Saturday, July 27, 2013{%2210201788354773215%22%3A592030510840927}&action_type_map={%2210201788354773215%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

Friday, July 19, 2013

the Death/Fall of Trayvon/Zimmerman

This whole thing is one nasty show and frankly part of me wishes I kept closer track of it as it happened in real time.

The problem with that, simply put, is that as the informaiton came out and kept coming out it there was a significant difficulty in determining what information was significant at the time, and how it would relate to the overall series of events.

As it is I wish I could recall what articles or channels alerted me first to certain parts of the story.  Facebook removed the "links" archival feature years ago.  Otherwise I could show you that a link from the Baron Cruz of Sealand informed me of the event first, and we had trouble determining whether it was self-defense or vigilantism that ended the life of Trayvon Martin. In the end political pressures put George Zimmerman on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin.  George Zimmerman was acquitted, as there was literally no evidence beyond what the few witnesses could generate (and George Zimmerman was the only witness present to the killing/death, so there was no one to contradict his statement) so he was rightly released.  This entire saga helped shape scenarios, mostly fictional, for people to mold new racial arguments around.

The nasty show was made nasty because of politics and because wanted to make it political.  It almost sounds like an ouroboros after the death.

Who do we have to blame for the story becoming political?  I blame the President of the United States and NBC as a start.  Yet I blame rightwing punditry for overreacting other way.  At some point I saw Democrats and Republicans start to take sides along party lines over whether or not George Zimmerman murdered someone.

If someone were to divide it into a book, one could divide it into easy topical chapters almost chronologically.
  • The Mysterious Death of Trayvon Martin
  • The Vilification of George Zimmerman
  • President Obama versus George Zimmerman
  • The Martyr at the Expense of the Ignored
  • NBC versus George Zimmerman
  • The Vision of the Innocent Trayvon
  • Republicans to the Rescue
  • The Demonization of Trayvon Martin
  • The Revelation of NBC
  • The Trial of George Zimmerman
  • Partisanship
  • Justice For Trayvon Martin
  • The Verdict
  • Bastion of Racism
  • Homophobic Post-Trial Revelation
  • President Obama is Trayvon Martin
By the way, for what it is worth, Trayvon Martin will never get justice for whether George Zimmerman is innocent or not of murdering the young man, Trayvon is dead long before he could grow up.

President Obama as Trayvon Martin

The fact that Obama could have been Trayvon doesn't exonerate Trayvon, it condemns Obama.
-- Soopermexican

The President honors Trayvon Martin the only way he knows how—by making it about himself.
-- Lyndsey Fifield

Could President Obama really have been Trayvon Martin? Of all the young dead men and children in this country how similar has the President's life been to them? How similar has yours been?

What circumstances lead to these tragedies? How much free will?

More than anything else this appears to be a martyrdom for Trayvon Martin.  Certainly there is no harm in mourning his death but I can see no gain to anyone for invoking his name at the exclusion of every other dead son or daughter, mourned by parents, relatives, and other loved ones.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Annette Fredskov ran 366 marathons in 366 days

From Fox News Insider:

A Danish woman just completed what for most of us is akin to the impossible after finishing her 366th marathon in 365 days... that equates to over 9,500 miles, which is nearly four times the distance between New York and Los Angeles.
Annette Fredskov, a mom of two, says that her inspiration for the feat came after she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis three years ago. Last summer, she made the decision to start running a marathon a day and never looked back. This past Sunday, Fredskov closed the year with a double marathon.

You can find Annette's YouTube channel here.  Here is her homepage.  Here is her Twitter.

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Collective Reponsibility Confusion

The most unfortunate aspect of this modern trend, of ceding responsibility to a group, is to confuse power and truth. (Modern men are so confused that some will even deny that truth exists. But, look at their behavior and listen to their words, and you see that they do believe in truth, and that power and truth are exactly the same thing to them. This is how they can carelessly call the opposition "racists," for example. What is the truth of their accusation? It's because The Man told them so. That's good enough for the sheeple.)

