![[icon]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/79406083/8357750) |
Ron's Rumentations
|
| Hey, guys, just wanted to let you know that I just posted an update to my running blog at:
www.ronrunsdisney.blogspot.com
Ron | comments: Leave a comment   |
| As many of you already know, I'm planning on running all of the runDisney races in 2013 to celebrate my 40th birthday. I decided that if I was going to do that, I should probably blog about the experience and the training leading up to it. I've started a blog at the following address:
http://ronrunsdisney.blogspot.com/
I've also changed my running Twitter feed to RonRunsDisney.
So, if you're interested, go over and take a look. I submitted my first post today.
I'm really excited about this project, and hope you guys get a chance to look at it. | | comments: 3 comments or Leave a comment |
| I was, foolishly, talking politics with a young Marine today. He stated that one of his biggest problems with Democrats was that they are, in his words, too willing to change the "meaning" of the Constitution. He then mentioned that he is a fan of the Tea Party movement because he is an "Originalist".
Okay, now, this is a word I have heard tossed around a lot lately by the Tea Party activists and many other conservatives. As far as I can determine, when these folks say they are "Originalists", what they mean is that they, much like Justice Scalia, believe that the Constitution should be interpreted and acted upon in a manner that is consistent with the intent of it's framers.
Here's my problem with Originalism: THERE'S NO SUCH THING. Not only is there no such thing, anyone who takes a cursory look at the history of the founding of our nation and the years immediately thereafter, when the framers of the Constitution were responsible for running the country, can easily determine for themselves that there is no such thing.
When I say there is no such thing as Originalism it is for this reason: in order for Originalism to be a valid political philosophy, the thing upon which it is based, i.e. a unified and consistent "framers' intent" would have to exist. If the history of the Constitutional Convention and the first 4 Presidencies tells us anything, it tells us that the framers, as a group, were unified on only one thing: improving upon the existing government under the Articles of Confederation in order to form a Union that was more likely to last and to provide protection for a weak nation against powerful nations. On almost every other point included in the Constitution there was tremendous disagreement and compromise.
A perfect example of this can be seen in the fiasco of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Federalists like Hamilton were perfectly comfortable in the belief that such acts were allowed under the Constitution, while Madison and his cohorts were vehemently and publicly certain that the Acts were, in fact anti-Constitutional. My point here is that even at that early date, the framers of the Constitution had no unified idea of what the document they had created meant or allowed.
If you want to ascribe an intent to the framers beyond forming a viable Union, about the only intent you can ascribe to them is that the political process reflect a willingness on the part of all involved to work together to find a solution that can work for the "now" and leave room for discussion in the future. Really, that's the lesson of the Constitutional Convention. It was a group of individuals, all with at least some competing ideals and interests, who made compromises in the short term to allow for the creation of a framework that would allow them to peacefully attempt to achieve their unrealized goals in the long term.
I'd say that people who call themselves Originalists are not students of history, but I can't, because I know that Justice Scalia IS a student of history. So, the only answer I can come up with is that people who call themselves Originalists have an idea of how they think things should be, and they have allowed themselves to develop a philosophy of Constitutional interpretation that fits that idea.
Whatever the reason for the growth of the Originalist philosophy, that pesky part of me that's ruled by logic and knowledge can't get over the fact that IT'S NOT BASED ON ANYTHING REAL! | | comments: 7 comments or Leave a comment |
| Last night, I went with my wife and a friend of ours to see Lady Gaga in concert. I have to admit that I've been a bit of a closet Gaga fan. I don't listen to her music on an everyday basis in normal life or anything, but I do listen to her every time I run. Her songs generally have great beats that keep my feet moving when I'm flagging.
Having said that, after last night's concert, I cannot say that I am a Lady Gaga fan. As a matter of fact, I'd even go so far as to say that my opinion of her has an artist has dipped significantly. Let me interject here to say that I am in no way asking my friends who are Lady Gaga fans not to post about her, nor am I making any value judgements about those who are big Gaga fans. What I am saying is that I am much less than impressed with her.
