One of the thing is, we're not Republican enough. Zellout Miller had a point. But the country doesn't need two Republican parties, however convenient it would be for either of you.
Sadly, the country has lurched to right and it hasn't stopped yet. The idea of an active government that plays a part in daily life -- for the betterment of society -- is longer seen as virtuous.
I imagine this trend will go as far as it can go. I've recognized that much. I'm not that thick. Our ideas lose. But they're better ideas.
[Edited 7 times. Most recently by on Nov 3, 2004 at 03:07pm.]
In all honesty Rick, I do not think you are thick at all. I think you are intelligent and provide interesting points of view. Wether I agree with them or not.
Sadly, the country has lurched to right and it hasn't stopped yet. The idea of an active government that plays a part in daily life -- for the betterment of society -- is longer seen as virtuous.
No Rick it is, just not to the extent you'd like to see it.
I was thinking about using as part of my own blogging site called Rat Alley. It was laid out and ready to go. But bloggers look kinda pathetic to me now.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Nov 3, 2004 at 03:23pm.]
Sadly, the country has lurched to right and it hasn't stopped yet. The idea of an active government that plays a part in daily life -- for the betterment of society -- is longer seen as virtuous.
I honestly think it's more that the Democratic party has lurched too far to the left.
And Rick, Ditto on what Wovlie said.
btw: I missed you when you were on your "sabatical", and I was glad when you came back.
JT, an all-out smoking ban that included every business and private club in Duluth that employed 2 or more people was defeated.
Really?
Shit, even Springfield MO passed a smoking ban.
When I moved down there as a kid, you could smoke anywhere. And I mean ANYWHERE. Which was strange coming from MN, which was the first in the nation to have smoking laws.
It surprised everyone. Under the current "ban", smoking is allowed if you have a walled off smoking section with seperate ventilation. The American Lung Association pissed people off by wanting doing away with that AND ban it completely including everything from bars to repair shops to VFW's to within 25' of a public doorway. Defeated 56% to 44%. Too much big brother and the fact that surrounding communities within 5 miles have no ban whatsoever.
The Rat woke up today feeling worse than yesterday, even though he had a good night's sleep. After a day when he couldn't concentrate from fatigue and disappointment he forced himself to work through the evening until he was too tired continue, A few slugs of coffee early in the morning opened his eyes, but he saw nothin' but the blues ahead. Blue State blues? -- if he tried that phrase on a few people, they'd think it was funny, But The Rat didn't think so. It's the kind of phrase that ends up in the repertoire of annoyingly earnest coffee-house pickers who try to be funny/political and end up being neither. Now, if a quartet of pale, punk rock Eminems took The Rat's advice and named themselves Four More Years of Hell, he'd be flattered. The band could scream its name over and over -- two chords at piercing volume. Now, that's clever, wry and edgy all once. He thought of Teresa Heinz Kerry. That unidentifiable accent must have identified her to many as someone with tenuous allegiances to the United States. But the election's over. Forget about it, thought The Rat. We get the government we deserve. Rat Alley was covered with leaves and the bare trees again revealed the obscured view of the downtown skyscrapers distantly shining in the rising sun. Four years from now, The Rat figured he'd still be home in Alley facing another fall of barren trees and familiar cold.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Nov 4, 2004 at 06:15am.]
"The mayor's endorsement and election barnstorming, if the presidential returns are any indication, was a dud in Minnesota: Bush lost the state and lost ground in St. Paul as a whole since his last election, dropping 1.3 percentage points in the overall city vote. Bush did earn about 3,200 more votes than he did in 2000, but the Democrats far outpaced that gain, garnering 23,000 additional votes across St. Paul this year."
here are now 104 precincts in the city. Of Kelly's nine best precincts in 2001 in terms of his winning percentage:
• Democrats gained ground in eight of them.
• Bush gained in only two precincts.
• Democrats picked up about a percentage point and gained an additional 1,315 votes.
• Bush dropped 4.1 percentage points overall and gained only 205 votes.
Hit those Green Party/Nader people enough times with a 2 X 4 and they start to get it. Four years too late, but there's nothing to be done about that now.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Nov 4, 2004 at 11:38am.]
Democrats confront a grim future. Bush's 3.5-million-vote edge in the popular vote reflects a party out of touch with the country on social issues, the role of government and the war against terrorism. Democrats face the bitter reality of minority party status and what to do about it.
