Below are the 16 most recent journal entries recorded in Jeremy's LiveJournal:

Monday, February 6th, 2006
10:20 am	PIT 21 - 10 SEA What would have pissed me off most about the Seahawks' loss in the Super Bowl would have been if the national media didn't recognize that the Seahawks were the better team, and would have won, but for the missed opportunities and bad calls going to Steelers' way. They're recognizing this fact. Camp one: Seattle was robbed by the twelfth man in stripes. Camp two: Seattle didn't make the requisite plays down the stretch, and it cost them the game. Five questionable calls that doubtless added up to more than 11 points. 1. Offensive pass interference on D-Jack (4) 2. Holding against Pruitt on big punt return (3) 3. Roethlisberger touchdown (4) 4. Locklear holding (7) 5. Hasselbeck low block (7) If you believe all those point values, that's a 25-point swing by the refs. But not even I believe those point values. (1) No doubt about the four point swing in this tiny push off that should not draw a flag: should have been a touchdown; was a field goal. (2) No doubt about the three points on the holding call on the punt return: drive was stalled after 22 yards, which would have put us at the Pit. 24, but for the penalty. (3) I think Roethlisberger was in; however, I think the line judge made a bad call. Let me reconcile: initially, the line judge ran in like he was going to spot the ball; it was only after Roethlisberger moved the ball forward (after being down) that the official changed his call. Also, chances are the Steelers would have punched it in on 4th and inches, but it's possible that either Cowher would have elected to go for the tie, or that we would have stopped them on 4th. While four points is probably too much, given these considerations, it definitely affected the game, so we'll call it one point. (4) This was not a terrible call, but that does not mean that it should have been called. There is no doubt that this was a "hold," by the technical definition of the term; however, if you try to tell me that there weren't at least five more obvious holds on the Steelers that went uncalled, you're a dipshit. (Note: no holding penalties on the Steelers the entire game!) Because (a) this was actually a reasonable call (just unevenly called), and (b) the Hawks may not have scored a touchdown, we'll call it a three-point swing. (5) This was undoubtedly the worst call in the game. While the previous four calls were arguably correct, this one was egregious. Thankfully, it also had the smallest effect on the game as a whole. The only possible effect was that if the Steelers were on their own 42 instead of our 43, they might not have called that trick play. 15 yards make a big difference in football, and those 15 might have cost us a touchdown. Since there's no telling whether the Steelers would have scored, we'll call this two points. Even by a reasonable expected total, given the quality of the calls, and the potential for game alterations after the calls, the point swing on bad calls in the game was 13. The Steelers won by 11. Q.E.D. I fall short of calling this robbery, because robbery requires intent. The question is whether the refs were intentionally slanted toward the Steelers. They made a few bad calls; they missed a few calls they should have made; it just happened that all the breaks went the way of the Steelers. It's unfortunate coincidence, not design. The game was also affected by some poor plays on the part of the Hawks. Jerramy Stevens's four dropped passes. Hasselbeck's pass to nowhere. Two *potential* touchdown passes that fell incomplete because the receivers weren't looking for the ball (on blitzes, no less). A gaping hole in the defense on the second play of the second half. Poor contain on both of the gadget plays run by the Steelers (a team known for them). I fall in the overlap between the two camps. Refs did poorly; Hawks did poorly. Can't blame the refs for a poor performance. (Comment on this)
Monday, March 28th, 2005
4:49 pm	Reciprocation I have made an interesting discovery. As part of my constitutional law class, I was required to read the Articles of Confederation (the Constitution's predecessor, ratified in 1781). Article XI says, in relevant part, "Canada acceding to this Confederation, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union..." In other words, this was an invitation for Canada to join the United States, if the former chose to exercise that option. If only Canada would reciprocate. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Monday, March 14th, 2005
7:09 pm	Evolution From the obscure blog, SueAndNotU: __________ Monday, March 14, 2005 Just Wait Until We Ask Bob DISCLAIMER: I do not intend to spark an intelligent design v. evolution debate with the following snippet. Rather, I am merely adhering to the SueAndNotU editorial policy which requires me to post to this blog anything that makes me snort coffee through my nose. So, from an on-line chat at the Washington Post on the ID v. Evolution brouhaha: The Discovery Institute, which is ground zero for the intelligent design movement, gathered at last count the signatures of 356 scientists who question evolution. In response, the National Center for Science Education, which strongly defends the science of evolution, got 543 scientists named Steve to sign a defense of the theory. posted by Susan at 3:13 PM __________ I thought this was great, and worth sharing, for the same reasons cited by Sue. Current Mood: productive Current Music: Blue Jupiter, "Mr. Pinstripe Suit" (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, December 2nd, 2004