Once you confuse power and truth, you become barbaric to the extent the group allows. Civilization comes from truth having a separate life from power; or, at least, civilization comes from knowledge being *uncompromising* and being itself a power.
-- Mark Cao

This is, of course, part of the  public discourse, where people decide upon the actuality of a historical event on the basis of how many other people endorse a particular view.  That explains Wikipedia (and one of its most horrifying weaknesses) but it also informs how history is written by the victors (or the losers if their power is great enough), or Lord Acton's notion that "power corrupts" because in Acton's context the "absolute power" was the ability to shape how people view history so that people can act upon their knowledge.  If I really want to hammer it I can go into Dawkins' meme theory and Mackinac Center's Overton Windows.

People act in response to a perception of reality and this perception is derived or determined by how the world is presented to them in the most consistent and definitive manner.  My brother and share I trait in which our respective voices take on a particular tone whenever we set upon a particular state of being in the world and are teaching it a nephew for example.  That gets particularly persuasive apparently, dogmatic.

Now wikipedia is a democratic medium whereupon the truth presented is ultimately determined by community with a process of Overton Window and inertia, with continuous series of edits, reverts, changes.  These changes are only rendered acceptable and more immune to reversions as people tire of a given dogma, and they have to fit rules of acceptability to begin with.  Ultimately though whether an article even rates inclusion in the overall description of the world is determined by votes.  The only people who vote are those who are enough to notice.

The Mackinac Center describes the Overton Window thusly:
Joseph Overton observed that in a given public policy area, such as education, only a relatively narrow range of potential policies will be considered politically acceptable. This "window" of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election. In general, then, the window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them. Click here for a video explaining the Overton Window. 
Naturally a proper definition and use of therm is Overton Window is applied politically, a narrow context. As it is many will see the truth as an absolute concept.  Some even see it as unchanging, and there are truths that do not change. Now someone can "tell the truth" by being sincere while unknowingly present a lie.  Obviously some truths change simply in that "how someone is" shifts by physical age and the passage of time and continuous alteration of circumstance.  That is obvious.  But assuming that truth is simply what something is, no more and no less, regardless of differing interpretation, what people react to is often not the fact of something but how they believe that something is, and how it will affect them.  Perception affected by presentation of a fact is more immediate than the fact itself, and people react to perception regardless.  Overton Windows describe not a continued evolution of a simple idea but the continued movement of acceptability of given sets of reaction, e.g. policy.

If a plague sweeps the planet an initial response from American populace ranges from optional vaccine to forced vaccines to treatment to quarantine to possibility of cure, to killing the infected. 

But as it is we can assume that an individual has a responsibility to seek truth, especially as his actions are determined by his belief in what truth is.

But all of that is ideas.  and ideas mutate.

"Harry Truman" by Chicago

from the album Chicago VIII

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

A map that deliberately blurs lines

A group has created a map charting acceptance and resistance to homosexual politick across earth.
To mark International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) has released a map (above) charting the rights of homosexuals around the world
I believe their claim that it tracks "hatred" is overstating their case.

The group willfully obfuscates in some respects actual deprivations of rights and simple resistance towards various policy ideas.  This makes it more difficult to draw attention to actual abuses of humans, I would think.  Since it also lists resistance as "anger" it deliberately obfuscates different motivations and beliefs towards homosexuality and homosexuals, possibly deliberately blurring the descriptive lines, for what ends I hesitate to guess.