Speak fopr yourself Jethro. You do it so well. Don't let "Townhall" dictate your rantings man... I am SURE you can rant exactly the same, without them.
I thought it made a good point. Why should I reinvent the wheel?
Bush picked up nearly 245,000 more votes in Minnesota this year over the year 2000. Kerry picked up about 275,000. Nader dropped about 108,000.
Yeah, but ONLY because "so many MORE PEOPLE showed up to VOTE in our lovely Minnesota".
That was the point.
Thursday Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican expected to be the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, explicitly warned Bush against sending Supreme Court nominees with the agenda to advance elements of the conservative agenda to the Senate for confirmation. They wouldn't survive, he said.
Uh Sen. Specter say goodbye to the chairman position. And he should recieve no backing from the GOP when he is up for re-election. He is a Republican in name only.
Some people see the Constitution as a set of rule and should be interpeted literally. Some people feel it is a living document and should change with the times. This allows them to read things into it that aren't there.
The Constitution is an enduring document but not a "living" one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in Milwaukee on Tuesday.
Scalia, often reviled as an arch-conservative who would do the nation harm, admitted to a respectful crowd of more than 1,000 people at Marquette University that his "originalist" judicial philosophy is not popular.
In contrast, the idea of a "living Constitution" in which the meaning can be interpreted as society changes is "seductive," he said.
But Scalia also insisted that only his approach - interpreting the Constitution based on the Framers' precise words and the meaning they intended at the time - can preserve the Constitution's guiding principles.
"The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document."
At some point during the Appropriations battles in 1995 and 1996, there was a conference committee to hash out a bill -- I think it was Energy and Water, but it might have been Labor-Health. Anyway, this was when Republicans (led by Bob Livingston, of course) actually WERE cutting spending and eliminating waste. The negotiations had been going on and on, as they often do, but eventually, after many hours, a rough consensus seemed to be in the offing. I watched as Tom Harkin, of all people, pulled Specter aside and they started whispering to each other, with Harkin pointing to his watch. After a minute or so, Specter nodded, smiled, patted Harkin on the back, and returned to the table as Harkin left the room to go to some other meeting.
A few minutes later, just as things seemed to be about to wrap up, Specter spoke up. He said there was one project he objected to being removed from the bill -- note, this was when virtually ALL earmarks were being disallowed -- and that he absolutely refused to agree to the bill without that project being included. As the conference committees at the time had bare GOP majorities, Specter's opposition would kill the agreement. Of course, the project for which he was going to bat was some piece of rancid, purely local, pork for Harkin. The Republicans were incredulous at Specter's stance, but he had them over a barrel. It had taken so long to work out the agreement, and the agreement was so tenuous, with so many tough, tough cuts in it, that any more delay might have made the whole thing unravel.
Specter calmly said, in effect (obviously I con't remember the exact words, so these quotation marks are to be taken as approximations): 'Boys, look, I've gotta go; I've got a commitment I've gotta attend to. You guys figure this out amongst yourselves, and maybe we'll meet again next week.....'
I forget who the GOP House subcommittee chair was, but he obviously felt he had no choice. Everybody caved right then and there (remember, this was after many many many hours and many tough choices, and time was of the essence because of how things were playing out in the press), and Harkin -- Tom Harkin, fergoshsakes!!! -- got his pork, virtually the only piece of pure pork in the whole bill, without even being in the room, at the behest of Arlen Specter.
Some people see the Constitution as a set of rule and should be interpeted literally. Some people feel it is a living document and should change with the times.
Anyone that hold the idea that the Constitution is a "living" document indicates that they think courts are legislative bodies.
The Supreme Court has been a bit feisty in the last few decades. Some think they’ve taken Al Gores “The Constitution should be a living, breathing document” routine a bit far. In the mid-1990s the court breathed the idea into our body of Constitutional law that local governments could take your home away from you and transfer it to some heavy campaign contributors who promise to bulldoze the house you were born and raised in and replace it with a cluster-mansion that will pay more in property taxes. Somehow I missed that part of the Constitution when I was studying law. -Neal Boortz
But what does that mean? Is it true? If so, is that a good thing?
We can agree the U.S. Constitution - along with the Bill of Rights, now considered part of the core document - is "living" in one sense: It has been around longer than any other such document, and continues to be our civic touchstone - and the model for emerging democracies worldwide. On Friday, many Americans will celebrate the 217th anniversary of the Constitution's signing.