4:42 pm	Rathergate I received an article recently from a Republican friend (yes, I do have a few). It was by Peggy Noonan, a contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal, and the author of five books, her two most recent being "When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan" and "The Case Against Hillary Clinton." (I don't mention her first three, because they're not nearly as Republican-sounding.) Anyway... The Article ( My Thoughts ) (Comment on this)
10:58 am	Decemberween I don't know why, but I just got this song stuck in my head... ---------- I'm dressin' up like Santa Claus on Christmas As soon as I can get out on parole I'll hang out on your street Your kids I'd love to meet As soon as I get out of this rat hole The old folks now will sure be glad to see me 'Cause by now it's slipped their minds how much I stole Oh I'm dressin' up like Santa Clause on Christmas As soon as I can get out on parole. I'll be careful to be on my best behavior 'Cause the warden's watching everything I do Thank God he didn't see That fight in cell-block three Or I'd be stuck here 'til I'm ninety-two Just a few more questions from that nice committee And through those rusty gates I'll proudly stroll I'm dressin' up like Santa Claus on Christmas Just as soon as I can get out on parole. I'm anxious to be out among the living And I'm makin' up a list of folks to see Duded up in red and white Instead of these old stripes Just think of how surprised they're gonna be. Now I won't mind just slidin' down your chimney 'Cause I just spent fifteen years a-shovelin' coal Oh I'm dressin' up like Santa Claus on Christmas As soon as I can get out on parole Just as soon as I can get out on parole --Twisted Christmas Current Mood: mischievous Current Music: See above (Comment on this)
Monday, November 29th, 2004
11:08 am	Don't Get Me Wrong I have said before that I think all Republicans are either idiots or assholes. This is not entirely true. I believe there are many exceptions to this VERY general statement. I can totally understand being Republican, what I can't understand is voting for George W. Bush. I would thus like to amend my previous statement to say that everyone who voted for Bush II (especially in 2004, when they really knew what he was about) is either an idiot or an asshole. There still could be exceptions to this rule, but I would take significant convincing before I would admit any. The type of Republican I can understand is the fiscal conservative. This is the type that thinks the Democrats try to add too many federally run, national programs that just build up bureaucracy. Indeed, I have heard a federal policy-maker say that what he wants to do is make policy with Republicans, and spend with Democrats: Republicans are better at making efficient policies; Democrats are better at adequately funding them. A fiscal conservative wants a lower federal income tax, and less government spending; leave the making of policies affecting individuals within the states to the states or the individuals. Fine, I don't agree entirely, but I understand. HOWEVER... George W. Bush is not a fiscal conservative. Sure he has cut taxes, but he has increased government spending. Many of the programs that he has cut have been ones that even most conservatives think are necessary (education, health-care, social security). Despite these cuts, we have the biggest budget deficit of our history (because of increased spending in other areas, and a refusal to roll back the tax cuts to account for the increased spending). If you're a conservative, get back to the conservative values that caused the Republican takeover of the government in the mid-'90s. Remember the "Contract with America"? One of the many things it promised was a balanced budget. If you go back and look at that document (I haven't), my guess is you'll find that the current administration has not upheld the promises made by Newt Gingrich and his pals. Current Mood: discontent (Comment on this)
10:42 am	A Thought (or two) The media is totally killing our country right now. It has failed. Ever since 9/11 the media has feared that the Bush Administration would label it "unpatriotic" if it reported anything contrary to what the Administration told us was true. So when the Administration told us that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, the media reported it as though it was fact, without checking it. When Bush told us that John Kerry was a flip-flopper, the media did not report the nuances of Kerry's opinions, which show that he never flip-flopped. When Cheney told us that he sat as President of the Senate (his job) almost every Tuesday during the term, and never saw John Edwards there, the media didn't report the fact that Cheney only sat as President of the Senate on two Tuesdays during his entire four-year term, and indeed Edwards took his place at that position twice in his absence. Us liberals have to get this information from "liberal" weblogs (which point us to authoritative sites). Conservatives aren't going to look at "liberal" weblogs, or the authoritative sites to which they point; they are going to stick to mainstream media, and get bombarded with information that these lies are equally as true as what's coming from the other side. For fear of being labeled "liberal" the media has reported both sides equally, with no regard for who is LYING! The media is meant to be a filter for the people; it has been called the fourth branch of government, meant to check the actions of the other three, and keep them honest to the people (important note: freedom of the press was inserted into the First Amendment for a reason). Filter the crap that our politicians utter (and don't get me wrong, it comes from both sides), and report the truth. This "unpatriotic" rhetoric that has been coming from the Right has really pissed me off. