Steve Schacher

Derek, Two words: Off-site backup!

U.S. Constitution Amendment I: quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...This is commonly known as the Establishment Clause. It is based on European history. In Europe, the countries were monarchies. There was a king who ruled the land, but there was also a separate rule by the churches. For instance, during the Hapsburg reign in Austria and parts east, the country was Roman Catholic and the church ruled equally with the royals. England was the first place where the king decided to take over the church and rule as the head of both. These examples created what was known as the Established Church. The Established Church was the recognized church of the country that ruled the people spiritually. As an aside, when today we refer to rebelling against the Establishment, this is where that phrase came from. The American Founders didn't want a power-sharing church in this country, so they passed the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from establishing a national church like what was being done in Europe. At the same time, they also prohibited Congress from passing laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Today, anti-religion zealots have referred to this as the "separation of church and state," but that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. All that was intended was that the Federal Government was not to establish a single national church -- it was not meant to abolish religion from the public sector, nor was it meant that any individual recognition of an aspect of a particular religion was to be construed as promoting that religion above all others. It is being taken to such an extreme that even the mention of a god is being twisted to mean that religion is being endorsed (not even a specific church over other churches anymore). The question that is never answered is, "What was the law that Congress passed that established the illegality of the 10 Commandments display, or what law did Congress pass that prohibited the free exercise of religion?"

A pre-emptive warning: This is a thread about liberalism vs. conservatism. The original post was a parody of liberalism using societal generalisms, with rebuttal and cross-rebuttal, which was then followed by an essay on conservatism. If people want to express personal views in order to clarify the definition of liberalism or conservatism, then fine. But DO NOT attack others for their posted beliefs in this thread. Discuss the issues if you must, but keep it in the context of the definition of liberalism or conservatism.

Here is a column that I particularly enjoyed, from the Wall Street Journal. It was the first in a series on AMERICAN CONSERVATISM. A Question of Temperament. An excerpt: quote:It is a tautology to say that a conservative is a person who wants to conserve things; the question is what things? To this I think we can give a simple one-word answer, namely: us. At the heart of every conservative endeavor is the effort to conserve a historically given community. In any conflict the conservative is the one who sides with "us" against "them"--not knowing, but trusting. He is the one who looks for the good in the institutions, customs and habits that he has inherited. He is the one who seeks to defend and perpetuate an instinctive sense of loyalty, and who is therefore suspicious of experiments and innovations that put loyalty at risk. So defined, conservatism is less a philosophy than a temperament; but it is, I believe, a temperament that emerges naturally from the experience of society, and which is indeed necessary if societies are to endure. The conservative strives to diminish social entropy. The second law of thermodynamics implies that, in the long run, all conservatism must fail. But the same is true of life itself, and conservatism might equally be defined as the social organism's will to live. Of course there are people without the conservative temperament. There are the radicals and innovators, who are impatient with the debris left by the dead; and their temperament too is a necessary ingredient in any healthy social mix. There are also the instinctive rebels of the Chomsky variety, who in every conflict side with "them" against "us," who scoff at the ordinary loyalties of ordinary people, and who look primarily for what is bad in the institutions, customs and habits that define their historical community. Still, by and large, the future of any society depends upon the solid residue of conservative sentiment, which forms the ballast to every innovation, and the equilibriating process that makes innovation possible.

That's Seattle for you, home of the first WTO riot. quote:Kennedy for the Cuban Missile Crisis...I always thought this was overstated glory. Consider Eisenhower vs. Kennedy. Ike defeated Hitler, yet he was a quiet man. Kennedy was a gratification seeker just like Clinton. I believe that Khrushchev knew he couldn't mess with Eisenhower, so he waited until Kennedy took over. Kennedy reveled in the adrenaline rush. It makes we wonder why life under Ike was so quiet, yet life under Kennedy was so raucous. Do you suppose Eisenhower was quietly competent while others were loudly flamboyant? quote:Bork and the other one who withdrew...Douglas Ginsberg, for admitting that he smoked marijuana. Did they mention Iran/Contra? Did they speculate that he secretly negotiated with Iran to keep the hostages until he was elected? Maybe the misty weather is making Seattle cranky. Either that, or it's all the coffee and grunge.

quote:both sides have the 1rst objective of staying in power! sheesh! how long will it take to realise that. Stop accusing the other one to "do eveything they can to stay in power" First off, when one side has power it wants to keep it. The other side wants to regain it. Different motives. Different objectives. Different tactics. I minor point, I admit, but one worth making. quote:I think you shouLd complain more about Monica...The fact is that they ended up complaining about Linda Tripp for exposing it. Do you remember Time Magazine's "Women of the Year" last year? It was the Whistleblowers. TIME lauded the women who exposed the Enron scandal and FBI screw-ups (that occured on Clinton's watch but were exposed on Bush's) as heros. I wonder why they didn't celebrate Linda Tripp as a hero when she exposed what what was going on in the White House.

Don't worry. It will look exactly the same tomorrow. Okay, so it won't be the exact point of closest approach in 60,000 years, but it will look to the naked eye exactly the same. Oh, I also brought a 4" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope with me last week to Capitola, CA for my annual summer vacation. My friends said that we had crystal clear skies until I arrived and then the coastal fog rolled in once I got there. I did have a day or two when the fog didn't come in until 11:00pm, so I got some seeing in. Bottom line: don't sweat it. Go out tomorrow or the next day. It will still be spectacular.

