![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatFeeling scattered tonight, unable to choose what to focus on. I blame too much chocolat. Went a bit nuts on it.
Had one regular size hershey's candy bar, five hershesy's chocolat kisses, and chocolat on ice cream/raspberries. Not all at once, of course. There was at least three hours between each. But it has made me feel scattered and restless. Why oh why do I crave things I should not have? (That was largely rhetorical by the way.)
Tonight flipped between Las Vegas and Prison Break. Las Vegas won finally, because for reasons I can't quite describe, I can no longer handle constant graphic violence. Even struggling with Nip/Tuck and BSG on this front.
I find myself cringing. Have I finally hit overload? I feel overwhelmed by the violence on tv constantly shown.
Every other show seems to have it. Read a column by Stephen King recently where he stated and I agree, there are so many shows on right now that want to scare the yell out of you that you have to kick them out of the way.
Don't get me wrong, I love a good mystery and a little thrilling tension, and violence here and there not a problem, was a fan of Angel and Buffy after all. And did enjoy NYPD Blue and Homicide Life on the Streets in the past. But lately I feel as if I've being inundated by it with the media. Maybe it's just me. Probably is.
While listening to the telly, mostly background noise - I read a good portion of an article in The New Yorker mag that I picked up on a whim today. Don't usually read it. But today saw two articles that grabbed my eye: "Republican's Against Bush - Why is Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's confidant, so upset with the son? Reporst on how Iraq is dividing conservatives" - by JEffrey Goldberg. And "Justice Breye's dissent by Jeffrey Tobin". Made it half-way through the Breyer article. Interesting. You have to understand I went to law school to study Constitutional Law and took three courses on it - one was Constitutional Law (2 semesters), one Constitutional Litigation, and the third, a seminar where we wrote lengthy papers comparing and analyzing the current Supreme Court's opinions. (This was back in 1992 - so current was Sandra Day O'Connor and Rhenquist, who I compared and contrasted.) So I'm fascinated by the Roberts and Miers nominations and the historical controversary surrounding Miers, who I have difficulties about. Constitutional Law is an impossible field to make a living in - you have to score very high to get anywhere, hence the reason that I'm currently a contract administrator in a health care company analyzing contracts and pretty much surrounded by and handling the type of law that bored me to tears in law school. It's not bad, and I enjoy parts of it, but it was hardly what I planned. But then as a guy at work always posts at the bottom of his emails :" Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans".
The article is interesting - it demonstrates something I realized in Law School, that past experience informs most of the judicial opinions. Breyer who believes the Court should stay out of Congress's way and allow the legislature to create laws, not use the Constituion to restrict it - came to this opinion due to his own school background - a communal school in San Francisco with a sort of Laissez Fair attitude. Rhenquist and O'Connor on the other hand hailed from Texas and I believe Arizona respectively. (It's been a while, so this is largely by memory, no time to look it up, have to finish this in fifteen minutes.) Very conservative educations, very structured. While Thurgood Marshall and Brennan believed that the court should use the Constitution to affect social and educational change. Scalia and Thomas do as well, but from the conservative end of the spectrum as opposed to the liberal. Breyer has written the most dissenting opinions. Often taking issue with the court's desire to interfer with the legislature.
What fascinates me is how differently everyone interprets the role of the Supreme Court - including those on it, as well as the intent behind articles in the Constitution. I remember in Law School people getting into rigorous debates over the "Right to Bear Arms" - or the Amendment that people are allowed to have guns. But it doesn't say that you have the right to have a gun exactly. It's actually referring to a right that was outlawed by England during the American Revolutionary War. Reading the Constitution without considering the historical context in which the Framers/Authors lived is as dangerous as reading the Bible without considering it's context. Some practices and precepts are based on the time period and the challenges of that time period. Historical context is an important portion of constitutional analysis. Another one is reading legislative notes. When a judge analyzes the application of a law or the intent behind one - they read the debates leading up to the passing of that law. It's a very detailed analysis. And they attempt to be objective about it, which is impossible of course, because experience enters into the equation every time.