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." --Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican President) Current Mood: aggravated (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, November 28th, 2004
1:06 pm	Sorry, had to Dear President Bush: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them... 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 17th, 2004
11:19 am	Quote of the Day "So tell me, are you 'involved,' or are you 'committed'? Let me give you an example. When you eat eggs and bacon for breakfast, the chicken is 'involved,' and the pig is 'committed.'" (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, November 7th, 2004
5:31 pm	Suspension of Disbelief Source: exit polls. Vote by church attendance: Never (15%): Bush 36% - 62% Kerry A few times a year (28%): Bush 45% - 54% Kerry Monthly (14%): Bush 50% - 49% Kerry Weekly (26%): Bush 58% - 41% Kerry More than weekly (16%): Bush 64% - 35% Kerry This is quite possibly the strongest correlation seen in this election. Why does it work like this? Is it because Bush's policies are more Christian than Kerry's? I'm skeptical. Maybe on obvious issues like abortion and homosexuality. The problem is that the "Christian" stance on these issues requires stomping on the personal freedoms of two large subsections of the population. (I wouldn't call that Christian, per se.) I have said before that I think, as a general rule, Democratic policies tend to be more in line with biblical teachings than Republican (in terms of their foundational theories, if not actual letter). Is it because Bush is more Christian than Kerry? Dubious at best. Bush might wear it on his shoulder a little more. Should he? Bush is Protestant. Don't Protestants generally feel that religion is supposed to be all about a personal relationship with God? One would think the Catholic would be the one with it on his shoulder. Or is it because trusting the Bush administration and being extremely religious require some of the same qualities? One of these qualities might be the ability to suspend disbelief. Perhaps the biggest loser in this election (aside from Kerry) has been truth. The Bush administration has made a pattern of silencing people both within and without the administration who have attempted to shed a truthful light on its policies. Believing the administration, in the presence of all of the evidence to the contrary, is much like believing that homosexuality is a choice, that evolution is "junk science," that anyone who doesn't believe what you do is just plain wrong. It is suspension of disbelief that allows both Bushism, and religious extremism to flourish. (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, November 4th, 2004
4:44 pm	RE: Post-Election Scribbling This was my response to that piece by Mr. Weber. ---------- Keep in mind that the majority of America is neither as well educated, nor as well informed as you are. My opinion for quite a while has been that all Republicans are either idiots or assholes. Now I think it's really that only 30% of them are assholes; 70% are idiots. One can think of a number of different things that, if you were misinformed about any one of them, you might misplace your vote. If you're misinformed about more than one, boy do you have issues. (I'm drawing my evidence from two sources: the exit polls conducted for CNN, and the PIPA Report.) (1) You don't understand the workings of our laws and government. 22% of the country said that the #1 issue affecting their vote was "moral values." This, combined with confusion #2--you don't understand that Republicans are no more in line with your moral values than are Democrats--will sway your vote in favor of Mr. Bush. (80% of the people who chose this as their #1 issue voted for Bush.) Our country was founded on separation of church and state; if a religious person casts his vote in a certain way because a candidate is specifically legislating religious values, then they are casting a vote against the foundations of our country. Notice that even though Kerry is a Catholic, he only got 47% of the Catholic vote. Do they all think he's a bad Catholic? Bush, on the other hand was born Episcopalian, later joined the Presbyterian Church, and is now a Methodist (talk about flip-flopping). (It's also worth noticing that the more often you went to church, the more likely you were to vote for Bush.) Also note that Kerry got 74% of the Jewish vote. (Is it something about the New Testament?) Treat others as you would like to be treated. Love thy neighbor. Sheep go to heaven; the meek shall inherit the Earth. Aren't these all religious values? Don't Democratic policies embody these more so than do Republican? Republicans have somehow managed to gain a monopoly on (the Christian) God in politics. (3) You simply don't understand what the President's views on important issues are. See the PIPA Report for this one. Download the findings PDF, and scroll to the chart at the bottom. Bush has managed to confuse people into voting for him. Combine this with #4. (4) You think Kerry is a flip-flopper. 