I've changed my mind : I'm for carrying guns...

[Mercutio]

We live in a representative republic, and much to the chagrin of people like yourself you are in the minority. As such it's not surprising that the laws and traditions of this country reflect the values of the majority. Either way, I fail to see how any of the single cases you reference are violation of the first ammendment. Either Congress did not enable the act (law) you are complaining about, or it doesn't interfere with someone's ability to practice his religion, nor is it a federally mandated religion (which is what it says).

Sigh.

So what you're saying is, because I'm not part of the majority, there's no reason to serve my interests as a citizen of the representative republic.
I'd say that says a lot about you and your beliefs.
See, if we went very far down the path that viewpoint leads us, we would get to a place where handicapped people wouldn't have reserved parking spaces. Can you accept that something like that is in fact a good thing?
At a previous point in our history, not protecting the rights of minorities led to "separate but equal" - different entrances, water fountains and rules for voting for people of different colors.
That's an easy one. It's pretty hard to say "I'm in favor of segregation" in 2004. But up to the 1960s (and perhaps later, the deeper you go into the South), that did in fact represent a majority viewpoint.

So: I have a number of objections to religious expressions that exist because of actions by our federal government. One of those is the somewhat offensive phrase "One Nation, Under God" on the pray^H^H^H^Hpledge of alliegiance public schoolchildren and freshly-minted citizens are taught to say. The "Under God" bit was added by act of Congress, and serves as a patent endorsement of a Judeo-Christian god. We aren't one nation under Ganesh or Allah, after all!
That one phrase isn't needed. The pledge works fine without it, but by including it, we're making thousands of people swear an oath that they
can't even fully believe! You don't think that's harmful?

Would you feel at all bound if you were forced to swear an oath to Krishna?

(Actually, here's a secret to finding empathy: Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. Ask yourself, "How would I feel if...", then pretend it actually happened.)

Me? I think I'd rather have a pledge that either recognizes more deities, or perhaps a pledge that doesn't recognize any divine power, and therefore doesn't force someone to say something counter to the beliefs his or her parents taught him or her.

But maybe that's just me.

With regard to the differences between US "liberal" and "conservative", and without the name-calling some people resorted to...

What I see from the right wing in the US is an "I got mine" attitude that really seems to be sold with the expectation of some kind of future of wealth that can't possibly be for the vast majority of its adherents, or on maintaining "values" straight out of the Eisenhower administration (and/or the Bible. I'm not sure if there's a difference).
It's really funny to run into a republican die-hard making $12 an hour in a factory job, trying to explain how repealing the estate tax is going to benefit him and his children.

Putting aside some of the conservative statements about "values", which are scary to me all on their own (a lot of the fiscal-type conservatives are kind of scared/embarassed about the religious right-types, too), I think the biggest thing that bothers me about the conservative philosophy is its willingness to cede certain rights and controls to big businesses, organizations which ultimately have no responsibilities to citizens or employees or even customers.

Another issue I have - and this may just be my impression from all the abrasive talking heads who get 95% of the media exposure - but the right seems to have a pretty strong tradition of anti-intellectualism, something I generally find appalling. I see this with lot of religious right types especially. Maybe because conservative christians are less likely to have attended college? Regardless, it's hard to watch Fox News for 15 minutes without hearing something derisive about "ivory tower eggheads".

Conservative Republicans also seem to be very exclusionary, going out of their way to distance themselves from minorities even within their own party. There are exceptions - they're pretty happy with Clarence Thomas, for instance (who, by the way, almost never speaks during Supreme Court hearings and, IIRC, votes in line with Scalia something like 95% of the time), but by opposing the social programs (e.g affirmative action, Drug Treatment, rather than enforcement, programs) that might help poor urban minorities lift themselves up, they really lose any hope of gaining ground in those communities. And imagine how happy members of "The Log Cabin Republicans" must be since the president announced that he's all for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I can see where Fiscal Conservatives are coming from. Not wanting to spend money on social programs or regulatory agencies, wanting lower taxes for their friends in high tax brackets - I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.
However, the minute someone starts talking about returning the nation to Jesus, I'm gone. In my experience, people who take that tack are utterly unable to comprehend that there are other people - many of US Citizens, who don't believe or wish to act in complete accordance with their morality. I've found that it's almost impossible to communicate with anyone advocating that point of view.

