There is a certain irony about living in the South, especially after living up North for so many years. In the North, the temperature is decent 9 months out of the year but December - February is not pleasant; In the South, it is nice 9 months out of the year but June - August are unpleaset.
Here is an interesting article from Slate about humans avoiding weather. If there were no air conditioning, the university I am at would not be a major university. Though, when the university turns on the air in all of the buildings, it seems as if it is set for 65; if it were 65 degrees outside, then most people would turn on their heat.
Last fall, a student walked in to class a few minutes late. He wore a winter jacket (a skiing jacket) and a winter wool cap. I looked at him and reminded him it wasn't that cold out. It was 58 degrees.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Anonymous Authorship
Authorship and You Tube:
This video raises interesting questions about anonymous “invention,” especially for those who do it.
I write anonymously; a lot of people I know do, especially if they are not connected to a major outlet. Writing anonymously may allow for individuals to write “freely.” However, it can also cover “interests.” An example from Youtube and ABC News:
This video raises interesting questions about anonymous “invention,” especially for those who do it.
I write anonymously; a lot of people I know do, especially if they are not connected to a major outlet. Writing anonymously may allow for individuals to write “freely.” However, it can also cover “interests.” An example from Youtube and ABC News:
The Daily Show Effect?
After the presidential elections of 2000, scholars argued that those who watched The Daily Show were politically aware and that a good number of people received the "news" from the Daily Show. Now, there is "The Daily Show Effect" by Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris from American Politics Research 34.3 (2006). Here is the abstarct:
We test the effects of a popular televised source of political humor for young Americans: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. We find that participants Exposed to jokes about George W. Bush and John Kerry on The Daily Show Tended to rate both candidates more negatively, even when controlling for partisanship and other demographic variables. Moreover, we find that viewers Exhibit more cynicism toward the electoral system and the news media at large. Despite these negative reactions, viewers of The Daily Show reported Increased confidence in their ability to understand the complicated world of politics. Our findings are significant in the burgeoning field of research on the effects of “soft news” on the American public. Although research indicates that soft news contributes to democratic citizenship in America by reaching out to the inattentive public, our findings indicate that The Daily Show may have more detrimental effects, driving down support for political institutions and leaders among those already inclined toward nonparticipation.
This article raises a few interesting questions:
(1) Do viewers of The Daily Show need to understand the context of a story for the irony to work (this may undermine the "soft news" aspect of this article? With Irony, you need to "be in the know" to get the joke).
(2) Is the viewers possess the contextual knowledge and more knowledge on the topic of politics, are they to be more skeptical, even without The Daily Show?
(3) This study examined the 2004 elections, one of the most polarized in US History. How did that alter the findings?
(4) They conducted their research from Political Science Students. Can they separate the students' knowledge from the Daily Show with their other political knowledge maybe even other political shows?
We test the effects of a popular televised source of political humor for young Americans: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. We find that participants Exposed to jokes about George W. Bush and John Kerry on The Daily Show Tended to rate both candidates more negatively, even when controlling for partisanship and other demographic variables. Moreover, we find that viewers Exhibit more cynicism toward the electoral system and the news media at large. Despite these negative reactions, viewers of The Daily Show reported Increased confidence in their ability to understand the complicated world of politics. Our findings are significant in the burgeoning field of research on the effects of “soft news” on the American public. Although research indicates that soft news contributes to democratic citizenship in America by reaching out to the inattentive public, our findings indicate that The Daily Show may have more detrimental effects, driving down support for political institutions and leaders among those already inclined toward nonparticipation.
This article raises a few interesting questions:
(1) Do viewers of The Daily Show need to understand the context of a story for the irony to work (this may undermine the "soft news" aspect of this article? With Irony, you need to "be in the know" to get the joke).
(2) Is the viewers possess the contextual knowledge and more knowledge on the topic of politics, are they to be more skeptical, even without The Daily Show?
(3) This study examined the 2004 elections, one of the most polarized in US History. How did that alter the findings?
