I feel like trying something different with this one. Let's go with free thought; I'll just put down whatever pops in my head.
My fan is getting obnoxiously loud. I should probably clean it.
Well, I have my fan on too much as it is. Why? Because I'm a smoker! Yay!
I would like to actually be done with cigarettes sooner rather than later. But I understand if people don't take this seriously since I continue to buy packs and smoke regularly.
Well I guess I'm on the smoking subject now. My mom's been smoking for most of her life. Tried quitting many times, but no success. Dad's mom used to smoke, and so did mom's dad (of course it's flipped..why not?). This fact can rear its head as a baseless justification for my habit - it runs in the family!
I have NO regrets about the can of Pabst I'm nursing here, however.
Speaking of having a brew, I have to step away for a moment.
Hey I'm back. While AFK (away from keyboard for the squares) I considered how I was starting a new paragraph for every thought. Now, finished with said considering, it's decided: the format shall continue. I believe it helps for organization and finality. When I hit "enter," the statement is complete and I shan't edit it. Deal.
You know what? I want a cigarette. Son of a...
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Threats to America (with links!)
Am I really supposed to believe that this country is somehow in danger, thanks to a "radical social agenda?" That's the sort of rhetoric people like Tony Perkins are using now that a federal judge has ruled that "Don't Ask, don't Tell" is unconstitutional. I don't know about you, but I find nothing "radical" about ensuring that all citizens of this country are guaranteed the same rights. Unless your definition of radical includes things like the 14th Amendment, instituted by those crazy socialists in 1868 (and some have discussed repealing this amendment, but that's a whole different story).
Let's take a look at that 14th Amendment. It's section 1 that concerns the issue here:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So tell me...how are gay people not citizens of the United States? And how does the institutionalized discrimination of policies such as DADT not constitute making or enforcing a law that abridges their "privileges or immunities"? Granted, this doesn't involve individual states making the laws, but I can't believe this amendment is intended to imply that the federal government can discriminate in such a manner while the states cannot.
This seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. We've come a long way as a nation regarding civil rights and equality. Let's take some more steps forward, shall we?
Let's take a look at that 14th Amendment. It's section 1 that concerns the issue here:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So tell me...how are gay people not citizens of the United States? And how does the institutionalized discrimination of policies such as DADT not constitute making or enforcing a law that abridges their "privileges or immunities"? Granted, this doesn't involve individual states making the laws, but I can't believe this amendment is intended to imply that the federal government can discriminate in such a manner while the states cannot.
This seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. We've come a long way as a nation regarding civil rights and equality. Let's take some more steps forward, shall we?
Friday, October 8, 2010
Debates
Preface: This blog will not only be about politics. That's simply the way it's gone so far.
I spend way too much time thinking about politics. Makes sense; I majored in the damn thing. People probably don't realize just how much of my day is spent reading and analyzing the news, the people, the philosophies. Thing is, I've tended not to get into many political discussions anymore. One of the things I took away from 4 and 1/2 years of political study was an extreme disenchantment with debate and discussion. More often than not, the debates went (and go) nowhere. No one was swayed. No one considered anything other than their deeply entrenched viewpoint. This wasn't always that case. Sometimes progress was made: getting other people to see your point of view, and opening yourself up to the other side too. It's hard to feel like you can reasonably follow through with a career in this, however, when you're just not interested in pointless bickering and posturing. "Yeah, wonderful. So I'm supposed to think your NOT a complete ass because you use impressive sounding words? Saying 'germane' (which isn't even that special!) 10 times in the space of one statement does not make me to listen to your half-baked, lifted-from-a-fucking-punk-band politics"
So I decided to give it a rest for a while after college. I still am unsure if I'll get back into poli-sci in some professional manner, but I'm working on being more open about it and less afraid of discussion. It's all a matter of being better prepared for dealing with people who ultimately should be of no surprise, and giving yourself the chance to be surprising at the same time.
I spend way too much time thinking about politics. Makes sense; I majored in the damn thing. People probably don't realize just how much of my day is spent reading and analyzing the news, the people, the philosophies. Thing is, I've tended not to get into many political discussions anymore. One of the things I took away from 4 and 1/2 years of political study was an extreme disenchantment with debate and discussion. More often than not, the debates went (and go) nowhere. No one was swayed. No one considered anything other than their deeply entrenched viewpoint. This wasn't always that case. Sometimes progress was made: getting other people to see your point of view, and opening yourself up to the other side too. It's hard to feel like you can reasonably follow through with a career in this, however, when you're just not interested in pointless bickering and posturing. "Yeah, wonderful. So I'm supposed to think your NOT a complete ass because you use impressive sounding words? Saying 'germane' (which isn't even that special!) 10 times in the space of one statement does not make me to listen to your half-baked, lifted-from-a-fucking-punk-band politics"
So I decided to give it a rest for a while after college. I still am unsure if I'll get back into poli-sci in some professional manner, but I'm working on being more open about it and less afraid of discussion. It's all a matter of being better prepared for dealing with people who ultimately should be of no surprise, and giving yourself the chance to be surprising at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)