 

[Mercutio]

We live in a representative republic, and much to the chagrin of people like yourself you are in the minority. As such it's not surprising that the laws and traditions of this country reflect the values of the majority. Either way, I fail to see how any of the single cases you reference are violation of the first ammendment. Either Congress did not enable the act (law) you are complaining about, or it doesn't interfere with someone's ability to practice his religion, nor is it a federally mandated religion (which is what it says).

Sigh.

So what you're saying is, because I'm not part of the majority, there's no reason to serve my interests as a citizen of the representative republic.
I'd say that says a lot about you and your beliefs.
See, if we went very far down the path that viewpoint leads us, we would get to a place where handicapped people wouldn't have reserved parking spaces. Can you accept that something like that is in fact a good thing?
At a previous point in our history, not protecting the rights of minorities led to "separate but equal" - different entrances, water fountains and rules for voting for people of different colors.
That's an easy one. It's pretty hard to say "I'm in favor of segregation" in 2004. But up to the 1960s (and perhaps later, the deeper you go into the South), that did in fact represent a majority viewpoint.

So: I have a number of objections to religious expressions that exist because of actions by our federal government. One of those is the somewhat offensive phrase "One Nation, Under God" on the pray^H^H^H^Hpledge of alliegiance public schoolchildren and freshly-minted citizens are taught to say. The "Under God" bit was added by act of Congress, and serves as a patent endorsement of a Judeo-Christian god. We aren't one nation under Ganesh or Allah, after all!
That one phrase isn't needed. The pledge works fine without it, but by including it, we're making thousands of people swear an oath that they
can't even fully believe! You don't think that's harmful?

Would you feel at all bound if you were forced to swear an oath to Krishna?

(Actually, here's a secret to finding empathy: Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. Ask yourself, "How would I feel if...", then pretend it actually happened.)

Me? I think I'd rather have a pledge that either recognizes more deities, or perhaps a pledge that doesn't recognize any divine power, and therefore doesn't force someone to say something counter to the beliefs his or her parents taught him or her.

But maybe that's just me.

With regard to the differences between US "liberal" and "conservative", and without the name-calling some people resorted to...

What I see from the right wing in the US is an "I got mine" attitude that really seems to be sold with the expectation of some kind of future of wealth that can't possibly be for the vast majority of its adherents, or on maintaining "values" straight out of the Eisenhower administration (and/or the Bible. I'm not sure if there's a difference).
It's really funny to run into a republican die-hard making $12 an hour in a factory job, trying to explain how repealing the estate tax is going to benefit him and his children.

Putting aside some of the conservative statements about "values", which are scary to me all on their own (a lot of the fiscal-type conservatives are kind of scared/embarassed about the religious right-types, too), I think the biggest thing that bothers me about the conservative philosophy is its willingness to cede certain rights and controls to big businesses, organizations which ultimately have no responsibilities to citizens or employees or even customers.

Another issue I have - and this may just be my impression from all the abrasive talking heads who get 95% of the media exposure - but the right seems to have a pretty strong tradition of anti-intellectualism, something I generally find appalling. I see this with lot of religious right types especially. Maybe because conservative christians are less likely to have attended college? Regardless, it's hard to watch Fox News for 15 minutes without hearing something derisive about "ivory tower eggheads".