Not sure how I feel about Miers nomination. She feels like another inexperienced Bush crony. And her religious background makes me a tad nervous. Not sure she can separate her religious views from her rational decision-making. I don't believe religion has any place in judicial analysis, but by the same token realize that my view on that is somewhat biased. The controversary surrounding the nomination does fascinate me - partly because it concerns credentials that as the New York Times reported today were not at issue when Rhenquist and Powell were nominated - both judges had 0 judicial experience and one was White House Council. The other bit is that the conservatives are struggling with it and required reassurance - because they want to overturn certain rulings.
The very fact that they want to overturn these ruling contradicts the meaning of the term conservative. Someone who is politically conservative - typically prefers status quo, they don't want anyone interferring with their individual rights or economic ones. Less government. More individual freedom. A liberal typically wants more government, more structure, and social change. Challenges the status quo if it does not meet their world-view.
Today those definitions seem to have been twisted on their ear, so that the conservative is acting like the liberal and the liberal like the conservative. I remember in Law School being told that I was more conservative than I admitted - because I did not like anyone fiddling around with or placing restraints on individual rights. Yet by the same token, I don't trust people, particularly people in huge corporations, and feel that we need regulations on what those corporations do as well as measures providing for those who cannot afford to buy a home or eat. We must take care of one another or suffer the consequences - having worked in legal aid, public defender's office, domestic violence, health care, and public housing - I'm aware of this. I feel at times watching moral conservatives that they want their cake and eat it too as it were - we want to restrict everyone else's rights, but leave us alone, which annoys me. Or I find this "immoral" so there should be a law against it.
If the eye offends pluck it out. (Methinks they've spent far to much time reading certain portions of the old and new testament and not enough looking at the whole volumn, including the outlawed books of apocraphya.)
Am I liberal? Am I conservative? Depends on who I'm talking to. I'm not fond of our current President. Actually that's an understatement, I think he's a bit of a dolt. And what's happening in his administration, etc does not surprise me in the slightest. I voted for Kerry, not because he would necessarily be a good president, just because I knew he'd be better than Bush. Still feel that way. And I'll probably vote for Bloomberg in the mayoral election in New York over Ferrar for some of the same reasons. While working at the Citizen's Union, I read enough on Ferrando Ferrare and Bloomberg, to get a gut feeling on that one. Ferrare makes me uneasy. Does this make me liberal or conservative? Shrugs.
Okay must go to bed now. Not sure where I was going with that post. If it stays up longer than ten minutes, will be a miracle, since been in the habit of deleting posts lately. LJ for reasons that escape me feels a bit like a mine field. Not sure if this is a result of my interests changing or just the changing environment of the lj?
Had one regular size hershey's candy bar, five hershesy's chocolat kisses, and chocolat on ice cream/raspberries. Not all at once, of course. There was at least three hours between each. But it has made me feel scattered and restless. Why oh why do I crave things I should not have? (That was largely rhetorical by the way.)
Tonight flipped between Las Vegas and Prison Break. Las Vegas won finally, because for reasons I can't quite describe, I can no longer handle constant graphic violence. Even struggling with Nip/Tuck and BSG on this front.
I find myself cringing. Have I finally hit overload? I feel overwhelmed by the violence on tv constantly shown.
Every other show seems to have it. Read a column by Stephen King recently where he stated and I agree, there are so many shows on right now that want to scare the yell out of you that you have to kick them out of the way.
Don't get me wrong, I love a good mystery and a little thrilling tension, and violence here and there not a problem, was a fan of Angel and Buffy after all. And did enjoy NYPD Blue and Homicide Life on the Streets in the past. But lately I feel as if I've being inundated by it with the media. Maybe it's just me. Probably is.
