Milton

I suppose that you could put the Constitution, word for word, into plain modern English for us without "interpreting" it at all?

There is a difference between face-to-face insults aimed at inciting violence and a newspaper publishing something you find offensive. I hope Allah has more of a sense of humor than you all make him out to or heaven has got to be one boring place...

It's not that I think Moslems are violent as a group. In fact, I have many a Moslem friend. But when large groups burn things down and other Moslems try to justify the conduct saying "I don't condone it, but it's understandable," it makes all Moslems seem like they are prone to violence. This combined with the fact that many Arabs hold the view that they can or should try to convert as much of the world as possible further perpetuates the image of the Muslim invader. The problem here is that the culture that the Muslim world represents (religion centered, communitarian, moralistic) is at odds with the Western, especially European culture (secular, individualistic, amoral). The Western World does not want to convert, just as the Muslim world does not want to be "encroached on."

So you're suggesting that a) Israel paid Hamas to blow things up so it can justify expansion, and b) the US gave money to al-Qaida for the purpose of al-Qaida attacking us so we could support a war on terrorism? Interesting take I guess..

The have the Miles one on "allposters.com" I bought the three B+W's off of some british guy who showed up at school for like a week. I'm glad you all enjoyed. I'm frantically seeking simple black frames to put on them so as not to fuck them up.

Congrats Iran, you're next... (I'm just waiting to watch the 1.6 billion Persians in LA flip the fuck out...

My take is this: 1) The liberals loved Islam. They were very pro-Paltestine, anti-Israel. They hate that globalization is encroaching on the Middle East. They love falafal, etc. 2) The protestors are now dividing the "liberal" camp between those with libertarian leanings and those with more "bleeding heart" stances by striking out against freedom of speech. With the libertarian lefties going with the papers and the bleeding hearts going with "cultural sensitivity." 3) This is kind of stupid because the liberals were their strongest supporters in the Western World. The right never really supported Islam. Now, half the left is dropping them. They're causing their own problems... Mark my words. (No, thats not a threat.)

Okay, this is it, then I have to write a paper on the moral culpability of hate crime. In order to be morally culpable for an act the actor must: 1) Be a moral agent; 2) breach a moral norm; 3) Which fairly obligates his/her/its compliance, and; 4) The act is fairly attributed to the agent. Now, the first open question becomes can the government as entity be a moral agent. (In a similar sense, can a corporation be an agent?). Does an entity have the rational reasoning ability and accurate factual perception to be a moral agent? Can a government entity be empathetic? While individuals within government can accurately be described as moral agent, can the entity of "government" be classified as such. I don't know, I wonder if you could answer that. Second, can the government breach a moral norm. This is interesting for two reasons. Does the government acting as voice of the majority define moral norms? Possibly, after all moral norms are the effect of the social mores of the times. Also, can the government actually breach the norm? More specifically, is the government able to engage in conduct that is outside of moral boundaries as it is an entity? This gets back to the first question. Third, does any moral norm apply to governments as such? Clearly they apply to government officials and those within government. For that reason the Hitler idea is a non-sequitur. Hitler was an individual running a country, not a body of popularly elected officials. His abhorrent conduct can be considered morally relevant because he was a person. These are large open questions that need to be answered before you consider an action immorral. If you can, so be it. I can't...

Ohhhh, okay its two different words, I'm glad they explained...

They lied, they said it was six letters long. I only count five...

I hate to break up the little dog and pony show that we have going on here, but can we think pragmatically for a second? 1) Israel has tanks, guns and nuclear weapons. Palestine does not. 2) Palestian is now run by a terrorist group that has a no compromise policy. 3) Eventually Israel and Palestine will confront one another, because Hamas will not compromise. 4) See #1. I hope they enjoy Syria...

10 bucks says he gets caught..

My point is this: government taxation, though it may be coercive, is not stealing. It's not an infringement on liberty, by any reasonable definition of the term liberty. And as I said previously, the legal, majority sanctioned, government sanctioned act of taxation is not a moral event. Moral theory is, or should be, indifferent to taxation. Moral norms are sponsored by society as a whole, since society as a whole (on the majority) agrees with taxation, it is not an immoral act. There is no breach of a moral norm at work here. The only way you can taxation into the sphere of moral wrongs is to mis-classify it as "theft." Which it is not for the following reasons: 1) Taxation is government sponsored. Since government (and the majority) make laws and define theft they have precluded the operation of the moral norm "theft" to government taxation. (See, generally, US Constitution Amendment 16, which passed by a super-majority in both houses and was ratified by the states no less.) 2) Taxation is optional. If you want to live in the United State you have to pay a fee for the privilege. A standing army, public education, and a judicial system are not free of charge. If you do not want to be taxed, move to a country without a federal tax system. 3) The idea that there are a fixed set of moral norms that apply equally to all is dated. Who are you to define morality for me? Doesn't that go against your palelibertarian philosophy? Finally, people disagree with the classicist philosophy because it is so far to the right that it has become disjoined with any current social mores. It is so conservative in fact, that even the most right wing conservatives in Congress don't ascribe to it. It's a wonderful little political viewpoint that brought us the 3/5 Compromise, the fugitive slave laws, the civil war as well as Lochner v. New York.

