debitage
Occupation Flintknapper Landscape Kiosk Hit "refresh" to make sure you're seeing the newest post.
This site uses stylesheets. Which means you shouldn't use Netscape. © Eemeet Meeker Online Enterprises, to the extent that slapping up a copyright notice constitutes actual copyright protection. |
 4.7.02
2.7.02
My feeling at the moment is that the court got it right. Using vouchers doesn't violate the separation of church and state anymore than it would if a person took some of their tax refund and bought a Bible with it. The government isn't supporting religion, it's allowing its citizens to support the school of their choice without discriminating against some schools on the basis of religion. I certainly don't think vouchers are the solution to the educational system's woes, as a commentary from last year outlines. But I seem to be one of the few voucher opponents who will say that they're constitutional. The problem is that our nation's modern reliance on the courts to throw out policies they don't like has transformed the significance of the issue. The court's ruling -- which technically said only that they're permissible -- has been taken as an endorsement of vouchers. Voucher opponents feel like they don't have a leg to stand on, and supporters (like President Bush) have taken this opportunity to say "look, the Supreme Court thinks they're the answer!" I've no doubt I'll find that some of the arguments presented in court dealt more with why vouchers are good or bad for students, which is really irrelevant to the constitutional question. But we'll see. I'll hopefully comment more once I'm up to speed on the issue.
1.7.02
via Witchvox posted by Stentor Danielson at 16:23 -- link --
30.6.02
I've talked to my boss about the Pledge issue, and he tends to make the de minimus argument -- that is, the unconstitutionality of the words "under God" is so small as to be negligible. Basically, those words aren't important enough to be worth going through the violent backlash that the decision has created. This is essentially a pragmatist (as opposed to idealist) perspective. The difference, as I see it, is in what you take as given. An idealist looks at the whole situation -- a sort of outsider's, or bird's eye, view -- and considers how it ought to be arranged. A pragmatist considers only his or her own actions as variables, and asks what he or she personally should to to create the best outcome, given the likely actions of everyone else. When an idealist hears about people being robbed in a dark alley, she thinks "people shouldn't rob others. I should be able to walk through dark alleys in safety." When a pragmatist considers the same situation, she thinks "given that there are robbers in the alley, I should probably stay out, or maybe carry a gun to defend myself." Both perspectives are necessary -- thee problem of crime would never be addressed without idealists, but without pragmatists we'd all stroll into dark alleys with $50 bills hanging out of our pockets because we know we're not the ones at fault. The reason I bring this up is because I consider myself a strong pragmatist. My initial reaction to a situation is usually "ok, how can I deal with this," not "this situation should be different." So why am I taking a clearly idealist position on this particular issue (the Pledge), and looking at the pragmatist argument as dodging the question?
"Colgate University's only local fraternity, Phi Tau, lost its house at a public auction last month. Colgate submitted the only bid on the 94 Broad St. property, putting in an offer of under $200,000, said Peter Dunn, a lawyer who refereed the auction." The griping from Phi Tau alums in the Maroon-News next semester will be painful. And I hadn't known Sarmad was president of Phi Tau as well. Hooray for being at Phi-Tau-free Clark next year. |
Probably no meaningful posts from me until Monday. Happy 4th and such.