While listening to the telly, mostly background noise - I read a good portion of an article in The New Yorker mag that I picked up on a whim today. Don't usually read it. But today saw two articles that grabbed my eye: "Republican's Against Bush - Why is Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's confidant, so upset with the son? Reporst on how Iraq is dividing conservatives" - by JEffrey Goldberg. And "Justice Breye's dissent by Jeffrey Tobin". Made it half-way through the Breyer article. Interesting. You have to understand I went to law school to study Constitutional Law and took three courses on it - one was Constitutional Law (2 semesters), one Constitutional Litigation, and the third, a seminar where we wrote lengthy papers comparing and analyzing the current Supreme Court's opinions. (This was back in 1992 - so current was Sandra Day O'Connor and Rhenquist, who I compared and contrasted.) So I'm fascinated by the Roberts and Miers nominations and the historical controversary surrounding Miers, who I have difficulties about. Constitutional Law is an impossible field to make a living in - you have to score very high to get anywhere, hence the reason that I'm currently a contract administrator in a health care company analyzing contracts and pretty much surrounded by and handling the type of law that bored me to tears in law school. It's not bad, and I enjoy parts of it, but it was hardly what I planned. But then as a guy at work always posts at the bottom of his emails :" Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans".
The article is interesting - it demonstrates something I realized in Law School, that past experience informs most of the judicial opinions. Breyer who believes the Court should stay out of Congress's way and allow the legislature to create laws, not use the Constituion to restrict it - came to this opinion due to his own school background - a communal school in San Francisco with a sort of Laissez Fair attitude. Rhenquist and O'Connor on the other hand hailed from Texas and I believe Arizona respectively. (It's been a while, so this is largely by memory, no time to look it up, have to finish this in fifteen minutes.) Very conservative educations, very structured. While Thurgood Marshall and Brennan believed that the court should use the Constitution to affect social and educational change. Scalia and Thomas do as well, but from the conservative end of the spectrum as opposed to the liberal. Breyer has written the most dissenting opinions. Often taking issue with the court's desire to interfer with the legislature.
What fascinates me is how differently everyone interprets the role of the Supreme Court - including those on it, as well as the intent behind articles in the Constitution. I remember in Law School people getting into rigorous debates over the "Right to Bear Arms" - or the Amendment that people are allowed to have guns. But it doesn't say that you have the right to have a gun exactly. It's actually referring to a right that was outlawed by England during the American Revolutionary War. Reading the Constitution without considering the historical context in which the Framers/Authors lived is as dangerous as reading the Bible without considering it's context. Some practices and precepts are based on the time period and the challenges of that time period. Historical context is an important portion of constitutional analysis. Another one is reading legislative notes. When a judge analyzes the application of a law or the intent behind one - they read the debates leading up to the passing of that law. It's a very detailed analysis. And they attempt to be objective about it, which is impossible of course, because experience enters into the equation every time.
Not sure how I feel about Miers nomination. She feels like another inexperienced Bush crony. And her religious background makes me a tad nervous. Not sure she can separate her religious views from her rational decision-making. I don't believe religion has any place in judicial analysis, but by the same token realize that my view on that is somewhat biased. The controversary surrounding the nomination does fascinate me - partly because it concerns credentials that as the New York Times reported today were not at issue when Rhenquist and Powell were nominated - both judges had 0 judicial experience and one was White House Council. The other bit is that the conservatives are struggling with it and required reassurance - because they want to overturn certain rulings.
The very fact that they want to overturn these ruling contradicts the meaning of the term conservative. Someone who is politically conservative - typically prefers status quo, they don't want anyone interferring with their individual rights or economic ones. Less government. More individual freedom. A liberal typically wants more government, more structure, and social change. Challenges the status quo if it does not meet their world-view.