17% of voters said that the most important quality in a president is taking a clear stand on an issue; only 20% of those people voted for Kerry. Also, 56% of voters think Kerry mostly says what "people want to hear" rather than what "he believes." Not surprisingly, they voted 84% for Bush. This was one of my biggest beefs with the media, pertaining to the Bush campaign. It only takes 2 seconds to call Kerry a flip-flopper; it takes about 30 seconds to explain why he isn't. Even if the media gives the two parties equal air-time, the people hear flip-flopper 15 times for every one time they have it explained to them why he isn't. But the parties don't get equal time, because the media likes sound-bytes; a black-and-white opinion is much easier stated in a sound-byte than a nuanced opinion. No matter how eggregiously erroneous the lie is, people will believe it if they hear it enough, sans rebuttal. (5) You think the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism. 55% of the electorate was confused about this. 81% of them voted for Bush. It's not, people!!! Even the Bush adminstration now admits that there were no concrete connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. (They're just claiming they never said there were.) (6) You think the Iraq war is going well. 44% had this view. (I think it's wrong, but I don't have enough information to know for sure; it's a little subjective anyway.) 90% of people with this view voted for Bush. If you look at 5 and 6 together, you find that at least 7% of people think it was part of terrorism and it's going badly. I hope they're part of the 41% who think we're less safe from terrorism than we were four years ago. (7) You think the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy. 41% of the country had this view. 92% of them voted for Bush. This is arguable, and you can find economists going both ways; however, my economic training suggests to me that it's wrong! Tax cuts are a shot in the arm for the economy... literally. Boy does it wake you up if you're slumbering, but then you realize "holy shit, I just got shot in the arm," and you faint. The fact is that a tax increase of $x, combined with a jump in government spending of $x, boosts the economy just as much as a tax cut of $x, with no change in governemnt spending. If you do the fiscally responsible thing, and decrease government spending by $x, the benefit of the tax cut is negated. Granted, if you give people a tax cut of $x and INCREASE government spending, then you see a huge short-run economic boost; but THIS IS FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE (note the "shot in the arm" passage above). This is why socialism works well on paper. It doesn't work in the real world because of human nature (I'll only work hard if I see benefit). Taxes are positive (as long as they are properly appropriated, which is a separate issue entirely); they must be limited by the government such that the human nature issue doesn't outweigh the benefit. All of these confusions combine to make 49% of the population think the country is going in the right direction. 89% of those people voted for Bush. I'll bet if everyone stopped listening to Bush propaganda (which is difficult, because the media picks it up), and took the time to figure out what was actually going on, this number would be way less than 49%. For a little more on the Bush propaganda machine, see this article. The thing that Krugman says about the Bush budget is FRIGHTENING! The moral of this story: Don't be scared OF your neighbors (except the ones in Oklahoma); be scared FOR them. Most of them are idiots, not assholes; they've been duped. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
4:25 pm	Post-Election Scribbling This is a little diatribe that my ex-roommate sent me in response to our most recent national tragedy. No longer do we fear repercussions from 9/11; now we are fearing what may happen after 11/2. ----------(slight editing, apologies to Mr. Weber) FOREWORD: I am over dramatic, even if I try not to be. I am hurt, and I do seek redress of the injustices committed against me by my fellow country men. I do want a recount, a recall, a re-election. But I don’t get what I want, and that is as it should be. This country has rules, and I believe they were followed--god help us--so I will play by those rules. This is my free speech, totally biased and completely opinionated. It’s not written to be incendiary, though certainly anyone who wishes to could misconstrue it as such. Just like my ballot, this brief essay will make no difference and go virtually unheard and unheralded as it spirals rapidly into oblivion. It will burn fast, but unlike the adage, not brightly. Read this at your own risk, at your own speed, and in your own way. My America by Ryan Weber November 3, 2004 I really am devastated by the Bush presidential victory. It's not just about the candidates; I really feel that this country is rapidly headed down an ideological road that I am diametrically opposed to, and--in the wake of this last Bush majority--I find myself wondering if I even belong in this country any more. It's