"Michael's Journal"
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Below are the 10 most recent journal entries recorded in the "makeminemona" journal:[<< Previous 10 entries]
|
10:53 am
[Link] |
Something everyone should read...
Ten examples of right-wing hypocrisy
01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, August 14, 2005
A PHOTOGRAPHIC negative shows the same image as the photo, though you might not recognize it at first. The right wing (RW) has a habit of pointing out the double standards of the left, yet it shows itself to be hypocritical in its rhetoric. It is hypocritical not only in its positions, but also in its accusations of hypocrisy. Here are 10 examples.
10. The Republican Congress was elected in 1994 on a platform of fiscal discipline in the face of Clinton deficits. In three years, over three votes, the Balanced Budget Amendment enjoyed nearly unanimous Republican support, despite opponents' arguments on the need to run deficits in war. Now we are running deficits, and the RW won't admit that it may have been wrong. It instead shifts the argument to deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product. "Deficit shmeficit," it says.
9. A favorite scapegoat of the RW since Sept. 11, 2001, has been Bill Clinton. "Asleep at the wheel for eight years" is the oft-heard phrase. Yet the RW led the opposition in 1995 when, after the Oklahoma City bombing, he blocked traffic in front of the White House and proposed laws similar to the U.S.A. Patriot Act. The RW feared, in the wake of the killings in Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, that a federal police state was being grown in the name of security. Even days after Sept. 11, 2001, Rush Limbaugh himself cautioned us not to be too hasty to sacrifice freedom for safety. Then hysteria set in.
8. In Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, the Clinton administration called our troop involvement morally imperative. RW leaders opposed all three involvements as devoid of "vital national interest." Now we have the embarrassing spectacle of months passing with our troops able to locate every gold bar in Iraq but no weapons that were supposedly bursting from every closet. Now the moral justification is enough.
7. During the earlier conflicts, the RW (e.g., Limbaugh) drew the distinction that while it opposed Clinton's decisions, it supported the troops. Now the RW blurs the distinction, suggesting that foes of this war have shallow patriotism and empty support. The distinction is important because of the Vietnam War, when war foes blamed politicians and soldier equally, and when the latter endured funding cuts and insults. Soldiers now don't suffer such injustice, and war opponents now don't deserve such rudeness.
6. Conservatives strictly interpret the Constitution, recognizing it as a contract in plain English. They lament judicial tyrants who decree laws either by twisting or simply ignoring it. Yet when it's time to approve federal judges, they adopt the same tactics. They invent Senate duties, such as measuring candidates only on professional credentials. They tell us that a political body such as the Senate is constitutionally required to leave out politics. Ironically, they accuse Senate Democrats of constitutional violations for not doing so.
5. If you ask the RW, homosexuals are not an oppressed class, and sodomy is not a right; gays are a special-interest group defending a bad habit. But ask the RW about smokers' rights, and you'd think they were talking about the Cherokee Nation.
4. The First Amendment begins, "Congress shall pass no law prohibiting." The RW has long known that you have a right to speak, not to be heard, and that your right neither extends into private places nor requires federal funds. In the past, the RW banned federal funds for clinics that counsel on abortion, and opposed National Endowment for the Arts funds for displays of vulgarity and blasphemy. The tune changes when the blasphemy is against Islam.
Roger Williams University is a private school that gets federal funds. The December 2002 circular of the Roger Williams University College Republicans had a front-page article in which Chairman Jason Materra indulged in some amateur theology to prove that "True Islam is terrorism" and "the religion of hate." Academic Dean Ed Kavanagh described other editions as ranging "from factual errors to personal attacks."
The next spring, when the university considered ending the paper's funding, charges of censorship flew in from across the nation. The College Republican National Committee named Mr. Mattera Best State Chairperson, asserting that he "fought for free speech."
3. For decades, one rock in the RW shoe has been its opponents' name calling; racist, bigot and homophobe are crutches that liberals use to dismiss RW arguments as emotion-based. This drives the RW people nuts, because they think themselves the logical, sensible end of the spectrum. Yet they themselves keep the charge of anti-Semitism as the first arrow in their quiver against any opposition to Israeli policy. Other opponents are simply Bush haters or America haters.
2. The basis of RW religion is the existence of absolute truth, the constancy of God's will, and of right and wrong. Yet when faced with a very constant religion such as Islam, many RW people quickly become the moral relativists they've long opposed -- speaking of Islam's need to "modernize," as you would a household appliance, and espousing the "evolution" of their own religion.
Similarly, the religious RW hails the Judeo-Christian roots of our laws and our founding, and says that almost every law ever passed in a democracy was the legislation of morality. Yet regarding RW goals for a so-called democratic Mideast, many RW people caution against letting Islam influence the process. There, they want to impose secularism on a religious people and call it freedom.
1. Propaganda, a tool of war, is by nature something besides the truth. For decades, the United States and Israel, particularly our RW groups, have used the word terrorism as propaganda. As with the left's use of racism, the definition of terrorism is kept vague, so that it always applies to your enemy, never to you. Like victims of true racism (or rape or harassment), the victims of true terrorism are badly served by the bastardization and dilution of language.