Today those definitions seem to have been twisted on their ear, so that the conservative is acting like the liberal and the liberal like the conservative. I remember in Law School being told that I was more conservative than I admitted - because I did not like anyone fiddling around with or placing restraints on individual rights. Yet by the same token, I don't trust people, particularly people in huge corporations, and feel that we need regulations on what those corporations do as well as measures providing for those who cannot afford to buy a home or eat. We must take care of one another or suffer the consequences - having worked in legal aid, public defender's office, domestic violence, health care, and public housing - I'm aware of this. I feel at times watching moral conservatives that they want their cake and eat it too as it were - we want to restrict everyone else's rights, but leave us alone, which annoys me. Or I find this "immoral" so there should be a law against it.
If the eye offends pluck it out. (Methinks they've spent far to much time reading certain portions of the old and new testament and not enough looking at the whole volumn, including the outlawed books of apocraphya.)
Am I liberal? Am I conservative? Depends on who I'm talking to. I'm not fond of our current President. Actually that's an understatement, I think he's a bit of a dolt. And what's happening in his administration, etc does not surprise me in the slightest. I voted for Kerry, not because he would necessarily be a good president, just because I knew he'd be better than Bush. Still feel that way. And I'll probably vote for Bloomberg in the mayoral election in New York over Ferrar for some of the same reasons. While working at the Citizen's Union, I read enough on Ferrando Ferrare and Bloomberg, to get a gut feeling on that one. Ferrare makes me uneasy. Does this make me liberal or conservative? Shrugs.
Okay must go to bed now. Not sure where I was going with that post. If it stays up longer than ten minutes, will be a miracle, since been in the habit of deleting posts lately. LJ for reasons that escape me feels a bit like a mine field. Not sure if this is a result of my interests changing or just the changing environment of the lj?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-25 09:26 am (UTC)Over here a liberal would be someone who promotes free trade and wants less government and would be right wing.
And people wonder why Americans and French people don't understand each others! LOL
We don't see State, government, the same way at all because we all are the product of our History so for that Historian (me) what you said about Constitution was quite interesting.
Chani
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 12:42 pm (UTC)It's been a while since I studied this...but:
I think one of the biggest difficulties Europeans have understanding the American governing system is they keep forgetting that the US is really a bunch of individual governing units (STATE) with a centeral (governing unit or overseeing unit) (FEDERAL). If France were to join the European Union, ratify that constitution, and agree to abide by the rules of it - while maintaining it's own governing structure to the extent that it does not conflict with the central one and to the extent that the central one holds sway - that might be a close analogy.
Each State in the US has it's own constitution. For instance New York has a New York Constitution, plus we have the US Constitution. Then of course you have state statutes and laws and federal statutes and laws.
So imagine for a minute 50 individual countries, each with its own constitution, own statutes, own laws, own legislatures/presidents/judicial branches - then one over-seer or main one that they adhere to? Most of the internal fights over goverance in US politics is over whether the Central Governing (FEDERAL) should control of the individual states should.
Our Civil War was about whether the STATES individual units should control or the FEDERAL unit should. Slavery and economics were important issues but not the central one. It's a battle that goes back to the construction of the two political parties in the US - the Federalists (who believed in a central government) - later called Unionists, and the Separatists or States Rights (who believed that each state should have governing power and the federal government have no more power than say the United Nations does now over it's member countries). These parties evolved over time to Republicans and Democrats, originally the Republicans were Unionists and the Democrats were states rights - now the interests of those parties have become somewhat blurred - the line is less clear.
Justice Breyer is a STATES rights advocate - he promoted deregulation in the 60's and 70's and believes that courts should stay out of the way of the individual governing power of the people. This is almost impossible for someone who lives outside such a governing system to emphasize with.
France's Revolution in contrast was about whether the monarchy should control or the people. See that was only an issue in the US's breakage from it's European parents - England, Spain, France in the American Revolutionary War, French-Indian Wars, and the war of 1812. And very different - since we weren't on their soil but a colony of those countries or rather certain states were.