First, so that you know that I've given this some thought before coming to judgement, let me list the good things about Lady Gaga that make me want to like her as an artist:
1. She writes her own material. It's obvious that she writes her own material, and if you get past the pop beats and screaming teen fans, a lot of it is actually really good. She played a couple of her new songs in a blues-y ballad format last night, and the lyrics really popped in that setting. There is no doubt that she's got real talent as a songwriter.
2. She actually PLAYS music, rather than just singing it. Don't get me wrong, a well-developed voice is a beautiful instrument. However, I have a bias in favor of singers who actually play other instruments.
3. She doesn't lipsync. That may not seem like a big deal, but in this era of pop princesses who don't and admittedly long touring engagements that tax even the best singers, it is a really big deal.
4. She's obviously very loyal. The group that opened for her was technically good at their form of music, but their form of music is one that the general US audience considers to be crap. She continues to use them, however, because they came up with her in the New York music scene and helped her navigate those treacherous waters.
These are all good things, but after seeing Gaga live, I just can't overcome one fact: her form of entertainment is the crassest, most base form of entertainment. Given the option, she seems to choose shock value at every turn. Don't get me wrong, shock entertainment has it's place. That place is generally in the side-show tent at a low-rent circus. It's a cheap and easy thrill. Truly great artists and performers don't need to use shock to get their message across. They use more subtle forms of expression that force the audience to think and to come to realizations that can lead to enlightenment. They use their talents like a hand gently pushing aside soil to plant a seed that can flourish and grow in a landscape that's been prepared for that purpose. Shock is more like a spade tearing aside unprepared soil to implant an unfamiliar tree already full-grown. It is the chosen tool of people like Andres Serrano and Howard Stern. Definitely not the company I'd want to keep as an artist.
Anyway, that's my beef with Lady Gaga. Even though I know I shouldn't be, that I should have seen it coming, I find myself disappointed with her. I understand that many of you really like her, and I respect that and have no wish to force my beliefs on you. I just wanted to express my opinion. | | comments: 11 comments or Leave a comment |
| I've been thinking a lot today about the obvious divisions between conservatives and liberals in the US. There was a time when conservatives and liberals in the political arena could get together and work out their differences, at least to some degree. That just doesn't seem to happen anymore, and I think the fault lies on both sides of the line. I have a hard time understanding both hard line conservatives and hardcore liberals. They bring to mind the image of two neighbors. The first, disgusted with the world, builds a wall around his property and refuses to set foot outside of that wall, or even to look over it at the world beyond. The other, believing walls to be immoral, tears down all of the walls on his property, even the ones that hold up the roof over his head.
It seems to me that both are foolish. Boundaries are a good thing, but only as long as you are willing to look across those boundaries and attempt to understand and empathize with the world that lies beyond them.
Anyway, I guess I just wish that the world, and particularly the civil discourse in the US, was a little bit more genteel...'cause the current state of affairs sucks. | | comments: 5 comments or Leave a comment |
|
- 12:37 The passing lane is called the passing lane for a reason. If you are going to drive slower then everyone else get out of it! #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter | | comments: 4 comments or Leave a comment |
|
- 15:03 Watching the history channel. Had no idea Peter Weller is now a history professor at Syracuse. Wouldn't want to be late for that class. #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter | | comments: 3 comments or Leave a comment |
| As most of you know, I am, generally speaking, an Obama fan. I voted for him, and I think he's done a lot of good things so far. Having said that, I have to admit that I'm not 100% certain where I stand on the health care overhaul debate. I'm absolutely certain that our system for providing health care needs to be overhauled, but I'm not sure we're going about it in the correct manner.
The thing that really bothers me, though, is the rhetoric that's coming from a lot of the opponents of health care reform. In my eyes, it appears that most of the people screaming against reform are just picking up language they heard from Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, or some other demagogue and repeating it. That might not be so bad if the language they're using wasn't blatantly wrong and easily logically refutable.