But the other sense - as a growing, flexible thing that should adapt to changing times and a changing society - has been the subject of controversy for more than a century, and still can generate heated arguments. We see the effects of this debate in everyday life. In our area, those include concealed-carry laws in Ohio and Kentucky, anti-pornography cases and the Mapplethorpe exhibit trial, the Klan cross and religious displays on Fountain Square, and even gay rights issues related to Article 12.
So, if the Constitution requires only what the founding fathers intended, I guess that it has no place in deciding matters that involve television, cars, computers and the internet...etc...since none of these things even existed when it was written.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Â
Wolvie 11/3/04 2:26pm
Naah. :)
Â
One of the thing is, we're not Republican enough. Zellout Miller had a point. But the country doesn't need two Republican parties, however convenient it would be for either of you.
Sadly, the country has lurched to right and it hasn't stopped yet. The idea of an active government that plays a part in daily life -- for the betterment of society -- is longer seen as virtuous.
I imagine this trend will go as far as it can go. I've recognized that much. I'm not that thick. Our ideas lose. But they're better ideas.
[Edited 7 times. Most recently by on Nov 3, 2004 at 03:07pm.]
I'm not that thick.
In all honesty Rick, I do not think you are thick at all. I think you are intelligent and provide interesting points of view. Wether I agree with them or not.
Sadly, the country has lurched to right and it hasn't stopped yet. The idea of an active government that plays a part in daily life -- for the betterment of society -- is longer seen as virtuous.
No Rick it is, just not to the extent you'd like to see it.
The idea of an active government that plays a part in daily life -- for the betterment of society -- is longer seen as virtuous.
I don't see any end to the goverment palying a part in daily life any time soon.
Thanks for the compliment, Wolvie.
I'd agree with Wolvie's assesment as well Rick.
Although the new monker is a bit puzzling :)
I was thinking about using as part of my own blogging site called Rat Alley. It was laid out and ready to go. But bloggers look kinda pathetic to me now.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Nov 3, 2004 at 03:23pm.]
A 4 MORE YEARS FOR BUSH JOE! =)
[Edited by on Nov 3, 2004 at 03:19pm.]
Sadly, the country has lurched to right and it hasn't stopped yet. The idea of an active government that plays a part in daily life -- for the betterment of society -- is longer seen as virtuous.
I honestly think it's more that the Democratic party has lurched too far to the left.
And Rick, Ditto on what Wovlie said.
btw: I missed you when you were on your "sabatical", and I was glad when you came back.
[Edited by on Nov 3, 2004 at 04:11pm.]
That's exactly what the people don't want. Hence, the move to the right.
JT, an all-out smoking ban that included every business and private club in Duluth that employed 2 or more people was defeated.
JT, an all-out smoking ban that included every business and private club in Duluth that employed 2 or more people was defeated.
Really?
Shit, even Springfield MO passed a smoking ban.
When I moved down there as a kid, you could smoke anywhere. And I mean ANYWHERE. Which was strange coming from MN, which was the first in the nation to have smoking laws.
Which was strange coming from MN, which was the first in the nation to have smoking laws.
I thought California was the first?
Columbus Ohio passed a smoking ban last night. :(
It surprised everyone. Under the current "ban", smoking is allowed if you have a walled off smoking section with seperate ventilation. The American Lung Association pissed people off by wanting doing away with that AND ban it completely including everything from bars to repair shops to VFW's to within 25' of a public doorway. Defeated 56% to 44%. Too much big brother and the fact that surrounding communities within 5 miles have no ban whatsoever.
I thought California was the first?
I believe California was the first state to ban it in bars, but MN was the first to pass public smoking bans. Way back in 1979 or something.
[Edited by on Nov 3, 2004 at 06:50pm.]
The Rat woke up today feeling worse than yesterday, even though he had a good night's sleep. After a day when he couldn't concentrate from fatigue and disappointment he forced himself to work through the evening until he was too tired continue, A few slugs of coffee early in the morning opened his eyes, but he saw nothin' but the blues ahead. Blue State blues? -- if he tried that phrase on a few people, they'd think it was funny, But The Rat didn't think so. It's the kind of phrase that ends up in the repertoire of annoyingly earnest coffee-house pickers who try to be funny/political and end up being neither. Now, if a quartet of pale, punk rock Eminems took The Rat's advice and named themselves Four More Years of Hell, he'd be flattered. The band could scream its name over and over -- two chords at piercing volume. Now, that's clever, wry and edgy all once. He thought of Teresa Heinz Kerry. That unidentifiable accent must have identified her to many as someone with tenuous allegiances to the United States. But the election's over. Forget about it, thought The Rat. We get the government we deserve. Rat Alley was covered with leaves and the bare trees again revealed the obscured view of the downtown skyscrapers distantly shining in the rising sun. Four years from now, The Rat figured he'd still be home in Alley facing another fall of barren trees and familiar cold.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Nov 4, 2004 at 06:15am.]