[snip]
Remember also that every party to every conflict in history thought itself justified. If we plan to add qualifiers to our definitions -- if we make this a war against combat that we think unjust, or a war against people who would dare shoot back at us, or a war against Arabs, or guerrillas, or people who are just too poor (or too smart) to fight conventionally -- then we will surely lose the support at home and abroad required to win such a long world war.
[snip]
Saleh R. Shahid, M.D., is a Rhode Island physician.
|
|
10:20 am
[Link] |
Something to think about (this is from the net, I didn't write it)
I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother
that I am a lesbian.
I am the prostitute working the streets because nobody will hire a
transsexual woman.
I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful,
tear-filled nights.
We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.
I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let
my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.
I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away
from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I
wish they could adopt me.
I am one of the lucky ones, I guess. I survived the attack that left
me in a coma for three weeks, and in another year I will probably be
able to walk again.
I am not one of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before
graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.
We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out
we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.
I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I want
to avoid getting the management called on me.
I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the children I bore,
nursed, and raised. The court says I am an unfit mother because I now
live with another woman.
I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow
suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is
also a woman.
I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn
to because I am male.
I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid
to show affection to other men.
I am the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until
someone told me that only lesbians do that.
I am the man who died when the paramedics stopped treating me as soon
as they realized I was transsexual.
I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much
better person if I didn't have to always deal with society hating me.
I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don't
believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.
I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, ... love.
|
|
08:59 pm
[Link] |
My Schedule
Legal Research and Writing: MWF 8- 8:50 AM
Torts: TWRF 10-10:50 AM
Contracts I: MWF 11-11:50 AM
Civil Procedure: TR 11-11:50 AM
Criminal Law: TRF 2- 2:50 PM
|
|
06:17 pm
[Link] |
My letter to the school begging for my registration info
Keli--
Am I right to assume that I should have received my packet in the mail already? I've tried to give it a little time to get here, but I am getting a bit anxious since I will be moving soon. I really don't want to miss an important mailing, AND I am in serious danger of imploding if I don't get my schedule soon.
Is it possible to get my magical 9 digit number from you?
It's always possible that I'll get my letter in the mail today and this will be superfluous, but there's an outside chance that I won't get it until next week, or even that it won't arrive until after I move, causing both a further delay and my premature baldness (from ripping my hair out of my head).
Please please please please pretty please.
On that lovely note, I hope that you are doing well and that the heat and stress of the summer isn't getting to you too much.
Best regards,
Mike
|
05:48 pm
[Link] |
MENTALNESS ENSUES
My father is an asshole and shouldn't be allowed to talk. ever.
That being said!
I finally broke down and wrote to SLU asking about my registration packet and my student number. Lucky me, she wrote back and was all oh here it is. SO I got online and put my number in the right little slot and clicked and BAM! guess who isn't registered for classes yet? ME!!!! "Why?" you might have asked. I don't know!!
ALL my stuff is in and I should be registered. but I'm not.
|
|
11:47 pm
[Link] | I am officially creating a Harry Potte forum, where you can share and discuss your Harry Potter theories, thoughts, and feelings. I don't feel like writing much now, but leave comments about what you think and we can all respond and chat and all that and it will be so fun. DO IT!!!!
|
|
10:01 pm
[Link] | testing lj cut testing!
( THIS IS A TEST!! )
|
|
12:21 am
[Link] |
Some of Scalia's Dissent from Lawrence V Texas
Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.
One of the most revealing statements in today's opinion is the Court's grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as "discrimination" which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such "discrimination" under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such "discrimination" is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. ยง654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such "discrimination" is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000).
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts--or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them--than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that "later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.
One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts--and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple's Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion--after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence--the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," and then declares that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
The matters appropriate for this Court's resolution are only three: Texas's prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a "fundamental right" (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I just wanted some of ya'll to read this.... interesting eh? This is bush's fave.
|
|
11:12 am
[Link] |
Lol, I'm down with prison slang, who knew.
Your Slanguage Profile | | Canadian Slang: 50% | | New England Slang: 50% | | Prison Slang: 50% | | Southern Slang: 25% | | Victorian Slang: 25% | | Aussie Slang: 0% | | British Slang: 0% |
|
|
12:20 pm
[Link] | Hasn't it been FOREVER since I've updated?? I know you all have been waiting anxiously for more wonderous news regarding my interesting life.
I have to tell you, not much is going on. I did get to see Alan and Cindy this week, which was nice. I also found matching throw pillows for my new bedspread at Ross. I got to see Monster-In-Law. I had a few donuts.
Other than that, I am just basically waiting waiting waiting for August. I only have 29 days left until I start my journey!! I am not sure what I am going to do now-- if I'm going to go alone or with my mother. I can't find a person willing to make the roadtrip with me to help me lift furniture-- and I really REALLY REALLY don't want my father to force his way into going.
HMMMM I need to find a strong person who is willing to drive with me and stay for a while (if they so desire). I was thinking it would be possible to fly them back as repayment... if anyone is able to volunteer I would love them for it forever.
|
[<< Previous 10 entries] |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=88.8){kind=small}
makeminemona's journal