Log in

No account? Create an account
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2010-05-13 05:37
Subject: [links] Link salad believes in the perfected past
Security: Public
Tags:cool, links, personal, politics, science
DNA Robots on the MoveMachines made of DNA could one day assemble complex--and tiny--electrical and mechanical devices.

Apollo 11 sits on launch pad 39A — Where's Gary Seven when you need him?

Clues to Missing Matter — Reading about the Sculptor Wall gives me chills.

Oh, say, can you wear? — Roger Ebert on the American flag, and (though he's too polite to say it as such) rank conservative ignorance.

YouCut — More Republican genius. "Together we can begin to change Washington's culture of spending into a culture of savings." This from the party that drove the deficit up by three trillion dollars the last time they were in power. (Not that the Tea Party noticed it.) Yep. Principled consistency is definitely the GOP brand, through and through.

RNC uses Thurgood Marshall speech to attack Supreme Court nominee Kagan — The GOP is angry at Kagan because she agreed with Justice Marshall that the original Constitution was defective. So this is a pro-slavery platform from the GOP? Logic 101, people. Sarah Palin was right: the GOP really does stand for no hope, no change.

?otD: How do you feel about the GOP telling you that 3/5 of a person is the American Way?

Writing time yesterday: none (chemo)
Body movement: 30 minute stationary bike ride
Hours slept: 8.5 (so-so)
This morning's weigh-in: 230.4
Yesterday's chemo stress index: 6/10 (emotional stress, GI)
Currently (re)reading: Unseen Academicals by Terry Pratchett

Post A Comment | 13 Comments | | Link

User: etcet
Date: 2010-05-13 12:47 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
If the GOP's loudest and proudest wish to vote as 3/5 of a person, then they're welcome to do so.
Reply | Thread | Link

Kenneth Mark Hoover
User: kmarkhoover
Date: 2010-05-13 12:51 (UTC)
Subject: Thurgood Marshall
At least RepubliKans are being openly honest about their racism nowadays. I guess they're past pretending.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: madrobins
Date: 2010-05-13 14:49 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I forget about Ebert until you link to him, and every time you do, and I go read his essay, I love him more and more. Thank you.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: jordan179
Date: 2010-05-13 15:21 (UTC)
Subject: The Meaning of the 3/5 Compromise
How do you feel about the GOP telling you that 3/5 of a person is the American Way?

You have it backward. If the Constitution had rated blacks as counting as "full people" for census purposes, this would have increased the representation of the Southern states, and thus the oppression of blacks, because slaves couldn't vote. The abolitionists wanted to count slaves as zero for the census, the slave interests as one, for that reason.

Don't feel too bad about this. Most people get it backward. I didn't understand it until I took a college-level history course on the origins of the American Civil War.
Reply | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-05-13 15:27 (UTC)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of the 3/5 Compromise
Thank you for that. Makes a lot of sense, and I either missed it or it slipped my mind over the years.

My underlying point still stands, both as snark and as serious political communication. Why on earth would the GOP defend the version of the Constitution that enshrined slavery as the law of the land? The whole point of the Amendment process is to provide for a living document. Attacking Kagan for quoting Marshall about the success of this process isn't even cheap political theater, it's bad political theater.

(And yes, I can answer my own question. The answer is media buzz on the Right that allows them to soundbite Kagan as not respecting the constitution. It's stupid, shallow, and venal, and very few people who will be outraged by the accusation will bother to think through the meaning (or lack thereof) behind it. So in that sense it's good, if extremely cynical, political theater.)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: ulfhirtha
Date: 2010-05-13 19:54 (UTC)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of the 3/5 Compromise
Jordan179's point is well-taken. It is the kind of nuanced reality that it is healthy to know about.

The question, though, does point up the clear fact, often missed it seems: that its authors *knew* they had a flawed document on their hands (being made by humans, how could it be otherwise?), one that could stand to be "more perfect" and otherwise adapt to changing days. Hence the point of having an amendment process at all or the need for courts to adjudicate its intent.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

User: catjuggling
Date: 2010-05-13 16:57 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Did you see any reports on the Utah Senator who lost the primary due to Tea Party action?

Couldn't find the interview I'd heard on the radio yesterday, but he was pretty...upset. According to one tally, he's voted with the Democrats all of 5-6 times, but that was TOO MUCH for the Tea Party. He does still stand behind those votes, such as believing that TARP really did help save the global economy, so I've got to give him points for that I guess.

My favorite part of the story was the anecdote he related from one of his staff's experience at the caucus.

Paraphrasing a paraphrased story:
Staff member:" "So who are you voting for?"
Woman on the street: "Oh I'm voting for (somebody who was not one of the three men who split the votes) because she LOVES the Constitution."
Staff: "Well Senator Bennett loves the Constitution."
Woman: "Oh but she really, really, really loves our Constitution."
(after some more of this)
Staff: "Well it seems like I'm not going to be able to convince you that Senator Bennett loves our Constitution."
Woman: "Nope."

Related article.

Reply | Thread | Link

A large duck
User: burger_eater
Date: 2010-05-13 17:57 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Jay, I know you're a man who loves colorful shirts, and I wonder what you think of this.

Reply | Thread | Link

Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2010-05-13 20:07 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

They Didn't Ask Me: hello-kitty
User: dr_phil_physics
Date: 2010-05-13 18:36 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I wouldn't worry. Under a strict Original Constitutional argument, not only could Sarah Palin not run, she wouldn't be able to vote. So glad these people think these things through.

Dr. Phil
Reply | Thread | Link

User: martianmooncrab
Date: 2010-05-13 18:37 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Roger Ebert on the American flag,

We used to use flags as bedspreads back "in the day" in the barracks. Not just the US flag either.
Reply | Thread | Link

User: barbarienne
Date: 2010-05-13 19:06 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Well of course the Constitution as originally drafted was defective. The folks who wrote it knew that it was. That's why they included a mechanism for changing it. We've changed it 27 times (or 17 times, if you consider the first ten amendments to all be one block of change), and one of those times was to undo another of those times.

It isn't perfect, because perfection is impossible. Duh.

With regard to the ?otD: 3/5 of a person certainly isn't the American Way, but 3/5 of a brain appears to be the GOP/tea-bagger way.
Reply | Thread | Link

Danny Adams
User: madwriter
Date: 2010-05-14 15:20 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
>>The GOP is angry at Kagan because she agreed with Justice Marshall that the original Constitution was defective.<<

I assume these are the same people that kept saying through most of the Bush administration that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".

(Though I always answered people telling me this with, "But ignoring it would be.")
Reply | Thread | Link

my journal
January 2014
2012 appearances