basically because I'm young, I mean, older people realize that the country shifts, and only by being here throughout are they able to be in the majority sometimes and the minority others, but the damage I feel has been done to the country in the past four years, and the potential for further damage in the next four years with the "mandate" this election has given the current administration, makes me feel like calling myself an American is almost hypocritical. I find that as I see everything that my america stands for being flushed down the tubes, I am becoming more and more patriotic for a country that is progressively less and less my America. This isn't even disillusionment; it's not even disappointment. I feel betrayed, but not to the point of leveling guilt. America is not in the wrong here, the majority has spoken. Apparently most Americans want America to stand for international arrogance and aggression as well as favoritism and inequality at home. That's not the America I want to claim as my own, that's not the America I want to live in. So am I unamerican? I've never been one to get too tied up in politics; I've never been much of a patriot; but as I watch my country being taken over by a majority of my neighbors that I fundamentally disagree with, I can't tell if I should be outraged in defiance, or complacent in defeat. I mean, people are dying in the name of America, and I don't mean our 1000+ soldiers. Something like 100,000 civilians in Iraq have been killed in the name of "America," but was that in my name too? By association, I suppose I must accept that it was. As one of my former classmates remarked while watching the invasion of Iraq last year, "There, that one: my tax dollars paid for that missile." I'll probably get over this in a few weeks, but the truth is that four years ago everyone calmed themselves with the phrase, "How bad could it be? I mean, it's just politics..." but looking back over those past four years, it's been horrible, and the greatest villain has not been a Saudi. If you had told me four years ago about the atrocities that my America would commit against our own allies, our enemies, and our own children in America, I'm not sure I could have believed you. I'm not sure that I could have accepted that my America would be guilty of such crimes. And now, with all of that to reflect on, my America has knowingly and purposefully sent a message to George Bush and the world that we approve of those actions. A vote for bush was a vote for continued international unilateral military action, a vote for more testing and less teaching in our schools, and a vote for the intentional infraction upon the rights of America’s men and women. Over 59 million people cast that vote, and the only thing I can be proud of at this hour is that I was not one of them. I suppose I'll just keep being bitter and sarcastic, it's the only way I know of to deal with the serious worries I have about what havoc the next four years could create, not for the next four years, nor even for the next decade. In this second term the president will be capable of affecting changes that will be irreversible for the next twenty years or longer. For the majority of my life, I will live either directly under the reign or under the influence of George W. Bush. My children will be Bush babies, living in a society of fear and prejudice unlike anything since the Cold War, and even then only at its hottest moments. Consider this, if Bush were placed in the shoes of Kennedy, would any text books survive to label it the Cuban Missile Crisis? These are serious issues, and a man who is supported by the distant masses while intimate members of his own cabinet speak out against his radical views is not who we need confronting them. As a point of note, "radical" is actually a political science term for an individual who is too far left to be considered "liberal." There is a proper label for George W. Bush, who is a believer in the supreme right of his country above all others, the power of the state to restrict the rights of the people, and the belief that his faith should be the guiding principle of the land. He is too far right to be considered "conservative." While it does carry additional historical invectives that I wish to bypass, the correct terminology for Mr. Bush is "fascist," and while I think it is unfair to make the comparison between Bush and the Nazis, or any similar extrapolation, it is interesting that this "moral majority" is ready to strip the rights of homosexuals, strip the rights of non-citizens (thanks patriot act), and support foreign wars of aggression. The parallels are not a manipulation of the facts, we simply haven't begun gassing anyone yet, nor will we. Because my America is not full of Nazis, but it is full of people who are reacting in the same ways to the same situations. Bad economy? Blame someone else; start a war to boost production industries. Scared of immigrants and non-citizens? Good, they probably are here to kill you. Do you HATE someone because they're different than you? That's ok; our religion says they’re evil so long as they are not like us. This doesn’t even cover a quarter of what I want to say to my America on November 3, 2004. Four years ago, we made a mistake, and I was hoping to spend today embracing my America as we commiserated about how bad the past four years were, and how glad we were that we could finally correct our mistake. Instead, I find that my America is even more eager to make the same mistake again, this time with full knowledge of the death, fear, and hate for which that vote stands. My America is gone, I hope not dead, and the New America is terrifying. I tremble in my home and what I’m afraid of is not Al Qaieda, Weapons of Mass Destruction, flu vaccine shortages, gang violence, the draft, or even the psychopath that I believe George W. Bush to be. I’m afraid of my neighbors. This twisted and evil world is what they wanted for themselves and their children, and there is no escape. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004