(4) They conducted their research from Political Science Students. Can they separate the students' knowledge from the Daily Show with their other political knowledge maybe even other political shows?
Friday, August 04, 2006
If this is true...
I would not know what to say: From Raw Story. Here is an excerpt. Click the link for more.
"Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.
In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites."
"Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.
In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites."
When is a Civil War a "Civil War?"
Since the Bush Administration announced "Mission Accomplished" 1,190 days ago, sectarian violence errupted betwen the Sunni and Shi'a and one of the main obstacles to stability in Iraq. The division between the groups is not major news since these two groups have been fighting a political battle since 632 C.E. over succession of leadership after the Death of the Prophet Muhammed. The current Iraq War and the lack of security after the war only exacerbated this division and violence.
But who has the power to define the Civil War in a Iraq a "Civil War." Isn't this question important to the fall mid-term elections?
But who has the power to define the Civil War in a Iraq a "Civil War." Isn't this question important to the fall mid-term elections?
Thursday, August 03, 2006
I wish I spoke German
«I write differently from the way I speak, I speak differently from the way I think, I think differently from the way I should think - and so it goes on into the darkest depths of infinity»
(Letter to Ottla, July 10, 1914)
The Kafka Project seems like an excellent site for research, especially if you speak/read German. Kafka's manuscript on The Trial would be a great place to observe the insight of an author and the choices an author makes when writing.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Terrorism and the Consent of the People
From the "Worst Person in the World Segment" from Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
"But [our] winner tonight, comedian Rush Limbaugh, suggesting that civilian deaths in Lebanon are necessary to stop terror. “Until those civilians start paying the price for propping up these regimes, it not going to end, folks.” It would be a little less alarming if didn‘t echo something another commentator said nine years ago. “The American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility because they chose this government and voted for it, despite their knowledge of its crimes.” That was said by Osama bin Laden.
Rush Limbaugh, following the logic and ethics of Osama bin Laden, today‘s 'Worst Person in the World.'"
"But [our] winner tonight, comedian Rush Limbaugh, suggesting that civilian deaths in Lebanon are necessary to stop terror. “Until those civilians start paying the price for propping up these regimes, it not going to end, folks.” It would be a little less alarming if didn‘t echo something another commentator said nine years ago. “The American people, they are not exonerated from responsibility because they chose this government and voted for it, despite their knowledge of its crimes.” That was said by Osama bin Laden.
Rush Limbaugh, following the logic and ethics of Osama bin Laden, today‘s 'Worst Person in the World.'"
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Tuesday Morning Quarterback
It's back, finally:
This is the most insightful column on football, though the insight is not always about football. You can find it at:
Tuesday Morning Quarterback
This is the most insightful column on football, though the insight is not always about football. You can find it at:
Evidence for Moussaoui Trial
I found this link online, (the original link is from a story on CNN).
At http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/, the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia poseted the evidence for the prosecution and defense in the Moussaoui Trial. There is a lot of information on this site, some graphic and some personal.
It is very interesting to examine this to (1) see how the prosecution will use this evidence and (2) how much of it works as a non sequitur (3) how these documents will instill the emotions (4) and how the pathos will alter the logos (if you were to separate and analyze the two).
The listing itself is rhetorical, especiallyon phase two.
At http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/, the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia poseted the evidence for the prosecution and defense in the Moussaoui Trial. There is a lot of information on this site, some graphic and some personal.
It is very interesting to examine this to (1) see how the prosecution will use this evidence and (2) how much of it works as a non sequitur (3) how these documents will instill the emotions (4) and how the pathos will alter the logos (if you were to separate and analyze the two).
The listing itself is rhetorical, especiallyon phase two.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Duties and Obligations
I keep reaching a reoccurring question in my dissertation and in my general reading:
(1) What are our duties and obligations in society?
a. Do these differ based on whether or not we are citizens, consumers, neighbors, etc.
(2) What is the basic organization principle in society (state or nation, and I mean in a different sense then the constitution).