Nice new avatar there, Bill Fold.
I'm so glad you were able to:
"Move past this bullshit-election for now, and work for America..."
I wagered three days.
I lost that bet.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Nov 4, 2004 at 05:58am.]
Rick, I missed it earlier because I was posting around the same time you were, but I like your post.
Turncoat Kelly turns off voters
"The mayor's endorsement and election barnstorming, if the presidential returns are any indication, was a dud in Minnesota: Bush lost the state and lost ground in St. Paul as a whole since his last election, dropping 1.3 percentage points in the overall city vote. Bush did earn about 3,200 more votes than he did in 2000, but the Democrats far outpaced that gain, garnering 23,000 additional votes across St. Paul this year."
here are now 104 precincts in the city. Of Kelly's nine best precincts in 2001 in terms of his winning percentage:
• Democrats gained ground in eight of them.
• Bush gained in only two precincts.
• Democrats picked up about a percentage point and gained an additional 1,315 votes.
• Bush dropped 4.1 percentage points overall and gained only 205 votes.
Bush picked up nearly 245,000 more votes in Minnesota this year over the year 2000. Kerry picked up about 275,000. Nader dropped about 108,000.
[Edited by on Nov 4, 2004 at 11:20am.]
Hit those Green Party/Nader people enough times with a 2 X 4 and they start to get it. Four years too late, but there's nothing to be done about that now.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Nov 4, 2004 at 11:38am.]
Rick, I was really surprised by the numbers in St Paul.
Kerry did better in St Paul than he did in Minneapolis.
Time for me to move to the suburbs.
:-)
Suit yourself.
I was just goofing, Rick.
Geez.
Sorry, about that. I didn't mean to appear grouchy, or how ever I appeared
for our good friend, Rick:
Democrats confront a grim future. Bush's 3.5-million-vote edge in the popular vote reflects a party out of touch with the country on social issues, the role of government and the war against terrorism. Democrats face the bitter reality of minority party status and what to do about it.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20041104.shtml
That's a damn shame.
Speak fopr yourself Jethro. You do it so well. Don't let "Townhall" dictate your rantings man... I am
SURE
you can rant exactly the same, without them.
I thought it made a good point. Why should I reinvent the wheel?
Yeah, but ONLY because "so many MORE PEOPLE showed up to VOTE in our lovely Minnesota".
That was the point.
That report. from the Minnesota Magazine
"DUH."
What?
Thursday Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican expected to be the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, explicitly warned Bush against sending Supreme Court nominees with the agenda to advance elements of the conservative agenda to the Senate for confirmation. They wouldn't survive, he said.
Uh Sen. Specter say goodbye to the chairman position. And he should recieve no backing from the GOP when he is up for re-election. He is a Republican in name only.
He's not among the Pantheon of Heros, Wolvie? Zell Miller is.
and not much of a dancer apparently... can't do the lock-step
the only "agenda" a SC nominee should have is to uphold the Constitution of The United States, regardless of party.
Godd for Arlen.
the only "agenda" a SC nominee should have is to uphold the Constitution of The United States, regardless of party.
I agree, as long as they do not see the Constitution as a living document.
what the fuck does that mean?
Some people see the Constitution as a set of rule and should be interpeted literally. Some people feel it is a living document and should change with the times. This allows them to read things into it that aren't there.
the only "agenda" a SC nominee should have is to uphold the Constitution of The United States, regardless of party.
That would mean the nominee would have to be for overturning Roe v. Wade.
the document, by it's very design, is meant to be changed.
The Constitution is an enduring document but not a "living" one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in Milwaukee on Tuesday.
Scalia, often reviled as an arch-conservative who would do the nation harm, admitted to a respectful crowd of more than 1,000 people at Marquette University that his "originalist" judicial philosophy is not popular.
In contrast, the idea of a "living Constitution" in which the meaning can be interpreted as society changes is "seductive," he said.
