material good, who loudly express disgust with the country and who seem to think this is the worst Country in the history of the world and to blame for all the world's ills. Sure they have a right to say that, but if they really think this country is so bad, why don't they give all their money to the poor or, better yet, move to the marxist heaven of China or Cuba and find out what life there really is like compared to the evil USA? I would never tell them they have to leave but, at some point, one should put their money where their mouth is.

Tres

[jim stone]

We are talking about the states here, like the state of Texas, who keeps anti-sodomy laws on its books in the 1990s, and enforces them against consenting adults in the privacy of their home? I am not so sure that sort of thing looks any better to me than BM in Washington. But I am sure that Texas buggered that one up, not the courts.

PS.
Thanks, Erik.

I don't understand how your post engages mine.
Will you explain? Best

I was assuming that you were talking about Lawrence v. Texas when you stated that "the courts have really buggered this one" as I recall that you disapprove of the way that was decided. My opinion is whatever blame you might wish to attach to that decision, you should attach to the State of Texas. But perhaps you where thinking of something else that the courts buggered up.

We're slightly askew, but not entirely. The Court observed in Lawrence
that anti-sodomy statutes are withering on the vine, they
remain in only six states, I believe, where they're virtually
never enforced.
The enforcement in Texas--an idiotic mistake, I agree--
was a fluke; the police entered the home to investigate
a weapons charge, I believe, found these fellas having
at it, and charged them with the misdemanor. The truth is that
Texas has little interest in 'enforcing these laws
between consenting adults in the privacy of
their home.' The laws are practically unenforceable,
and this was a fluke.

It would have been better for the cause
of gay marriage for the court to stand aside and
let the few remaining statutes die a legislative death, especially as there
was already a Court ruling on the issue.
The problem is that Lawrence is based on reasoning so expansive and frightening
that it created the appearance that the
Court was about to impose gay marriage (and heaven
knows what else)
on the nation. Also the Court's becoming involved
in this scenario--the archaic virtually unenforceable
law that is generally being repealed legislatively--
suggests a social agenda, as earlier cases of this
sort resulted in some remarkably intrusive
rulings. The move for a Constitutional
Amendment is a response to this,
partly because it's the best hope of
the people having any meaningful input at all.

Also state supreme courts are getting involved,
as in Massachusetts, where, on slender
reasoning, the court has ruled that the state
must legalize gay marriage. This is widely
perceived as judicial arrogance.

From a conservative perspective, gay marriage
is a matter the people in the states ought to decide,
given that the Constitution and state
constitutions are generally silent about it.
And that process, proceeding quietly
and without sudden alarms ('The Jurists
are Coming!') was, I thought, the
best hope of gay marriage getting
passed. Also the best hope of it's getting
passed in a way that people opposed felt they at least
had put in their two cents, and well, it's
a democracy, we lost, so let's get on with things.
It now appears that a constitutional
amendment may be the only way
the people will have a crack at deciding
the issue; there is justifiable fear
that the alternative is that gay marriage
will be imposed by Courts, not by the states.
So I think the cause of gay marriage
has been harmed by the courts.

I agree, of course, that the Texas anti-sodomy
law was ridiculous and that the police who
charged these guys behaved
idiotically. Best

[Walden]

I agree, of course, that the Texas anti-sodomy
law was ridiculous

I don't, but I'm probably one of the "dumber folk."

[jim stone]

I don't think you're dumb, but, at the very least,
the law is unenforceable.

If you look at the most divisive and legally
dubious Court rulings,
they often flow from archaic, unenforceable
laws that are being repealed (or just ossifying
on the books). The people who originated the
case sometimes had to work hard to get
arrested, nobody caring.

So in Griswold v. Connecticutt, an archaic and unenforceable law
prohibiting the dissemination and use of
contraceptive devices became the basis for the
Court's ruling that there is a Constitutional
right of privacy, which, guess what, quickly
turned out to be so broad that it
was the basis for striking down every abortion
statute in America. The people who brought the
case to the court saw it as an opportunity to
further their agenda, they went to considerable
lengths to get arrested, and the law was repealed
by the state legislature on the day the Court
ruled it was unconstitutional. The dissenters
on the Court observed that, while it was a very
silly and uneforceable law, the Constitution
didn't speak to the issue.

The Lawrence-Griswold scenario is a symptom
that the Court has a social agenda, and that
more may be coming. A great deal of legislative power
is liable to be taken from the people. Best

[elendil]

Jim wrote:

From a conservative perspective, gay marriage
is a matter the people in the states ought to decide,
given that the Constitution and state
constitutions are generally silent about it.

Wouldn't that simply be a "federalist" perspective? People use "conservative" in so many different senses.

Count me as dumb as Walden. Perhaps those "idiots" were enforcing a sensible public health measure. I recognize that, as Aquinas would maintain, in an imperfect world all immoral conduct ought not necessarily be criminalized and that these matters require fine degrees of prudential judgment. And I'm not really interested in rehearsing the arguments pro and con, but "idiot" seems too strong a word. It suggests a consensus that may not in fact exist.

[jim stone]

I just want to add, for the sake of accuracy, that
only one house of the bicameral Conn state legislature
voted to repeal the contraceptive ban
on the day the Court declared it unconstitutional;
the law was in the process of being repealed.

OK, 'idiotic' is my word. On the face of things unenforceable
laws are questionable. Anti-sodomy statutes typically
apply to heterosexual sex, too, and I find it hard
to believe that oral and anal intercourse between
married people, say, merits legal prohibition. And if we
frame the laws only in terms of homosexuals,
we stigmatize them, and I, at least, think that's
a big mistake. Best

[Lorenzo]

There are several questions a person, legislative body, council, or other decision making group, could ask when faced with a decision on sodomy related issues, whether it affects the privacy of one's home, in any relationship, or whether it's a public policy issue. But, one only needs to ask three basic questions to figure out if things like this--or just about anything related to personal health--is affordable, good/bad, right/wrong, etc.

1. Does it work?
2. Are there any harmful side effects?
3. Is it natural?

One can only hope that the advancement of education, in both mental, spiritual, physical, and emotional health, will yield a sane definition of what works, is harmful, or natural. Definitions in these kind of things are usually what seperate people.

Of course God-fearing people would need help from scripture to figure it out, so there's that too, if the authoritarian method is all one has. But even those authorities have to use some guideline, apart from some official fiat from their ultimate god-source. And even gods must have reasonable guidelines, right?