(3) How do we give consent to these two questions?
a. Is it because we own property, elect representatives, pay taxes, or we do not move?
(1) What are our duties and obligations in society?
a. Do these differ based on whether or not we are citizens, consumers, neighbors, etc.
(2) What is the basic organization principle in society (state or nation, and I mean in a different sense then the constitution).
(3) How do we give consent to these two questions?
a. Is it because we own property, elect representatives, pay taxes, or we do not move?
Saturday, July 22, 2006
The Leaders You Deserve...
A professor of mine once said, "In a democracy, you get the leaders you deserve." It is a common enough phrase and its consequences can be disastrous. This time the disaster is to education.
In Florida, Jeb Bush signed into law the Florida Education Omnibus Bill (H.B. 7087e3). One purpose of this law is to require that the State's public schools teach American History as being "factual" and not "constructed." American History shall be "knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence." This bill presents many controversies.
First, how will the new History teach the principles of the Declaration: Will this be used to introduce into history rights secured by a creator (and introduce religion into history, even though it calls for a secular education?) Will these principles discuss the absence of women, children, and blacks from civil and political life and focus only on property holders (which would be historically accurate? What is the fate of native Americans?
Press reports indicate that Native Americans have been removed from history.
Second, how will "History" express every action to provide a comprehensive view of history. An LA Times article writes:
"That's why Cornell's Carl Becker chose the title "Everyman His Own Historian" for his 1931 address to the American Historical Assn., probably the most famous short piece of writing in our profession. In it, Becker explained why "Everyman" — that is, the average layperson — inevitably interpreted the facts of his or her own life, remembering certain elements and forgetting (or distorting) others.
"For instance, try to recount everything you did yesterday. Not just a few things, like going to work or eating dinner or reading the newspaper, but everything. You can't. Even if you kept a diary and recorded what you did each minute, you would inevitably omit some detail: a sound in your ear, a twitch in your nose, a passing glance of your eyes. A 24-hour video camera might pick up these physical actions, but it could never record your thoughts.
"So when somebody asks what you did yesterday, you select a certain few facts about your day and spin a story around them.
"As do professional historians. They may draw on a wider array of facts and theories but, just like "Everyman," they choose certain data points and omit others, as well they must."
Third, how will the new history treat competing views of the United States? It is interesting to note that the Bill also declares that history shall stress: "The nature and importance of free enterprise to the United States economy." This, of course, is a construciton of history, one that views the importance of ALexander Hamilton's vision of the country over the agrarian community of Thomas Jefferson. If, for example, you favor Hamilton's view over Jefferson's, and the Federalist view over the anti-Federalist, can you teach Jefferson and the anti-Federalists? Furthermore, this view of free-enterprise seems to contradict the nature of free enterprise (or show the irony of free enterprise). In free enterprise, quality emerges through quantity: through he competition of products, or ideas, the best products or ideas emerge. However, this rigs the system from the beginning. There is to be little competition, just these views.
Finally, how is history connected to character development? There is a section of the bill on "character development." The bill proclaims:
The character-development curriculum shall stress the qualities of patriotism;, respon- sibility;, citizenship;, kindness;, respect for authority, life, liberty, and per-
sonal property;, honesty; charity;, self-control;, racial, ethnic, and religious
tolerance;, and cooperation."
It is interesting that before liberty comes respect for authority. This is the exact lesson of the American Revolution, right?
The New-Republicans have moved from small government and individual liberty to bog-government that limits individual liberty, especially in social issues associated with the culture wars: flag burning, abortion, same-sex marriage, education, and religion in schools. (This does not man the Democrats are competent; it just means that the Republican Revolution produced certain ironies in social policies that contradict the principles of conservatism.) While Republicans loathe the emergence of “the State,” they do a lot to create the powers of “the State.”
The Bill itself can be found here:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/06laws/ch_2006-074.pdf
For more info, read:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/26016.html (The History News Network).
http://hnn.us/articles/28095.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0717-22.htm (Common Dreams Newsletter).