Conservative Republicans also seem to be very exclusionary, going out of their way to distance themselves from minorities even within their own party. There are exceptions - they're pretty happy with Clarence Thomas, for instance (who, by the way, almost never speaks during Supreme Court hearings and, IIRC, votes in line with Scalia something like 95% of the time), but by opposing the social programs (e.g affirmative action, Drug Treatment, rather than enforcement, programs) that might help poor urban minorities lift themselves up, they really lose any hope of gaining ground in those communities. And imagine how happy members of "The Log Cabin Republicans" must be since the president announced that he's all for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I can see where Fiscal Conservatives are coming from. Not wanting to spend money on social programs or regulatory agencies, wanting lower taxes for their friends in high tax brackets - I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.
However, the minute someone starts talking about returning the nation to Jesus, I'm gone. In my experience, people who take that tack are utterly unable to comprehend that there are other people - many of US Citizens, who don't believe or wish to act in complete accordance with their morality. I've found that it's almost impossible to communicate with anyone advocating that point of view.

 

[Santilli]

Sigh is right.

The intentions of the founders was to design a system of government that would not be overthrown by mob rule, like the Greeks.
They designed the state system to allow the Federal Government very little control over the states. The irony is slavery pretty much forced the errosion of the states protection of the minority, extending, by the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights over the states. This allowed massive Federal influence, where, if not for slavery, it would not have existed.

As for the act of God by Congress, I believe that falls in the very limited areas where they can influence the concept of God, currency.

As for having to pledge to God, concerning oaths to the United States, for those who don't believe in God, it is objectionable, but not considering the freedoms they are given here, vs. other countries. It's also intentionally, an non-denomenational God, so that it can be each to their own, including Allah, etc.

As for your objections to the moral values from the Bible, one could certainly argue that's what this country is founded on. While I don't agree with some of the baggage that comes with it, and I believe the real problem with the term liberal is that rather then being willing to accept, and try new ideas, liberals have become just as dogmatic, and in fact worse, then the republicans they object to, and, at least around here,
have no tolerance for contrary views, having become just as reactionary
as the conservatives they originally despised.

I can easily see someone like myself, that believes in the original concept of a limited federal government, feeling that NO money should go to the federal government, since it is misused and wasted by Congress.

Originally the great debate was over the right to tax for a national militia. Now it's over financing the world's militia, and health care, while neglecting our own. I'm sick of paying 140 grand a year for a Senator that's worth 40 million dollars, who wants to give my feeble wages to sick African dictators, in the name of aides relief.

I think the only valid point you hav is the laizze faire approach to government and big business. The ONLY valid excuse for government intervention is the problem of regulating large businesses, that take control of different areas of government, using money to buy congress people, and use it to their own ends. This situation can, and may, lead to the destruction of the US, if allowed to go to it's logical end, see the depression for details.

As for your comments about ivrory tower egg heads, it's, at least in this state, because of the total lack of conservative professors. They are RUN OFF campuses here by the ultra-liberals, hunted down like Witches in the Salem Witch hunts, and fired. You have to be here to really go through it to understand how horrible it is, and how intolerant of differing opinions these facists are. Suffice to say, if you write the wrong side of a political argument, you can, and will, be run out of the school. Happened to me at the University of San Francisco Law School. A bunch of facist-liberals unionized and have taken over the law school, IIRC since about 1975. The end result is an anti-religious law school, on a Jesuit Campus :evil:

Truly a horrible place, if you go to law school to be around Jesuits, or like minded people.

As for your arguments about conservative republicans, that was the entire point of the state system. You could setup Utah as a Mormon state, be among like minded people, and create laws based on your religous beliefs, as long as they did not run afoul of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Clarence Thomas is really funny, since he did a very good job of keeping his mouth shut, and, once in for life, now is acting as he sees fit, despite all the influence and pressure applied against him.

"Affirmative action"= use the Devils' tools, and you end up with the Devils' results.
Our current problem isn't treating drug addicts. It's massive Mexican gangs, importing huge amounts of cocaine, heroin, etc. into this country from Mexico, along with many automatic weapons, and anything else they can make money on. Closing our borders IS the first priority, period, not to mention the threat of terrorism.