9:44 am	democrazy Do you think it's any coincidence that Democrats are the ones working voter protection at the polls around the country? It's because Democrats are scared shitless that Republicans will pull something like they did in 2000--winning the election with a combination of fraud, and Reagan and Bush I appointees on the Supreme Court. Apparently 90% of Republicans believe this election will be fair, while only 20% of Democrats agree. Is this because Democrats are too cynical? Are Democrats so pessimistic about Kerry's chances in this election that they are already preparing to yell and scream lest he lose? Or does the responsibility for this disparity fall on the other side... Have Republicans turned a blind eye to the atrocities that took place in Florida in 2000? Imagine the circumstances of the 2000 Florida election happened in a developing nation (you know, one of those ones with a nacent democracy, that we feel it is our duty to protect) * * * A strong leader (prime minister) of a newly democratic, African nation is ousted in a peaceful democratic election. This leader is also the former head of the intelligence bureau in the country. (Needless to say, the man has connections.) Years later, his son, Abujanga, runs for prime minister. The election is close, and it turns on the outcome of a small, though relatively populous province. It just so happens that the head executive of this province is Abujanga's brother. The person in charge of running the elections in this province is also Abujanga's chief campaign officer in the region. Tens of thousands (a conservative estimate) of white voters (a minority, 90% of whom voted for Abujanga's opponent) are disenfranchised through admittedly wrongful means. Abujanga wins the election in this province by a tiny number of votes, and thus takes over as prime minister. * * * Now... Don't you think the UN, led by the US, would be all over that country in about ten seconds, demanding a new election, because of the fraud committed to win the previous one? (And I'm ignoring the fact that Abujanga's father and his colleague had appointed most of the judges who decided that there would not be a recount of the votes.) If you want to know exactly how appalling I think this administration has been, read anything written by Paul Krugman (professor of economics at Princeton). Here's a good place to start. Current Mood: anxious (Comment on this)
Thursday, October 28th, 2004
5:35 pm	An Issue Affecting YOU! The following are excerpts from things that I previously posted on the Livejournals of others. You will find that they involve a single issue, the Amendment to ban gay marriage proposed by GW Bush. At the time, they were news; I find it timely to post them again, because this is one issue (only one, of many) that is affecting my decision on Tuesday. The only one of the views established here that I would revise is when I mention that banning gay marriage would be fine with me if civil unions had identical rights. It has since been pointed out to me that this supports a "separate-but-equal" doctrine, and we saw how well that worked during the civil rights movement in the middle of the previous century. I'll start with my analysis of previous constitutional Amendments, and move from there. ---------- The purposes of the several amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America: 1. (1790) Limitation on the federal government; removal of discrimination; enunciation of a right of the people. 2. (1790) Enunciation of a right of the people. 3. (1790) Limitation on the federal government. 4. (1790) Enunciation of a right of the people; limitation on the federal government. 5. (1790) Limitation on the federal government; enunciation of a right of the people. 6. (1790) Enunciation of a right of the people. 7. (1790) Enunciation of a right of the people. 8. (1790) Limitation on the federal government; enunciation of a right of the people. 9. (1790) Clarification of constitutional spirit. 10. (1790) Limitation on the federal government. 11. (1798) Limitation on the federal government; clarification of constitutional spirit. 12. (1804) Clarification of constitutional spirit. 13. (1865) Removal of discrimination; enunciation of a right of the people. 14. (1868) Removal of discrimination; clarification of constitutional spirit; limitation on the federal government. 15. (1870) Removal of discrimination. 16. (1913) Clarification of constitutional spirit. 17. (1913) Clarification of constitutional spirit. 18. (1919) Regulation of morality. 19. (1920) Removal of discrimination. 20. (1933) Clarification of constitutional spirit. 21. (1933) Repeal of previous regulation of morality. 22. (1951) Clarification of constitutional spirit. 23. (1961) Clarification of constitutional spirit; removal of discrimination. 