Here's the most common instance of what I've described: I was having a discussion with another Marine the other day, and he stated that having the government involved as a market participant in providing health care (i.e. having a public option) would ultimately drive all other participants out of the market because they wouldn't be able to financially compete. This is stuff I've heard from the mouths of several conservative commentators, and it's not supported by historical evidence. In the majority of the fields in which the U.S. government operates as a market participant, other, private, market participants are able to thrive. The example I used with him was the U.S. Postal Service (actually, I was a bit snide. I said "You're absolutely right! After all, look how hard a time UPS and FedEx have competing against the U.S. Postal Service! They're barely staying afloat!"). However, there are numerous other examples (home mortgages, electric power supply, etc.) In the few fields of legitimate private enterprise where the U.S. government has become the sole market participant, it is usually because the government stepped in and became a market participant when it became clear that the market was folding and, for interests of national security or interstate commerce, could not be allowed to fold. The most obvious example of this is Amtrak. Amtrak is a government-owned corporation that is the sole provider of nationwide rail transportation for people (as opposed to freight) on a large scale. However, Amtrak was only created in 1971 after it became clear that the non-freight rail transportation industry was getting ready to cease existence. In other words, the government's participation in the market did not drive out other market competitors. Those competitors were driven out of the market by lack of profitability prior to government participation.
Another example is the statement (made by certain well-known politicians) that the health care proposals currently in Congress would encourage euthanasia by having mandatory counseling sessions for the elderly in which they would be directed in how to end their lives. If you've read the pertinent parts of the proposals, you know that this was absolute bunk. That's like saying that having a voluntary suicide awareness class at a community center will encourage suicide. The proposals did have VOLUNTARY counseling focused on decisions that might need to be made when the individual was incapacitated (i.e. living wills, etc.). HUGE difference.
So, the point of the rant above is this: If you want to have a civil discussion about health care or convince me of your position, try using logical arguments instead of just blindly repeating assertions that I can easily prove to be ridiculous. If that same Marine had told me that he had a problem with the current health care reform proposals because he just couldn't understand how we were going to be able to fund them over the next 20 years without a marked increase in taxes for everyone, I'd have respected and understood his position. Heck, I have the same concern myself. I just wish people would stop being lemmings.
| | comments: 8 comments or Leave a comment |
| So, I just read a news report that, due a resurgence in requests for information from conservative groups and news organizations, the Hawaii State Department of Health once again issued a statement verifying that President Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii. For those of you who don't know, during the election, and even more so right after the election, several conservative groups, talk-show hosts, and Republican members of Congress began to express the opinion that Obama was not qualified to be President because he was not born in Hawaii, as stated, but rather was born out of the country. The most vocal of the proponents of this theory was, of course, conservative demagogue Rush Limbaugh.
There are a couple of particularly ridiculous things about this situation:
1. Prior to the election, Obama's camp produced his birth certificate and other documents verifying that he was born in Hawaii. These documents were verified as legitimate. There was never any REAL question about whether or not he was a natural. Since that time, the Hawaii State Department of Health has verified, on several occasions that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
2. Many of the same people who are attempting to undermine an election in this underhanded manner (example Rush Limbaugh) were the most vocal in condemning Al Gore for failing to graciously concede the election to President Bush. Apparently, hypocrisy is alive and well.
So, here's my message to those who continue to push the Obama "non-natural citizen" non-issue:
GET OVER IT! You lost, fair and square. Learn to be adults and move on. You don't like the elected President? Vote for someone else again next time. You lose that time as well? Sucks for you. That's kinda how a Democracy (or Representative Republic) works.
| | comments: 12 comments or Leave a comment |
| - 14:29 At the original Dreamland barbeque in Tuscaloosa, al. It's a shack and it's awesome. Menu: rack of ribs, plate of ribs, or rib sandwich. #
- 18:58 @Chris Swann Actually on my way from Ms. I totally shld have pinged you. Be back again in a few months, and the wife shld be with me. #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter | | comments: Leave a comment |
|
Ron's Rumentations
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92){kind=small}
rgusmc1's journal
excited
irritated
disappointed