cultural shift does not define behavior

Self-labeled "Ex-Gay" Matt Moore says
With the ever quickening shift of our culture away from a moral/biblical view toward sexuality, I think there is a very real temptation for some Christians, especially in the American Church, to shift alongside the culture and adopt a different (unbiblical) view of sexuality…or just to sit back and remain silent about it. And I don’t think my concern is unwarranted, because it’s already happening. I’m not going to call out any names, ministries, or church denominations in this blog—-I don’t wish to give them any more publicity than they have already attained.
     What I do want to do with this blog is urge every Christian that stumbles upon it not to compromise the gospel for the sake of social acceptance—or for the sake of anything else for that matter. Do not listen to the voices out there demanding your silence in the name of  what they call “tolerance.” Do not reject, or even subtly neglect, the truths in the Bible–such as truths about the sin of homosexual behavior–just because they are hard for the world to hear and accept. Don’t listen to the professing “Christians” telling you the Church has misinterpreted the Scriptures for 2,000 years and that the Bible really does not condemn homosexual behavior. And please, do not throw out the truth of God because you hear of gay kids being bullied or committing suicide—these stories are horrifyingly sad—but the the condemn-able sins of the bullies do not make homosexual behavior any less of a sin. We should all (regardless of religious affiliation) be deeply troubled about kids being bullied for being gay (or weird, quirky, ugly, etc. for that matter) and do all we can to combat it, but denying the revealed truth about God regarding homosexuality can not be an option for the Christian.
     Now hear me… and please hear me clearly… I am not saying you need to get on facebook every morning and post verses from Leviticus. I’m not saying you need to get all Westboro and picket gay marriage ceremonies. What I’m saying is that when you are put in a situation where you must take a stand on this issue—whether that be in sharing the gospel with a gay person, a discussion with family members, or whatever the case—stand firm in the truth. Do not be ashamed in saying, “I don’t fully understand homosexuality, and I know those who struggle with it don’t get to choose who they’re attracted to; I can not possibly begin to understand what’s that like. But I know that God condemns the behavior and forbids acting out on those temptations for the good of the person, because He loves them. God created our bodies and He created sex, so He has the authority to say how, and with who, it should take place. He doesn’t want us to disobey Him because all disobedience does is separate us further from God and harden our hearts even more toward Him. I know that if they will turn from sin, trust in Jesus for forgiveness from ALL sin, and enter into a relationship with God through Him, they will experience far greater joy than anything in this world—including a gay relationship—could ever offer them. And I believe, even though it saddens me deeply, that if the person will not turn from sin and follow Jesus, God will be just in condemning them…. not because they’re attracted to the same sex, but because they’ve rejected His Lordship, authority, and offer of salvation in Jesus.”
     I am also not saying that holding firmly to the truth means you should separate yourself from the gay people in your life. By all means, bring them into your homes, go into their homes, share meals, share discussions… do life with these people and love them unconditionally. But please do not, even for a second— for the sake of their souls—condone their embracing of sin. Do not, even for a second—for the sake of their souls—assure them that they are safe in Christ.
It says a lot that he accepts and puts forward the idea that his homosexuality, past or present, is an irrefutable biological, perhaps natural, state but that he rejects the idea that this state of being directly means there is no sin involved. 

It is is also important, exactly as he said, that people should be kind and loving.  Frankly condemnation of an individual person is an active form of behavior and even the most passive-aggressive manifestation of such is a visible attitude.  The absence of condemnation is equally visible.

small but strong federal government

To avoid charges of plagiarism I credit this guy
Libertarians ignore the clear intention of The Founders to erect a national government that did not previously exist, and vest it with powers that are ample, extensive, strong, and supreme, in order to preserve the Union. They rejected laissez-faire capitalism in favor of national government regulation of interstate, foreign nation and Indian tribe, commerce. The Founders believed this was absolutely necessary to preserve the Union. I see alot of references that don't list this among the powers of the national government. You can't consider yourself a supporter of The Constitution and pretend that very important grants of power in Article 1, Section 8, don't exist.

Tuesday, July 02, 2013

Reason article on Ed Snowden reads as childish

does rape makes abortion okay?

Most people say they believe in rape as an exception to abortion bans because they are angling politically for some reason.

But if someone is simply looking at that abortion issue from a purely non-political angle and only moral or ethical, this would be how that conversation looks.

That said, I'm not comfortable instituting this ban on aborting rape babies but I certainly feel comfortable insisting that abortion advocates not take the life so lightly.

Rush Limbaugh on Fox & Friends

Rush Limbaugh was on Fox & Friends, this morning, the cable morning news show. I don't have cable and would not watch this if I did.

Now I'm using others' terms when I say Rush, the radio show host, was on the program. It's a "phone appearance". The way it's set up he's probably in a robe and did not have to comb his hair.

Such is his prerogative, I say!