And, finally, this may sound funny coming from a teacher with a J.D. but I don't want a bunch of free loading federal, or state government employees living off my meager income, or even my rich friends' incomes. The beauty of Kalifornia is for the last 20 years, so much money has been made off the tech boom, that the state has had a lot of money. The only problem is, that has resulted in now tax shortages, as the taxes have driven the companies to other countries to manufacture products, so they have cheap labor, and no taxes.

I really like the Texas model, where the government is open for three months, and the wages are shit. Teachers could do the work, or whoever.

The point being, it's better off having people spend the money they make, and inovate, creating computer companies, etc. then it is having the federal or state government soak out 75 cents of every tax dollar, and then give it to Mugabe in Africa in the name of aides research.

It's called trickle down economics. Rich people employee poorer people, with their money, with no government in the middle, and both parties profit.

As for your problem about people who want to return to a nation of Jesus, that was never the intention of the founders, period.
It's also a true test of your liberalism, since the true test of one is to listen to all points of view, and all points made in each area, and balance their varacity, and validity, even if their position makes your skin crawl.

Sort of the same way I feel about our federal government, run by a bunch of rich lawyers, who are making themselves richer, and fatter, spending money like drunken democrats.

s

 

[Santilli]

This is the kind of crap that makes me go psycho...

"

Dear Friend:


I recently met with local transit and rail officials in Oakland
to discuss the measures we need to take to better protect
public transportation travelers from terrorist attacks. The
attacks in Madrid that killed almost 200 people are a stark
reminder that rail lines could become targets in the U.S. I
have been working on two bills to better secure our rail lines:
the Rail Security Act and my own Railroad and Mass
Transportation Public Protection Program Act.


Increasingly, people are opting to use public transportation as
their primary route to work or to school. Hundreds of
thousands of riders in Northern California board rail travel
systems like AC Transit, Caltrain, and BART everyday. To
better ensure the safety of rail travel, I recently introduced
the Railroad and Mass Transportation Public Protection Program
Act, which would authorize federal grants over the next five
years for more police officers and canine units and improved
surveillance equipment on Amtrak and local transit systems. My
bill would also set aside funds each year for railroad and mass
transportation security grants.


I am also working for the passage of the Rail Security Act of
2004 which would direct funds for security improvements on
passenger and freight rail in the coming year. During recent
consideration of the bill I offered amendments, which were
adopted, to shift more rail security funding to California, to
ensure that local governments that operate stations could
receive security funding and to increase funding for
communications equipment, canine patrols and other security
features. I also sponsored a successful amendment that would
require a report on the extent to which roads and highways are
made inaccessible to emergency responders because of rail
crossings.


Our nation has taken important steps to make airline travel
more secure. We must also improve the security of rail travel.
Together, the Rail Security Act and the Railroad and Mass
Transportation Public Protection Program Act will go a long way
toward increasing that security. In the weeks ahead, I will be
working with Senators and House members from both parties to
pass these vitally important bills.


If you have questions or ideas about these bills, or about any
other matter, I hope you will contact me at
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm


Sincerely,


Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
"

THIS IS THE KIND OF CRAP THAT DRIVES THINKING PEOPLE NUTS.

OK, Barb. How about this? Follow the Constitution that allows the people, under the second amendment, the right to bear arms? You know, that funny little document that is what is supposed to represent the government, and that you SWORE to uphold, when you signed in?

See, what you are going to do, is setup an agency to protect us, using our tax dollars, that like Bart, is going to be the highest priced, worst solution to a problem that the founders figured out long ago.

All your garbage solution is going to do, is, like metal detectors at the Oakland Arena, insure that citizens are unable to carry weapons, making it a 100% sure thing for any criminal in the parking lot, to mug and rob anyone they want, in the intrest of your making yourself feel better about your prior bills depriving the citizens of your state from being able to defend themselves.

The insidious plan here is to replace your right to protect yourself, with Big Brother's inefficent, very expensive, alleged right to protect you.

For reference, keep in mind these are the same people that control the security on the Kalifornia-Mexico border...

s