Monday, March 14, 2011
two and a half men
How to replace Charlie Sheen on two and a half men? Charlie is putting up his house on a bet. The person he made the bet with will have to stay in the house for one year and Allen must live there at the same time. If this person leaves before the time is up Charlie gets 1 million dollars, if he stays Charlie gives up the house.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Freedom
A great man said
"In securing our liberties, the most difficult thing is learning to tolerate the liberties of others."
~Parker Renfrew~
(Yea I know thats me. Hey what can I say I am GREAT!!)
Two issues I would like to discuss are the Supreme Court Ruling on Funeral protests and the Defense of Marriage Act
No individual wants their liberties to be denied. Some liberties we don't fully exercise and are unconcern if they are threaten. But at times liberteis we exercise but will want other denied those liberties to others who will exercise the same liberties but in a different manner.
Freedom of Speech is one such liberty. Where one exercises it or what they say while exercising it will become reason to deny others freedom of speech. People will get offended by what others say, how they say it or where they say it. "I'll will deny you freedom if you offend me." But such an attitude will lead to all losing freedom. Even if we find it obscene.
It was pointed out one time that prosecuting someone for Obsenity is very chilling to speech. One does not know they have done something wrong until after the speech is made and at one place it would be accepted and protected but another place (local standards) it would be prosecuted. And think how because of one place finds it obscene would prevent it from being heard or seen in a place where it would be protected. Just in order to prevent those who would be offended by it from prosecuting others for it.
Defense of Marriage Act
I would like to do a bit more research on this one but I do want to get my initial thoughts down.
President Obama comes out and says his administration will not prosecute the act because its unconstitutional. And then he is criticized for it.
My first thought on this is to wonder about a previous law passed by congress during the Clinton administration, and later overturned by the Supreme Court. This was the stomping video case. At the time of the bill sighing Clinton order the justice department to narrow the scope of enforcement. Since the legislation was so broad, it could encompass other videos, such as ones dealing with hunting. President Bush and Obama administration both decided to narrow the enforcement of the law. I am glad they did so. To what extent is it different. An administration believing a law to be unconstitutional either in part or in its entirety, should not enforce that law.
Lets look at the Presidential Oath,
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "
It does not say the to protect and defend the laws passed by congress and signed by a President. The oath talks about the constitution. If any administration, finds a law or a part of a law unconstitutional. Its the President's duty to not enforce it in order to protect the constitution.
I am will to change my thought on this but will need to do some more research.
"In securing our liberties, the most difficult thing is learning to tolerate the liberties of others."
~Parker Renfrew~
(Yea I know thats me. Hey what can I say I am GREAT!!)
Two issues I would like to discuss are the Supreme Court Ruling on Funeral protests and the Defense of Marriage Act
No individual wants their liberties to be denied. Some liberties we don't fully exercise and are unconcern if they are threaten. But at times liberteis we exercise but will want other denied those liberties to others who will exercise the same liberties but in a different manner.
Freedom of Speech is one such liberty. Where one exercises it or what they say while exercising it will become reason to deny others freedom of speech. People will get offended by what others say, how they say it or where they say it. "I'll will deny you freedom if you offend me." But such an attitude will lead to all losing freedom. Even if we find it obscene.
It was pointed out one time that prosecuting someone for Obsenity is very chilling to speech. One does not know they have done something wrong until after the speech is made and at one place it would be accepted and protected but another place (local standards) it would be prosecuted. And think how because of one place finds it obscene would prevent it from being heard or seen in a place where it would be protected. Just in order to prevent those who would be offended by it from prosecuting others for it.
Defense of Marriage Act
I would like to do a bit more research on this one but I do want to get my initial thoughts down.
President Obama comes out and says his administration will not prosecute the act because its unconstitutional. And then he is criticized for it.
My first thought on this is to wonder about a previous law passed by congress during the Clinton administration, and later overturned by the Supreme Court. This was the stomping video case. At the time of the bill sighing Clinton order the justice department to narrow the scope of enforcement. Since the legislation was so broad, it could encompass other videos, such as ones dealing with hunting. President Bush and Obama administration both decided to narrow the enforcement of the law. I am glad they did so. To what extent is it different. An administration believing a law to be unconstitutional either in part or in its entirety, should not enforce that law.
Lets look at the Presidential Oath,
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "
It does not say the to protect and defend the laws passed by congress and signed by a President. The oath talks about the constitution. If any administration, finds a law or a part of a law unconstitutional. Its the President's duty to not enforce it in order to protect the constitution.
I am will to change my thought on this but will need to do some more research.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Gas Prices
Well we have gas prices rising and stock market over 12,000. With the unrest in the Middle East causing some of increase in oil prices, some of it is on what the future demand is expected. If every one in the U.S. was to suddenly earn twice as much money, then the price of gas would not be a major concern. But could we be seeing a bubble occurring again and some time soon we would have a day of major stocks falling. It seem close to the same situation as before, I would not be surprised to see the same results.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Democracy NOT YET!!!
Egypt has exchange the dictatorship of Mubarak with a military dictatorship. Its not a democracy. We have to wait and see if the military will allow democracy.
other places
If other places in the mid east or in Africa has protests I don't think the leaders of the other countries will put up with what has happen and will put down all revolts with severe military action. That assumes the military at other places does not want to take power.
What Now?
The question about Egypt is now what happens now. The removal of Mubarak is only 1/3 of the problem. If in one year the person ruling Egypt is a member of the current ruling party, or is member of the military, it will not necessarily be a sign of democratic progress. If it leads to greater conflicts (with Israel, or any other country in the region) we will see a failure of a peaceful revolution. Is there any indication the current ruling party will be out of power?
So we have these questions
What role did the military in past Egyptian elections?
What will happen in other Islamic countries?
What happens with Israel?
Could it lead to a Holocaust in the middle east?
Will the US be able to get through the Suez Canal?
Will a Mubarak free Egypt lead to Egypt becoming a enemy of the U.S.?
Everything in Egypt is totally meaningless if it results in elections not reflecting the will of the people? Or if there is greater violence in the Middle East.
So we have these questions
What role did the military in past Egyptian elections?
What will happen in other Islamic countries?
What happens with Israel?
Could it lead to a Holocaust in the middle east?
Will the US be able to get through the Suez Canal?
Will a Mubarak free Egypt lead to Egypt becoming a enemy of the U.S.?
Everything in Egypt is totally meaningless if it results in elections not reflecting the will of the people? Or if there is greater violence in the Middle East.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Reagan Kennedy Obama
Trying to compare Obama to two historical presidents view positively by many Americans. Seems to be an attempt to make him seem greater than who he really is. 'He's not Obama, he's Reagan or Kennedy" and if you like one of these, you should like Obama. Obama needs to stand on his own. In the Future he needs to be the one they compare future presidents too and such a comparison would need to be a positive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