I disagree with him, however, when he says that if the Democrats are elected to rule over both house of federal Legislature in 2014 that Barack Obama will not have lame duck years.  The fact of the matter is that I don't believe that even the Democrat Senators or the US Reps respect Barack Obama enough to just automatically have his way.

Kirsten Powers versus Wendy Davis

Kirsten Powers says
A Texas legislator and her pink sneakers have been lionized for an eleventh-hour filibuster against a bill that would have made it illegal for mothers to abort babies past 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of severe fetal abnormalities or to protect the life or health of the mother.

People actually cheered this.
But the fight is not over. The bill will be reintroduced, and supporters of the ban are optimistic it will pass. For now, Wendy Davis has achieved the dubious victory of maintaining a very dark status quo. Texas women will still be able to abort a healthy baby up to the 26th week of pregnancy for any reason, as the current law allows.

According to the Parents Connect website, if you are in the 25th week of your pregnancy, “Get ready for pat-a-cake! Baby’s hands are now fully developed and he spends most of his awake time groping around in the darkness of your uterus. Brain and nerve endings are developed enough now so that your baby can feel the sensation of touch.” Let’s be clear: Davis has been called a hero for trying to block a bill that would make aborting this baby illegal.

In addition to the limit on late-term abortions, the Texas legislature sought to pass regulations on abortion clinics similar to what was passed in Pennsylvania in 2011 after the Gosnell horror. The New York Times warned that the Texas bill “could lead to the closing of most of Texas’s 42 abortion clinics.” That sounds familiar. In 2011, the Pennsylvania ACLU claimed a post-Gosnell bill “would effectively close most and maybe all of the independent abortion clinics in Pennsylvania.” Last month, a Pennsylvania news site reported that “several” abortion clinics have closed, which isn’t quite the Armageddon the abortion-rights movement predicted.

So no, I don’t stand with Wendy. Nor do most women, as it turns out. According to a June National Journal poll, 50 percent of women support, and 43 percent oppose, a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, except in cases of rape and incest.
One can assume I am also not the only woman in America who is really tiring of the Wendys of the world claiming to represent “women’s rights” in their quest to mainstream a medical procedure—elective late-term abortion—that most of the civilized world finds barbaric and abhorrent.
A Texas legislator and her pink sneakers have been lionized for an eleventh-hour filibuster against a bill that would have made it illegal for mothers to abort babies past 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of severe fetal abnormalities or to protect the life or health of the mother.

People actually cheered this.
Quite the opposite of the Rand Paul Filibuster event, but people do love their political theater.

I note, of course, that Rand Paul was wearing very uncomfortable professional shoes when he made his stand for liberty, and wasn't prepared far ahead of time for his fight.  He didn't even pick color-coded symbol-shoes!

There are two very specific points I need to touch on here, of course, and the first I take from Jonah Goldberg, that while people may rightfully label the Republican platform regarding abortion as extremist and to the right of the average common "mainstream" views on the topic, the Democrats almost entirely, almost every one of them, usually embrace and promote a view on abortion that is to an extreme left of the average common idea of what is acceptable for abortion.  The truth does not lie somewhere in the middle, mind you, but most people who are in favor of allowing abortions are not in line with the views of President Barack Obama, or any incarnation of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, or the Democrat Party and its platform.  The people who believe that abortions should have some restrictions or should be allowed in only a very narrow set of circumstances are slightly more compatible with how Republicans traditionally position themselves on the issue.  Mind you I doubt most people weight abortion very highly as a deciding factor come election time, and to some extent that is a shame but not another level I cannot blame anyone for deciding that they want jobs, dignity, and prosperity as overriding concerns.

The second point is that there are many agents on the Left, of the Left, within the Left, that do not advocate for freedom of choice regarding abortion so much as they celebrate abortion, abortions, and the ability to perform abortions.

That's ghastly.

the real Independence Day

237 years ago, today...

When the preliminary vote for Independence was taken yesterday, Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted no, while New York abstained, and Delaware had no delegates on hand to vote. Only 9 of 13 voting yes.