24. (1964) Removal of discrimination. 25. (1967) Clarification of constitutional spirit. 26. (1971) Removal of discrimination; clarification of constitutional spirit. 27. (1992) Clarification of constitutional spirit. 28? (2005?) Addition of discrimination; regulation of morality; expansion of federal government. Please note: The amendment that is proposed by our current president is the antithesis of every other constitutional amendment. The only part of it that does not completely contrast with the rest of the Constitution and its amendments is the regulation of morality; oh, but look, the only previous regulation of morality was repealed just 14 years later. This amendment clearly does not belong in the Constitution, and any person who thinks it does should not be the President of our great nation! 2/24/04, 11:30 PM http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/politics/24CND-GAY.html I think that article deserves to be picked apart… "'The voice of the people must be heard,' Mr. Bush said..." The voice of which people? When did the United States of America switch from a republican (lowercase r) democracy to tyranny of the majority (assuming the majority really believes this)? "It would then have to be approved by at least three-fourths of the state legislatures, or 38, to become part of the Constitution." (Note the capitol C.) This is scary, because 38 states currently have marriage in the books as specifically between a man and a woman. What we need are more "activist judges." "'We are delighted the president has stepped forward... to energize and organize those who will work diligently to ensure that marriage remains an institution between one man and one woman,' said Jay Sekulow..." a guy who claims to be a specialist in constitutional law. If you're a specialist in constitutional law, you should know that this has NO BUSINESS being written into the Constitution! "Bush insisted today that the amendment he favored would not undermine tolerance and respect for all individuals..." No, it won't undermine tolerance and respect for ALL individuals, just homosexual individuals and those who care about them. "Discrimination written into law... codification of hatred..." This second one is a little more extreme than I'd go; I'm not sure if it's hatred as much as ignorance. But then again, if any president should go down in history as having codified ignorance into the Constitution, it would be Dubya. Ah, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act: this issue was brought to the forefront of my consciousness after going to a rally in Seattle after the Texas anti-sodomy laws were struck down by the US Supreme Court. Homosexuals having sex is consistent with our Constitution; allowing them to get married is not. I find this interesting. How about you moral people in the crowd (According to Bush, I am immoral and unpatriotic. [I opposed the war in Iraq, too!]), what do you think about, to quote a sign held up at the rally, "sex before marriage?" According to Mr. Bush, marriage is "one of our most basic social institutions." It seems abundantly clear to me that we ought to exclude a fairly large subgroup of society from participating in our basic social institutions. (Note the fact that my tongue is firmly lodged in my cheek... ouch.) "Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage" from those horrible homosexuals, because they're not really people anyway (ouch). "Same-sex marriage, civil unions [and] domestic partnership [are] all part of a carefully calculated campaign to provide the appearance of normalcy to homosexual behavior... It will be unmasked and defeated and President Bush's leadership on this issue will make the difference." Did I say something about ignorance before? This might be leaning away from that towards downright bigotry, but you'd expect that from a reverend (ouch). "Amending the Constitution to deny [gays and lesbians] the same rights we all take for granted just isn't very American." Word. Take your "unpatriotic" rhetoric and stick it where the sun don't shine. (I apologize for my brief slip into colloquialism.) From a Republican: "The president would have been better today discussing an attack on infidelity and divorce than on gay and lesbian families." Because THAT is what is ruining the sanctity of the institution of marriage: not homosexual couples getting married, but heterosexual couples who go into marriages without taking it seriously! Wow, some Republicans have brains. "Let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency." All we have left are strong convictions; you ended the other three when you appointed John Ashcroft as Attorney General. All sarcasm and prodding (mmm... prodding) aside, like John Kerry said, this is really a political move by the inCUMbent. There are clearly two groups that Bush is hoping make up the majority of the voting populous: (1) the people who think being homosexual is immoral, and have no problem discriminating against such people; (2) those who have no problem with homosexuality, but believe that marriage ought to remain a union between a man and a woman, but don't realize the seriousness of a constitutional amendment. If the majority of our country is in one of these two groups, I'm sad; however, I'm worried that it might be. Personally, I have no problem with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, provided one thing: that amendment MUST