In Florida, Jeb Bush signed into law the Florida Education Omnibus Bill (H.B. 7087e3). One purpose of this law is to require that the State's public schools teach American History as being "factual" and not "constructed." American History shall be "knowable, teachable, and testable, and shall be defined as the creation of a new nation based largely on the universal principles stated in the Declaration of Independence." This bill presents many controversies.
First, how will the new History teach the principles of the Declaration: Will this be used to introduce into history rights secured by a creator (and introduce religion into history, even though it calls for a secular education?) Will these principles discuss the absence of women, children, and blacks from civil and political life and focus only on property holders (which would be historically accurate? What is the fate of native Americans?
Press reports indicate that Native Americans have been removed from history.
Second, how will "History" express every action to provide a comprehensive view of history. An LA Times article writes:
"That's why Cornell's Carl Becker chose the title "Everyman His Own Historian" for his 1931 address to the American Historical Assn., probably the most famous short piece of writing in our profession. In it, Becker explained why "Everyman" — that is, the average layperson — inevitably interpreted the facts of his or her own life, remembering certain elements and forgetting (or distorting) others.
"For instance, try to recount everything you did yesterday. Not just a few things, like going to work or eating dinner or reading the newspaper, but everything. You can't. Even if you kept a diary and recorded what you did each minute, you would inevitably omit some detail: a sound in your ear, a twitch in your nose, a passing glance of your eyes. A 24-hour video camera might pick up these physical actions, but it could never record your thoughts.
"So when somebody asks what you did yesterday, you select a certain few facts about your day and spin a story around them.
"As do professional historians. They may draw on a wider array of facts and theories but, just like "Everyman," they choose certain data points and omit others, as well they must."
Third, how will the new history treat competing views of the United States? It is interesting to note that the Bill also declares that history shall stress: "The nature and importance of free enterprise to the United States economy." This, of course, is a construciton of history, one that views the importance of ALexander Hamilton's vision of the country over the agrarian community of Thomas Jefferson. If, for example, you favor Hamilton's view over Jefferson's, and the Federalist view over the anti-Federalist, can you teach Jefferson and the anti-Federalists? Furthermore, this view of free-enterprise seems to contradict the nature of free enterprise (or show the irony of free enterprise). In free enterprise, quality emerges through quantity: through he competition of products, or ideas, the best products or ideas emerge. However, this rigs the system from the beginning. There is to be little competition, just these views.
Finally, how is history connected to character development? There is a section of the bill on "character development." The bill proclaims:
The character-development curriculum shall stress the qualities of patriotism;, respon- sibility;, citizenship;, kindness;, respect for authority, life, liberty, and per-
sonal property;, honesty; charity;, self-control;, racial, ethnic, and religious
tolerance;, and cooperation."
It is interesting that before liberty comes respect for authority. This is the exact lesson of the American Revolution, right?
The New-Republicans have moved from small government and individual liberty to bog-government that limits individual liberty, especially in social issues associated with the culture wars: flag burning, abortion, same-sex marriage, education, and religion in schools. (This does not man the Democrats are competent; it just means that the Republican Revolution produced certain ironies in social policies that contradict the principles of conservatism.) While Republicans loathe the emergence of “the State,” they do a lot to create the powers of “the State.”
The Bill itself can be found here:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/laws/06laws/ch_2006-074.pdf
For more info, read:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/26016.html (The History News Network).
http://hnn.us/articles/28095.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0717-22.htm (Common Dreams Newsletter).
Thursday, July 20, 2006
More From Politics and Vision
I am 5/6 of the way through Politics and Vision. Here is a quote on John Dewey and Democracy:
Dewey wrote: "If the living experiencing being is an intimate participant is the activities of the world to which it belongs, then knowledge is a mode of participation, valuable in the degree to which it is effective. It cannot be the idle view of an unconcerned spectator."
Democracy, "is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated expereiences."