A motion to postpone consideration until the next day was approved. It was clear that lack of support from two of the largest colonies — Pennsylvania and New York — would not set the new nation off on the right foot.

But, by the time the vote was called on July 2, the situation had changed. Most importantly, two of the Declaration's opponents in Pennsylvania stayed away, permitting the pro-independence voters to gain a majority. Secondly, Delaware's Caesar Rodney arrived, after an all-night ride, to cast his vote for independence. South Carolina decided to join in to make it unanimous, while New York continued to abstain, on the basis that the delegates had no specific instructions from back home.

On July 2, the American colonies declared independence.

60 billion terrestrial planets oribiting Red Dwarf stars?

What this means is that un-Sol-like suns are hosting earth-like worlds. Worlds similar to our own, with of course the necessary distinct differences orbit suns very different from our own sun.

Astronomers theorize that red dwarfs, which make up 75% of all main sequence stars in our galaxy, feature circumstellar habitable zones (HZ) that are considerably more interior than those of G stars (of which our sun is one). And in fact, owing to the low energy output of these stars, their HZs are about as close as Mercury is to our sun. But it’s within these sweet spots that water can remain in its liquid state — an important precursor to life.

Previous estimates have suggested that there may be as many as 4.5 billion potentially habitable planets in orbit around red dwarfs in our galaxy. But earlier this year, data from the ESO’s HARPS planet finder indicated that upwards of 40% of all red dwarf stars have a super-Earth orbiting in the HZ. This upped the number to tens of billions of such planets. What’s more, astronomers believe that virtually every red dwarf is host to at least one terrestrial planet.
And now, owing to a new calculation of the influence of cloud behavior on climate, the number has been extended even further, reaching 60 billion habitable zone planets. And the reason for the latest revision has to do with a newfound sense of the size of red dwarf habitable zones — a zone that’s now much larger, and more interior, than previously thought.
As noted, red dwarf HZs are very interior. These close orbits cause planets to be tidally locked with their sun (i.e., the same side of the planet always faces the parent star, much like how our moon features a side that always faces Earth).
Mind you that the planets' apparently don't revolve is a tad hard for me to envision. "Tidally locked" sounds like a frightening state of affairs.

The author makes this point in the comments:
Studies of exoplanetary "habitability" typically combine chemistry with astronomy to determine whether or not water can exist in liquid form. There's virtually no biology being done further than that. Consequently, the term "potentially habitable" almost always needs to be take with a considerable grain of salt.

Monday, July 01, 2013

Rush Limbaugh partisan pessimism

Rush Limbaugh speaks of "establishment Republicans", immigration bills, and the self-destruction of the Republican Party.
There are Republican establishment figures who are in the news today. They're out making personal appearances, and they're bragging about how Republicans voted on the amnesty bill in the Senate, and they're bragging about the Gang of Eight Republicans are out there saying, "We love you," to Hispanic groups, and that this ought to show you that we love you.
The establishment of this party is authoring its demise. You talk about Pelosi and Reid and Schumer and all these other Democrats -- Bob Menendez, the Democrat senator from New Jersey -- all warning us that if we don't do this on immigration, we're never gonna win the White House. As though they are interested in us winning the White House?  I mean, the idea that the Democrats are advising us to do things to help us, which means that they would lose? I just don't buy it. I'm sorry.  I don't think the Democrats ever want us to win the White House ever again... I've been tracking this and following this, and the Republicans are celebrating this vote in the Senate. The Gang of Eight.  I don't meant this to sound threatening or intimidating in any way.  I honestly think that the Republican establishment doesn't know what awaits it regarding this issue.  I don't think... Maybe they do and they just don't care.  That's just as likely, actually, 'cause they were the same people in 2007 when your phone calls shut this down then. 
I think they know, actually.
But let me put it this way.  I don't think... They know that there's opposition, and they know it's their base.  I don't believe they realize how deep it goes.  I don't think they have the slightest idea how deep the anger at the current thinking, as expressed by supposedly smart Republican establishment people, exists. The anger.  I don't think they have any idea how deep it is in towns large and small all across this country.
People are livid every time an establishment leader opens his mouth and says, "We gotta do this to make amends with the Hispanic community! We've gotta do this so they will love us!" Now, certain members of our establishment, certain establishment members are running around talking about how they are loved now, that the Hispanics get us now.  It's a fantasy like I've not seen in a long time, and I just don't think they know.  This issue, even if it were the only thing happening, the anger would be deep and solid.
But in connection with back home, it comes after the wrecking of the US economy, it comes after wrecking the job market, it comes after the exploding debt and interest rates in the student loan program.  It comes after all of this other Obama stuff was not stopped or even pushed back against.  I think the degree to which people like you are fit to be tied out there over this is something that has escaped them or they're either aware of it and are ignoring it. But they're certainly not factoring it, and they're going to regret that if they continue to push this thing through the House or if they start playing games in a conference committee.
You have people more and more talk about third party now.
If that happens, you can kiss the Republican Party good-bye.
I always find the line about "establishment" Republicans funny. Who is more established among the Right than Rush Limbuagh? I know what he means and who he means but my goodness the phrase sounds ridiculous.