be worded such that it leaves no doubt that homosexual (and heterosexual) civil unions shall be granted the SAME legal rights as heterosexual marriages. Let them have their word, "marriage." What is it? It's a definitional thing: you can go ahead and define marriage as a union between a man and a woman so long as there is left no doubt that discrimination shall not be tolerated. Until it is possible to give these civil unions identical rights to marriages, it is impossible to ban gay marriage. This is blatant discrimination, and would be an embarrassment to the Constitution of the United States of America. -Jeremy Lazowska 2/25/04, 11:30 AM "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Do you know where this comes from? Do you think it is a coincidence that the word "religion" appears nowhere in the main body of the Constitution? That the words "under God" were not in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1950? It is because religion was not supposed to be an issue in this country. The reason that word shows up in a few of the amendments (specifically the first), is that people thought they could still persecute based on religion because the Constitution didn't expressly forbid them to. So they made it explicit. The reason the Protestants came to America was to escape the religious intolerance they were facing in Europe. Do you think they were really so hypocritical that they would claim religious freedom only for their religion. Doesn't that entirely defeat the purpose of including that clause? Imagine these concepts: freedom of speech, only if you say what the government wants you to; right to bear arms, only if you never plan to use them; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, unless the government REALLY wants to search your house. One could defeat the entire Bill of Rights with statements such as "freedom of religion, as long as you're Protestant." In order to avoid making this an excessively long rant, I'd like to point folks to two things. (1) John Kerry's view on the subject: he is an extremely religious person, who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman; however, he realizes that this is an issue for (a) the states and (b) individual churches to decide--not the federal government; if one reads the Constitution, one realizes that the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction on this issue (this is why an amendment is the only way to accomplish what Bush wants). (2) Note my post/diatribe in response to a New York Times article that is referenced on my girlfriend's livejournal (sytske). -Jeremy Lazowska 2/25/04, 2:30 PM Gavin Newsome's family is Roman Catholic. Not only might this decision mess up his political career, but it may also cut some ties in his family. The Constitution was originally a religious document... sure... I think that claim is easily disputable, but we'll go with it for now. It also originally didn't allow black people the right to vote (hell, black people weren't even people). In the body of the Constitution, black people were referred to as "Negros," and, for federal purposes, counted as 3/5 of a person (simply so the South could have more Representatives in the House). Women weren't allowed to vote either, but let's not get started on that. The point is that the Constitution is a flexible document; it changes with the times. It was originally discriminatory towards a number of groups; it has gradually, through amendment (and changing interpretations), moved away from that, toward a world where ignorance is a thing of the past. Now, for the first time, an amendment is proposed to insert discrimination and ignorance into the Constitution where it didn't used to be. Let's just take one more giant leap backward, shall we? -Jeremy Current Mood: worried (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, June 17th, 2004
7:07 pm	Italy, etc... Ciao from Firenze! Last time I updated my journal was ages ago. (I don't even remember when it was.) Here's what's been happening in the last week or so. 1) I've been in Italy with Jessica for about four days now. We had a few hours to walk around London before catching our flight here; we spent a day in Rome checking out the sites, and preparing for the rest of our trip; we stopped in at Pisa for a few hours, mostly to check out the tower (though the church next to the tower is actually a lot cooler than the tower itself, they just didn't screw it up, so it's not as famous). Now we're in Florence, which is totally cool. We got here last night, just in time to watch the sun set from the Ponte Vecchio (totally cool!). For more info on this trip, see Jessica's livejournal (sytske). 2) For those of you who don't already know (i.e. my Trinity pals): I rock! I was admitted off of the waiting list at the University of Washington law school, so I'll be spending my next three years (and who knows how much longer) in Seattle! This also means I'll have a law school study buddy in law school, Laura Cunningham (friend from high school). And at least for a year I'll have a girl friend near by (rock!). So life is good, and I'm in Italy, which is also good. If you send me any e-mail during my two-week European vacation, I'll be responding when I get home. Later, kids! (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, April 19th, 2004
1:21 am	inaugural post your mom ______________________ (insert insult here) (7 Comments |Comment on this)