Then you should be disembodied like The Providers on The Gamesters of Triskelion.

Jag, Do you want some of my brains?

quote:that people who live in single-family homes (or want to) are bad, but people who live in high-density apartments (or admit they ought to) are good, Uh, can somebody give me a pointer on this one? It means that single-family homeowners are selfishly hogging the square feet that could have gone to house many people.

Try signing up with temp agencies. If you have all the MS Office skills, you might get temporary administrative jobs covering for people on vacation, or perhaps get on a project that need general secretarial/administrative skills. It might lead to something more permanent.

Here is a similar, but older, article: Liberal Thinking. For other interesting stuff, check out Geoff Metcalf's requested items at his site: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/friindex.html

I'm busy making sure the CA recall goes the way it is supposed to.

quote:1941I loved the dance number Swing, Swing, Swing, John Williams' tribute to Benny Goodman.

quote:the Nevada Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the Legislature needs only a simple majority to pass record tax increases to balance the state budget and fund education. The decision sets aside the state constitutional amendment requiring at least two-thirds support of lawmakers to pass tax increases. The justices ruled that the need to fund public schools, another constitutional requirement, took precedence over the need to approve tax increases by a two-thirds supermajority. So, since the ruling party can't get a super-majority, they get the courts to rule the super-majority unconstitutional. What will happen when they can't get a simple majority next time? Will they rule that as unconstitutional, too?

quote:Oh, community theatre I guess counts too.I hope so! I was always a fan of the theater, but I never got to see the "inside" until I met my wife. Even though it is community theater, I noticed a few important things: 1. It gets children interested in the arts. 2. It lets non-equity actors learn new roles in a safe environment. 3. My wife was what I call a "house player." I'm sure that even in Shakespeare's day, he was a "house player" at his local theater. I see the divas come and go as shows interest them, but the ensemble comes from the community and they appear in show after show after show. They are a family. Community theater is a gateway to regional theater and equity theater. Also, theater people like to party.

I volunteer at the local community theater. I met my wife there. She used to do musicals, and backstage work. I usher and do general House stuff. Good friends of ours are board members of the theater, and are the stage managers, producers, and call the shows from the booth (one of them also does my wife's nails). [ 06-13-2003, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

Here are some picture of Earth taken from a satellite orbiting Mars. I could swear that I saw this image on BCMG the other night! First Picture of Earth From Mars

More regarding Shakir al-Khafaji, from Iraqi-born American has funded Democrats in the Washington Times. Excerpt: quote:An Iraqi-born real estate developer in Michigan with ties to Saddam Hussein has donated several thousand dollars to Democratic candidates since 1996 to gain political support to end sanctions on his homeland. Shakir al-Khafaji, an American citizen who came to the United States in 1976, has contributed to the campaigns of former U.S. Rep. David Bonior, Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Carl Levin ÔÇö all Michigan Democrats ÔÇö and the Clinton/Gore 1996 Primary Committee. The 48-year-old, in an interview with The Washington Times, said he is well-acquainted with Saddam loyalists: "I know everybody in the regime, and they respected me a lot, but at the same time, I was not an advocate of that regime at any time."

Taxidermy is stuffing animals. Ever hear of "The Picture of Dorian Grey"?

There is new news regarding Scott Ritter. A British newspaper is reporting on documents found in Iraqi government offices. They already reported that British MP Galloway was paid 600,000 USD, and he was an outspoken supporter of Iraq who was opposed to the war. Now they report Iraqis tried to bribe Scott Ritter with gold. An excerpt: quote:Iraq's intelligence services bought gold jewellery that they planned to give to the wife and daughter of Scott Ritter, the controversial former weapons inspector, as part of a clandestine project to encourage him to work closely with Saddam Hussein's regime, according to documents discovered by The Telegraph in Baghdad. According to the documents, which were found in the bombed headquarters of Iraq's intelligence services, the cost of the presents was approved at the highest level in an attempt to develop "strong relations with them [Mr Ritter's family] that affect positively on our relations with him". The documents say that the gifts should be offered via an intermediary, who was named as Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American businessman and close associate of Mr Ritter. The documents, which are signed by the then director-general of Iraqi intelligence, purport to reveal close links between Mr al-Khafaji and Iraqi intelligence, and suggest that the regime was making available substantial funds to offer him. Mr Ritter and Mr al-Khafaji have both made clear that they received no such gifts or funds.

I'm just saying that this is not the first time this story was floated. The Left is looking for another curve ball like the Bush DUI arrest story that broke 3 days before the election. You have to know that story was held for a while and released for maximum effect. I think they're reaching for anything they can now, and the Bush AWOL story is resurfacing, as well as the "Bill Bennet is a gambler" story.

quote:If this is such big news, why isn't ABC, CBS or the biggest Bush Wacker of them all MSNBC all over this?Because it came out during the primaries, but it didn't have "legs" at the time because Gore had enough skeletons of his own from the period that to raise this about Bush would open a can of worms that the Gore's didn't want.

Soylent Oil -- It's people!

Make your own Iraqi Information Minister!