But Scalia also insisted that only his approach - interpreting the Constitution based on the Framers' precise words and the meaning they intended at the time - can preserve the Constitution's guiding principles.
"The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document."
All I know is I wouldn't want to live in an America that went strictly by the Constitution.
Good show, Wolvie. You beat me to it. There's a big movement online to get Specter sidelined from the chairmanship.
http://www.notspecter.com/
Read more about him:
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200411050752.asp
Another story:
At some point during the Appropriations battles in 1995 and 1996, there was a conference committee to hash out a bill -- I think it was Energy and Water, but it might have been Labor-Health. Anyway, this was when Republicans (led by Bob Livingston, of course) actually WERE cutting spending and eliminating waste. The negotiations had been going on and on, as they often do, but eventually, after many hours, a rough consensus seemed to be in the offing. I watched as Tom Harkin, of all people, pulled Specter aside and they started whispering to each other, with Harkin pointing to his watch. After a minute or so, Specter nodded, smiled, patted Harkin on the back, and returned to the table as Harkin left the room to go to some other meeting.
A few minutes later, just as things seemed to be about to wrap up, Specter spoke up. He said there was one project he objected to being removed from the bill -- note, this was when virtually ALL earmarks were being disallowed -- and that he absolutely refused to agree to the bill without that project being included. As the conference committees at the time had bare GOP majorities, Specter's opposition would kill the agreement. Of course, the project for which he was going to bat was some piece of rancid, purely local, pork for Harkin. The Republicans were incredulous at Specter's stance, but he had them over a barrel. It had taken so long to work out the agreement, and the agreement was so tenuous, with so many tough, tough cuts in it, that any more delay might have made the whole thing unravel.
Specter calmly said, in effect (obviously I con't remember the exact words, so these quotation marks are to be taken as approximations): 'Boys, look, I've gotta go; I've got a commitment I've gotta attend to. You guys figure this out amongst yourselves, and maybe we'll meet again next week.....'
I forget who the GOP House subcommittee chair was, but he obviously felt he had no choice. Everybody caved right then and there (remember, this was after many many many hours and many tough choices, and time was of the essence because of how things were playing out in the press), and Harkin -- Tom Harkin, fergoshsakes!!! -- got his pork, virtually the only piece of pure pork in the whole bill, without even being in the room, at the behest of Arlen Specter.
Some people see the Constitution as a set of rule and should be interpeted literally. Some people feel it is a living document and should change with the times.
Anyone that hold the idea that the Constitution is a "living" document indicates that they think courts are legislative bodies.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
All I know is I wouldn't want to live in an America that went strictly by the Constitution.
We're not a democracy.
And I wouldn't want to be around for the bloody revolution.
then you don't believe in the rule of law.
[Edited by on Nov 5, 2004 at 03:51pm.]
The Supreme Court has been a bit feisty in the last few decades. Some think they’ve taken Al Gores “The Constitution should be a living, breathing document” routine a bit far. In the mid-1990s the court breathed the idea into our body of Constitutional law that local governments could take your home away from you and transfer it to some heavy campaign contributors who promise to bulldoze the house you were born and raised in and replace it with a cluster-mansion that will pay more in property taxes. Somehow I missed that part of the Constitution when I was studying law. -Neal Boortz
It's things like this that I fear the most.
America, it is said, has a "living Constitution." In fact, the notion is so ingrained it has become a cliché. Junior high students lug home civics textbooks with that title.
But what does that mean? Is it true? If so, is that a good thing?
We can agree the U.S. Constitution - along with the Bill of Rights, now considered part of the core document - is "living" in one sense: It has been around longer than any other such document, and continues to be our civic touchstone - and the model for emerging democracies worldwide. On Friday, many Americans will celebrate the 217th anniversary of the Constitution's signing.
But the other sense - as a growing, flexible thing that should adapt to changing times and a changing society - has been the subject of controversy for more than a century, and still can generate heated arguments. We see the effects of this debate in everyday life. In our area, those include concealed-carry laws in Ohio and Kentucky, anti-pornography cases and the Mapplethorpe exhibit trial, the Klan cross and religious displays on Fountain Square, and even gay rights issues related to Article 12.
The Constitution: A living document?
A pretty good read.
So, if the Constitution requires only what the founding fathers intended, I guess that it has no place in deciding matters that involve television, cars, computers and the internet...etc...since none of these things even existed when it was written.
Crabs to me that falls under this...
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So it would be up to the states to decide.