Dewey wrote: "If the living experiencing being is an intimate participant is the activities of the world to which it belongs, then knowledge is a mode of participation, valuable in the degree to which it is effective. It cannot be the idle view of an unconcerned spectator."
Democracy, "is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated expereiences."
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Thought for the day...
A quote from Poliitcs and Vision by Sheldon S. Wolin during a discussion of Nietzsche, culture, and politics:
"The politics of the anti-system is best represented by a famous passage from The Gay Science. There NIetzsche welcomes 'all signs that a more virile. warlike age is to begin.' That 'higher' age will 'carry heroism into the search for knowledge and... will wage wars for the sake of ideas and their consequences.'"
The passage continues: "The true heroes wil be those who 'live dangerously.' Then: 'At last the search for knowledge will reach out for its due; it will want to rule and possess, and you with it.'"
The stress of this passage resides at the end: "it will want to rule and possess, and you with it."
I am still not sure as to what to make of this quote and the present age. Fitting, maybe. It reads like an editorial from The Weekly Standard.
"The politics of the anti-system is best represented by a famous passage from The Gay Science. There NIetzsche welcomes 'all signs that a more virile. warlike age is to begin.' That 'higher' age will 'carry heroism into the search for knowledge and... will wage wars for the sake of ideas and their consequences.'"
The passage continues: "The true heroes wil be those who 'live dangerously.' Then: 'At last the search for knowledge will reach out for its due; it will want to rule and possess, and you with it.'"
The stress of this passage resides at the end: "it will want to rule and possess, and you with it."
I am still not sure as to what to make of this quote and the present age. Fitting, maybe. It reads like an editorial from The Weekly Standard.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Congress shall make no law... except when it does
Today the Senate began debate on another Flag Burning Amendment. The bill, sponsored originally by Rep. Randy Duke Cunningham (R-California) (FYI- Cunningham used it as a means by which he would literally wrap himself in the flag before being taking away for corruption) and now by Senator Orin Hatch (Utah) proposes an amendment to the constitution which will consist of: "Congress shall have the power to prohibit physical desecration of the flag." Over the years there have been numerous laws to seek this goal; however, these laws were overturned in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson. In that decision, conservative Justice Scalia on the side of the majority, as he does with a lot of free speech issues).
This may be the first time in the Country's history where there is enough support for the Amendment. It is a vote or two away from passing in the Senate; it will pass in the House. It would most likely pass in the States (38 are needed). It would divide the states for years though.
I am always interested in legal issues, especially with the first amendment. Personally, I find that flag burning ought to be a protected form of political speech for the following reasons:
(1) It is speech in the sense it sends a message, especially in political contexts. (In the Johnson case, Johnson burned the flag during a political rally to protest the Reagan administration). Political speech needs to receive the most protection by the First Amendment.
(2) It is unpopular speech and unpopular speech needs protection. What is and what is not constitutional should not be made based on the tastes of the majority. Flag burning is speech and if someone does not like it, then do not engage in conversation with the person doing it.
(3) The cure for bad speech is more speech: If you do not like someone burning a flag, try to get that person to stop burning the flag. Persuade the person, do not write a law in order to stop someone.
(4) Laws against flag burning are enacted to suppress speech and not protect the flag. Most of the flag burning laws did not want to stop people from wearing flag shirts, portraying flags on napkins and throwing them away, putting the image of a flag in a cake and then eating it, displaying a flag outside and having the colors fade, placing a flag on a car and having the edges of it tear. All of these are acts of desecration.
(5) There are few acts of flag burning in this country. One report, from a group that wants to protect the flag, reported that there had only been three this year. Most of the flag burning incidents happen outside of this country and this amendment will not stop it.
(6) This is just political grandstanding and Congress had more important issues to deal with.
The arguments against flag burning receiving constitutional protection:
(1) It is a special symbol and it needs protection. Rehnquist wrote along these lines in Johnson. I do not find this very persuasive. It enough people want to protect something, then it becomes unconstitutional?