Gettysburg's most memorable line

Jeff Daniels is one of Michigan's most cherished sons for a reason

fancy words on societal erosion

In response to Todd Courser's weird netspeak diatribe on judicial activism in regards to marriage Jeff Phillips quickly composed this sermon
It is because the concept of marriage has already been twisted and morphed to be a state institution to begin with. It is not a state institution. It is a Godly institution. It is a Family institution. If we are to believe that our rights truly do come from God and are endowed in the inner fabric of our beings, as individuals, then we also have to have a few certain qualities about ourselves. We have to live BRAVELY, in a world where we are the true masters of ourselves, we are the defenders of our family--and that includes the responsibility to instill in them a spirit of discernment, reason, and a system of ethics compatible with the state of mind (or state) within which we live of deeming what is acceptable in public and in private.

We do socialize certain standards of what is unacceptable in our communities even in private spaces. Certain activities like rape, child molestation, theft, extortion, murder, etc. are addressed in our frameworks as a state-wide shared, standardized, socialized idea that we as Michiganders say collectively is wrong and yes, we're willing to collaborate across branches of government, get warrents, and will search on your property and hunt you down if you do some of these things. Your privacy is limited when it comes to activities the rest of the people of the shared "state" of mind have in common as Michigandars--that is why we are a state, it all comes down to state of mind.

There are many religious folk that act terribly fearful of the notion that a couple of guys living a few miles down the road from them are telling their friends that they are married, as though this shatters the concept in their minds that it is even conceivable for their society to survive in the future. They need to learn to articulate how, and that can only be done by themselves first stepping up to the plate to try to govern on a face to face, personal level. Until they get involved they will never be able to get to know the people or their situation, and therefore will never meet the basic standard of reconciling their proposed policies against the "no taxation without representation" standard. If you aren't bothering to govern enough to make oneself aware of the situation, then you are taxing in the form of levying objections upon them (after all, what is a tax, in its principle form, stripped away from the higher level human construct of money?) If they want to levy, they need to be willing to hear the voices of those who have been through the other side of this mess in depth enough actually understand their emotional foundations. One must also understand that the reason compulsory primary education exists in this country is to provide a mechanism of allowing communities to ensure and standardize the foundations of Americanism within each individual--to be sufficiently educated with the certain degree of instruction required, as Thomas Jefferson spoke of, so as to sustain liberty through the generations. It should be resolved what exactly those foundations of thinking need to be in order to be a proper citizen, morally and ethically, without influencing or biasing one's foundations in religious doctrines or anything of the sort--recognizing the roll and scope of that area to be the families themselves. We have many generations eroded such that our society now turns to the state in lieu of god, even for the most personal matters such as that of their marriage, and then at the same time is unable to be brave in this world and takes skirmish offense to others around them that do not share in the light, instead of themselves actually bothering to share the light. It is almost a miss-translation of principle, except that it is more of a blurring over the generations, like a copy of a copy of a copy degrading the quality and spirit of what once was the Land of the Free balanced on the scales of Justice with that of the Home of the Brave. A people can not have one without the other.
Honestly I have a bit of trouble making heads nor tails of it.