(Being a historian - you probably know more about this than I do, so apologies for any errors...heh.)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 01:24 pm (UTC)But I should have been clearer in my comment to articulate how Americans often distrust State, government whether it's the Federal one or one of the 50 states (or The Alliance on Firefly/Serenity!) and would rather trust private associations to protect their rights and fight in justice while in France we deeply believe in the State to save the day, protect the rights of everybody within the Nation while guaranteeing equality(which btw explains our strict law on secularism that so many Americans don't understand because they see it as the State interfering in individual rights). So thanks for replying and writing a clear recall on the topic.
Anyway that's why I said we are the product of our History and pointed out that "liberal" is used in its economic meaning and is mostly equivalent to pro-deregulation over here which make most LJ meme pointless for me! LOL
But differeneces are fun and what an interesting planet we have!
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 04:46 pm (UTC)For us a radical liberal - is akin to left-wing and wants the state to take care of everything, the communal state. The opposite - economically speaking again - is laizzez fair or the conservative who is the libertarian, as little state involvement as possible. Then there are people like me who prefer balance and fall in between the extremes.
I don't believe either extreme works based on my experiences with both.
I also think it is a question of size. France has dealt better to some degree with the socialist model than larger countries have. To impose a socialist model on the US, I think would be dicey due to the governmental structure and I think may result in something akin to the Soviet Union.
But you are right in stating it is partly based on our history. 75% of our population (not the people born here, but our ancestors, grandparents, parents, etc) fled countries who imposed restrictions on their civil rights. We still are receiving immigrants fleeing countries based on rights issues. So the US is a country made up of people who felt persecuted by the STATE to such an extent that they literally fled it. This is not exactly the same as Israel which is a small country made of people who all share a common religious heritage and were persecuted/exterminated for it and set up a STATE to protect them from further persecution and extermination. In the US you have thousands of different religions, heritages, ethnicities, languages, backgrounds all conflicting with one another - who have one main thing in common - at one point in history our ancestors gave their lives for their individual rights against a nasty parental state.
If you watch American Science Fiction closely - you'll see these themes played out over and over again. Farscape. Firefly. Star Trek. Star Wars.
BattleStar Galatica. The warring principals - I want protection/I want safety vs. I want to autonomous and have my civil liberties. Stay away unless I need you and don't tell me how to run my company, finances or anything else - but do protect me at the same time.
The US has a history of individualistic endeavor partly because such a high percentage of the population emigrated here with the view that I will make my own family and make a better life for myself, I won't depend or trust in someone else. That philosphy I think lies at the heart of American culture and may explain a lot of things. Or not.
Like I said before, just talking off the top of my head here - this is by no means my field of study, so you may know more about it than I do.
But it is the impression I've got.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 02:15 pm (UTC)They specialize in kosher chocolates as well as chocolates for people with food allergy issues.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 12:43 pm (UTC)Couple of points of clarification.
1. Don't have any food allergies. I do have a senstivity to anything with gluten (wheat, barely, spelt, minnet, kamut, oats, or wheat grain family) - this means that if I eat anything with these by-products in them, I'll have indigestion/constipation/gas - basically my tummy rebells.
2.I also have a smaller stomach and a haital hernia - which means if I eat huge portions - I have well massive indigestion. Plus chronic mild irritable stomach - burning of the esophagus lining. This means small portions, not too spicy foods, and low-fat diet. (I drink a lot of milk)
3. Caffeine - not supposed to have it. Makes me anxious and edgy also addicted to it. And, sigh, it is in chocolat in very small, mild quantities or something similar is. So not supposed to eat chocolat, but I'm failing miserably (hee!) At some point, you just throw up your hands and say what the hell. Life is short. And I like this.
So thanks for the site, but really not necessary. Also, not in a position right now in which I can order things and get them delivered to my house - (oh I can probably afford them, it's getting the deliveries that is worrisome - so links to stuff that I can order online are useless to me at the moment).