(2) Majorities across the country want this law and will pass it.
(3) Flag burning is not speech; it is an act. This is a very restricted view of the first amendment. It would call into question a lot of other communicative practices, such as art, movies, the internet, etc.
(4) There are other means by which the speaker can present his/her message. This may be true, but the style of the message does alter the content of the message. Burning a flag sends a different message then saying: “I protest the policies of this country.”
(5) Flag burning is offensive. Since offensive is subjective, it is hard to create criterion to judge whether or not something is offensive. Something that is offensive to one receiver (in the communication process) is not offensive to another. Sen. Arlen Specter today said, “"Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful. It is designed to hurt. It is not designed to persuade." This makes Sen. Specter (and those that support the amendment) the definers of offense. I would no longer be able to discern for myself what is offensive.
As I said before, I believe that this should not pass. I do not see how the arguments in favor of the amendment are better than the arguments against it. The only possibility is that #2 above is how the system of representative government works, though it would violate the first amendment. Also, even though #2 above is how the system works, it places control of the first amendment in the hands of the majority.
Have I missed anything?
This may be the first time in the Country's history where there is enough support for the Amendment. It is a vote or two away from passing in the Senate; it will pass in the House. It would most likely pass in the States (38 are needed). It would divide the states for years though.
I am always interested in legal issues, especially with the first amendment. Personally, I find that flag burning ought to be a protected form of political speech for the following reasons:
(1) It is speech in the sense it sends a message, especially in political contexts. (In the Johnson case, Johnson burned the flag during a political rally to protest the Reagan administration). Political speech needs to receive the most protection by the First Amendment.
(2) It is unpopular speech and unpopular speech needs protection. What is and what is not constitutional should not be made based on the tastes of the majority. Flag burning is speech and if someone does not like it, then do not engage in conversation with the person doing it.
(3) The cure for bad speech is more speech: If you do not like someone burning a flag, try to get that person to stop burning the flag. Persuade the person, do not write a law in order to stop someone.
(4) Laws against flag burning are enacted to suppress speech and not protect the flag. Most of the flag burning laws did not want to stop people from wearing flag shirts, portraying flags on napkins and throwing them away, putting the image of a flag in a cake and then eating it, displaying a flag outside and having the colors fade, placing a flag on a car and having the edges of it tear. All of these are acts of desecration.
(5) There are few acts of flag burning in this country. One report, from a group that wants to protect the flag, reported that there had only been three this year. Most of the flag burning incidents happen outside of this country and this amendment will not stop it.
(6) This is just political grandstanding and Congress had more important issues to deal with.
The arguments against flag burning receiving constitutional protection:
(1) It is a special symbol and it needs protection. Rehnquist wrote along these lines in Johnson. I do not find this very persuasive. It enough people want to protect something, then it becomes unconstitutional?
(2) Majorities across the country want this law and will pass it.
(3) Flag burning is not speech; it is an act. This is a very restricted view of the first amendment. It would call into question a lot of other communicative practices, such as art, movies, the internet, etc.
(4) There are other means by which the speaker can present his/her message. This may be true, but the style of the message does alter the content of the message. Burning a flag sends a different message then saying: “I protest the policies of this country.”
(5) Flag burning is offensive. Since offensive is subjective, it is hard to create criterion to judge whether or not something is offensive. Something that is offensive to one receiver (in the communication process) is not offensive to another. Sen. Arlen Specter today said, “"Flag burning is a form of expression that is spiteful or vengeful. It is designed to hurt. It is not designed to persuade." This makes Sen. Specter (and those that support the amendment) the definers of offense. I would no longer be able to discern for myself what is offensive.
As I said before, I believe that this should not pass. I do not see how the arguments in favor of the amendment are better than the arguments against it. The only possibility is that #2 above is how the system of representative government works, though it would violate the first amendment. Also, even though #2 above is how the system works, it places control of the first amendment in the hands of the majority.
Have I missed anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)