Ugh

So. It's been nearly three months since my last entry. Why, say you? Well, me busy, says I.

Here's part of the reason:

I'd really like to get a Masters Degree. Someday. It's not that it'll help with salary, although it might. It's that when times are tough and company's are looking to dump people, people with Masters Degrees usually get dumped last. And... they usually get hired first, am I right? Not to mention that getting a Masters would seriously deepen my knowledge base. By a lot. Like, really... ALOT. In any case, I signed up for a distance learning class through the University of Idaho, since the program at UAA allows you to transfer up to three classes. I signed up for Finite Element Analysis, which to sum up, is Applied Advanced Calculus. Now, silly me procrastinated and signed up late. So, I got my materials late. So, I started late. Strike one. AND - I haven't done one calculus problem in well over 10 years. Strike two? I spent probably 60 to 70 hours last week not only trying to catch up in the class, but trying to do it while digging out the cobwebs that have formed in the Calculus Caverns of my brain. Needless to say, as of yesterday, I intend on dropping the class. Ugh. A waste of an R&R? Eh... probably not. I think in the long run, this was a good lesson for me. I haven't taken a college class in many moons, so getting this kind of a slap was good for me if I really want to pursue a Masters at some point. however, with my schedule, and my desire to take classes that I can look the teacher in the eye, it might be a while.

Is this in our future?

Homeschooling is taking a hit in Germany and the UK. The "progressive" movement continues to erode parental rights and puts government in their place. Using "The Nanny State" as a descriptor seems more and more appropriate.

Some might say I use the word "marxism" too much, but The Communist Manifesto does talk about public education. Gee, I wonder why...

Mass of humanity

So Wachter and I went up Flat Top yesterday. We saw more people up there than I've ever seen. Not cool, but can you blame them?

Clarification

As is turns out, I have to clarify the context of a quote from the President.

I said that he called the Constitution "deeply flawed". That's not exactly what he said, but it was close. Even so, to simply say that without the context of the entire interview is not doing him justice, and therefore, not doing me justice.

So, what exactly did he say?

From Newsmax.

His "deep flaws" comment was directed at the Framers and the colonial attitudes at the time. It's pretty clear he's referring to racist colonial attitudes towards Africans. Now, I don't have the Constitution memorized, but I know that the Civil War Amendments were intended to bring African-Americans under the umbrella of citizen status, and as such, protected by the Constitution (but by no means ended racism). So my problem with his statements here are when he used the words, "the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day". The blind spot being racism, I think I can safely assume. To me, his comments here reflect his wish that the Constitution should somehow set right the issue of race relations. What he apparently believes is that morality can be legislated.

Here's an interview he did in 2001, which is a bit more revealing. He refers to the Warren Court and their inability to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" when it came to the issue of "redistribution of wealth". What??!!?? He's saying here that the Warren Court "wasn't that radical" because it failed to clarify what the government should "do on your behalf", or redistribute wealth (in other words... Marxism?).

Here's one last quote from Obama and his views of the Constitution. From The Audacity of Hope: "I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." Granted, the Constitution is amendable, and in the case of most Amendments, it has been justified (Prohibition excluded). But to say that it should be read in the context of an "ever-changing world" is appalling to me. The Constitution is the basis of everything that makes the United States the greatest country on the planet. To say that it can be read differently in 1950 as you would today is absolutely rediculous. You might as well throw it out.

So, to sum up... although he did not exactly say the Constitution was "deeply flawed", in my opinion that's exactly what he thinks.

Peace.

Hypocracy?

"I would hope that a wise white male, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who has not lived that life."

Racist? Sexist?

Would that depend on who you ask?

Hmmm...

How about this?

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Pretty arrogant either way, isn't it?

The first quote wasn't really a quote, if you haven't figured that out, but the second one was. The Honorable Sonia Sotomayor seems to think that justice actually knows color and gender. Granted, I'm sure that being raised in the Bronx is a vastly different experience than being raised in Alaska, but shouldn't the law be interpreted the same for ALL Americans? Is the Constitution a dynamic document? Are my legal rights and freedoms under that document less than that of someone who has had what might be considered a "harder" upbringing? I'd like to see someone from the Bronx actually survive a Valdez winter, by the way. (sarcasm alert!) What about that, Sonia? Ever had to shovel your way out of your house?

Judge Sotomayor also said, "a court of appeals is where policy is made". Sooooo, Your Honor... what exactly is Congress for then? Did you NOT read the Constitution when you went through law school?

She'll be confirmed, no doubt, so my hope is that she doesn't end up being yet another judge who thinks it's their responsibility to MAKE law, not simply INTERPRET it as the Constitution requires. I've seen just a glimpse of her rulings, and some sustain that hope. Yet when she says things like I've quoted here, that hope weakens. But that isn't surprising considering the guy who nominated her called the Constitution a "deeply flawed" document.