Thats the old Comet wall on capital hill Quoted post [/b] Yes, that is, it gets gone over every 4 weeks with regularity... makes for pretty pitchers tho...

Zealotry is stupid my friend. Politics is a rational sphere not an emotional one. People on both sides of the spectrum often forget this idea. If people disagree with you it doesn't make them stupid, it doesn't make them bad people. The aim of politics is to provide the best functioning system of government, you're going to achieve that better from rationalism than ranting. Your stance on welfare I find particularly flawed. 1) Welfare is not morally illegitimate, and neither is socialism for that matter. The government is not "stealing" from anyone. If you don't want to pay taxes hitch up your trailer and drive to Canada, its that simple. Not only is taxation and welfare Constitutional (Amendment 16) but it is a moral non-event. For one, there is no standard "moral law" that you can find. Instead moral norms are produced by the majority of the population. Since the majority has decided to maintain welfare, it is hence moral to maintain it. A political position can neither be moral or immoral as it is a rational position based on a persons view of the best system. Also, the racist and class-discriminatory undertones that pervade your text are immature and ignorant. You hate the poor, but have no reason for doing so. If you disagree with the politics fine, but leave your emotional baggage at the door.

I thought Caligula was the most controversial movie ever...?

I agree to some extent that Lincoln did take more power than is probably constitutionally valid. But those were different times, and the country was at war with the South. Insofar as he was attempting to win a war against a valid and imminent threat, it seems different. Also, FDR didn't set up internment, he just allowed generals on the west coast to do whatever they had to to protect the country. They decided on interment. Now, we have no imminent threat and no single enemy. It seems like a different situation to me...

I'm lost here: US Constitution Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. This basically breaks down into due process; right against self incrimination; and limitation on eminent domain? Where is speech in that? Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This basically breaks down to: 1) National citizenship. 2) Due process as applied to state law 4) Privileges and Immunities (basically imports the bill of rights to apply to state citizenship and state law) 5) Equal protection. Neither of these have anything to do with graffitotagging. Sorry. Unless of course your argument is that the First Amendment has been incorporated into the states by the 14th and therefore it applies to you graphitotagging. But it doesn't. I'm so confused. Plead the fifth and move on.

In the Living Room In my Bed Room (I have it as one print now, I'd like to get it cut into three and framed on a black background with a little space in between. Maybe a maroon background...) I'm not proud of my poster fetish...

Didn't I already explain how I feel about idiots who talk shit but don't speak English? You have the flow of the conversation a little wrong, it went: Muhammed Cartoons > First Amendment Rights >Idiot talks about how he has the right to write his name on other people's property. > Property rights in general.

Why is no one talking about what Cass Sunstein said? Cass Sunstein is the fucking man. As far as I'm concerned whatever he says is golden. Here is his take "On the facts thus far, the president has a decent argument that he acted lawfully. There's also a decent argument that he didn't. But if the president has a decent argument, he can't be impeached for getting it wrong," End of story

"fuck you, I still do...community service or a little jail time doesn't bother me when it comes to free speech, let alone a felony record..." Fuck me? How polite of you. What a poignant response. Are you sure you aren't a member of Bush's cabinet? You still have that right? Interesting. If you "still" do that indicates that you did at one point, which is a falacy. Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever had the right to write your name on other people's property since the founding of this great nation. Coequal with the "freedom of speech" is the right to life, liberty and property. A part of the right to property is the right to be free from infringement on your property. I think I as well as most reasonable people would consider vandalism an infringement on one's property rights. Moreover, the First Amendment doctrine has a well settled branch regarding government property. The government can make reasonable time place and manner restrictions on their property. I won't get into the details, but if you're curious you might look up a case called Taxpayers for Vincent. Thus, if you're writing on their property you have no right to do so. community service or a little jail time doesn't bother me when it comes to free speech, let alone a felony record..." 1) Community service or a little jail time don't bother you. Community service doesn't bother you, a little jail time doens't bother you, both don't bother you. 2) "let alone a felony record" seems to indicate that a felony record is less severe than community service or a little jail time. In fact, what you probably meant to say is "A felony record will not deter me from acting under my First Amendment rights, let alone community service or a little jail time." Hope this helps..

Ummm, sorry Cowboy, but you actually don't have the right to write your name on stuff that doesn't belong to you. Sorry about the mix up...