When we make our big pushes towards sound policy we need to adopt fine colloquialisms and make certain that we establish how what is good for the goose is desirable for the gander.

I like political philosophy; most people don't care what the Founders believed would be good for the country and how they thought it should work best as much as they are worry about what works for them.  What does it even mean to "standardize the foundations of Americanism within each individual"?

Your audience, voters, constituents, should never ask that.  If they start to ask that then the crusade is lost.

when judicial review is not activism

Todd Courser states
There is no way 2 c proper judicial review where u twist the concept of marriage 2 claim equal protection by similar situation. Its activism
Typically from this perspective a man of the right will formulate this specific belief as if the Supreme Court of the United States randomly came upon ideas of homosexuality and coupling and have decided to inject their societal ideals into the concepts.

The truth of the matter is that so-called "Conservatives" decided to use the state to establish their idealistic views of marriage, and so Republicans used the powers of the state to establish through law what exactly a marriage is.  That is a historical truth.  A practical truth is that government fiat is a flexible thing that reacts, not always instantaneously, to a perceived will of the people or societal trends.  A logical truth is that if and when you attempt to create a solid establishment of concept by using the State and its power of law then you create a situation were the State is empowered to make decisions regarding the disposition of the concept.  In other words the federal government is empowered to make decisions as to whether a marriage can only be one man and one woman or involve a coupling of a different configuration of humanity simply on the basis that we empowered the federal government to make the decision as to whether a marriage was only one man plus one woman.

If these self-styled Conservatives, who weren't Conservative at all, did not call upon the federal government to have that power then they could not have been able to use it in such a fashion.  Nobody should have been surprised that the same State that established the Defense Of Marraige Act when it was popular to do so would abolish DOMA when it was popular to do so.  If and when you give the State any sort of power over you in the hopes and belief that they will use it as you like never be surprised if later on when the partisan hold on power shifts that the State will use that exact sort of power in a way you do not like.

Frankly though the establishment of DOMA was unconstitutional and immoral and an expansion of government power by any reasonable measure and stomps on the Tenth Amendment in so many ways.  But for a little while it was "Constitutional" in that SCOTUS did not strike it down for many years.  On the other hand what kind of law can it be if the Executive Branch does not enforce it?

A lot of "Social Conservatives" will ignore principle if a new law makes them feel good.  So there is a branch of Conservatism that is not Conservative as much as judicial review is not necessarily activism.

Typically those like Todd Courser use the word "activism", as in "Judicial activism" only to describe a judge's decisions that they don't like.  Mr Courser and Ted Kennedy have a lot in common that way.

Gettysburg anniversay

Today is the 150th anniversary of the 1st day of the battle of Gettysburg - the bloodiest battle ever fought on the Western Hemisphere.
The confederate soldiers were headed into Gettysburg because of a rumor of a large storehouse of shoes.
Northern General john Buford, a cavalry General, saw the Southerners in Yankee territory and decided that he had to stop them in Gettysburg and hold the High Ground. Buford's decision was so critical that without his brave choice that day, we might be known today as the Confederate States of America.
As you celebrate our country's anniversary this week, remember the 51, 000 casualties of Gettysburg and think of those soldiers who gave their last "Full measure of devotion" and fought for the freedom of people they never met or would ever meet.
-- Terry Bowman

TR quote on helping and acting

If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try and carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and those who do it.
– Theodore Roosevelt,

 Excerpted from the speech "Citizenship In A Republic" delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910

on the way to independence

237 years ago today, there was a motion on the floor that read, in part:
...That these United Colonies are, and of a right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

A nine-hour debate ensued, led by Pennsylvania delegate John Dickinson, who opposed the idea, and Massachusetts delegate John Adams, who spoke passionately in favor.

But when a preliminary vote was taken, the outcome appeared in doubt. 9 states' delegations voted in favor but 4 withheld support. (Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted no, while New York abstained, and Delaware had no delegates on hand to vote.)

A motion to postpone consideration until the next day was approved.