Roe v. Wade Battleground

[Matheus]

Well, I have come to the conclusion that there is no proof for the existence of the soul... only faith.

[Kensterberg]

mary said:

You'd be highly disappointed, Ken. I have to teach con law in the fall.... civil rights and liberties...I just finished drafting the syllabus this afternoon, and I'm kinda freaked out, because I put all these freedom of religion cases on the syllabus...

...none of which I've ever read.

Haha. What a sham this whole academic racket is...

Basically the class is a pretty in-depth look at the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment (except I'm shocked and really irritated that the textbook I ordered doesn't include Loving v. Virginia or Washington v. Davis - both of which I think are totally essential to racial classification cases.... so I gutted the original plan, hrmph) and then a much more quick and scattershot tour of the first amendment, particularly freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Of course one could do an entire class on any one of those topics so it's pretty selective what we cover.... and I'm still having a tough time deciding whether or not to include libel cases in the free speech part of the class. I'm leaning toward no, and just doing a more in-depth look at political speech and obscenity & pornography.

Ummm, not that anyone asked.

I obviously can't help with the second class, but I've got some suggestions (if you don't mind) on the con law course ... first, you've got to discuss Loving, even if that means just printing it from the internet. Second, I'd just forget about the libel cases, if a student has an interest in that, you can point 'em towards the right cases or let 'em do a project on the topic. Political speech and obscenity could take up the entire course, and I wouldn't feel bad at all about hitting those hard and leaving out some of the other stuff.

Also, in my experience, students are interested in the whole "why Miranda protections are/aren't important" discussion. Given the current court, you may be able to talk about the rise and fall of the fourth and sixth amendments with some "ripped from the headlines" cases.

Good luck ... you'll knock 'em dead, I'm sure.

[Kensterberg]

sisyphus said:

so mary, i dunno if i've missed it before, but what did you just earn your master's degree in?

Mary just got her Ph.D. in Political Science from UC-Berkely. So when we call her "Dr. Mary" or "Mary, Ph.D.," we're not kidding.

And FYI, Bowiglou has his Ph.D. as well, I've got my J.D. (and a bunch of grad hours in sociology), and there are a bunch of other grad students here.

[Mary]

sisyphus said:

so mary, i dunno if i've missed it before, but what did you just earn your master's degree in?

political theory. but it's a phd, not a masters.

[pauledwardwagemann]

mary said:

fwiw, while I'm not really sure about the technicalities of defining a "troll", I can't begin to imagine any legitimate reason for banning PEW from this site. Personally, I find him kind of entertaining, although occasionally talking to him is like smashing my head against a wall repeatedly.

Anyhow....

Mary and Ken, as Liberal Democrats, do follow the party line on every poltical issue? Or do you review the facts with an open-mind and decide independently?
If so, could you give me an example of an issue where you break with the party line?

I'm not really sure where you got it into your head that I'm a "Liberal Democrat" to begin with, but, as Rocky says, I most certainly do NOT identify with the Democratic Party. From my perspective, this whole country's ideological spectrum is shifted so far to the right that there's no meaningful left in national politics. I'm a leftist, not a liberal. As such I'm almost completely off the American political map.

I also find the presumptions behind this question to be wrong. First of all, I don't know what "the party line" is since there is a great deal of internal disagreement amongst liberals, Democrats, and leftists in this country, so it would be impossible to follow any one party line. Second, I completely reject the notion that just because your political positions don't fall on both sides of some arbitrarily defined "center" that you are therefore not an "independent" thinker. The question is why you take the political positions you do, not where those positions fall on some map of all possible ideologies. Provided you have thought through the principles underlying each issue, and have some philosophical grounding for your position, then you're an independent thinker, even if each and every one of your positions happens to dovetail with the official platform of the Democratic (or Republican) Party.

Let me put it this way--I know you like to fog things up (kinda like Ken) by clouding things over by saying such and such is undefinable. And that's fine. If you want to think its impossible to define soul or impossible to define a Leftist party line or impossbile to define every other thing I've tried talking to you about, then that's your right. But Jesus it seems like that is just an excuse so that you dont have to actually take a HONEST look at an opposing opinion. Sure, anytime someone enters a territory in which my line of thinking is challenged or has loopholes in its logic I could just as easily start declaring that everything is undefinable too. I could say its impossible to define Women's rights because every woman is an individual and no two women are in the exact same sitauation and some women have had sex change operations and there are some androgenous people who are born with both the male and female genetailia and then there are those simese twins connected at the ass, one a boy and one a female, so how can they/it have woman's rights, and so and so on. But where does that really get me? For practical purposes, most people think about things, examine them, come to understand them somewhat and then define them (if even on a temporary basis). So in the spirit of co-operation, in the spirit of progress, shit, in the spirit of entertainment, can you at least try to imagine a leftwing party line--imagine any issue out there and then imagine what the leftist ideology would think about that issue-- and then can you tell me of one single thing you have ever disagreed about in regard to that party line.

[Kensterberg]

matheus said:

Well, I have come to the conclusion that there is no proof for the existence of the soul... only faith.

But I've got a contract to sell my soul as soon as I've got proof of it.

Could someone give me, like, the title documents for my soul? Does a soul come with a deed, and do you have to go through escrow and closing just like with a house?

Maybe mine was foreclosed on already ...

[Kensterberg]

Sorry M -- I thought you were gone for the evening, didn't mean to speak for you there.

[sisyphus]

that's great, dr. mary.

[Matheus]

kenholzman said:

matheus said:

Well, I have come to the conclusion that there is no proof for the existence of the soul... only faith.

But I've got a contract to sell my soul as soon as I've got proof of it.

Could someone give me, like, the title documents for my soul? Does a soul come with a deed, and do you have to go through escrow and closing just like with a house?

Maybe mine was foreclosed on already ...

Ken, you rock. I didn't vote you as best poster for nothing! Thanks for listening to my bullshit during this thread on a subject I actually got involved in. I know we don't agree, but that's okay because I'm not really sure what I believe.

I should go back to fence-sitting, because there's a difference... maybe I just believe what I WANT to believe.

[Matheus]

My religion...

I'm gonna tell you about love
Let's forget your life
Forget your problems
Administration, bills, and loans
Come with me

In the evidence of its brilliance...

In the demonstration of this evidence
Some have called it religion
This is not a coincidence
Would you like to try?

Connect to the sky
Future lovers ride there in mission style
Would you like to try
Let me be your guide
Put aside your pride
Future lovers hide love inside their eyes

In the evidence of its brilliance

Love controlled by time
Future lovers shine for eternity
In a world that's free
Put away your past
Love will never last
If you're holding on to a dream that's gone

I'm gonna tell you about love
Would you like to try?

In the evidence of its brilliance


There's no love like the future love
Come with me

Connect to the sky
Future lovers ride there in mission style
Would you like to try

[In the evidence of its brilliance]
Connect to the sky
Future lovers ride there in mission style
Would you like to try?

Brilliance

In the evidence of its brilliance

[sisyphus]

pauledwardwagemann said:

mary said:

fwiw, while I'm not really sure about the technicalities of defining a "troll", I can't begin to imagine any legitimate reason for banning PEW from this site. Personally, I find him kind of entertaining, although occasionally talking to him is like smashing my head against a wall repeatedly.

Anyhow....



I'm not really sure where you got it into your head that I'm a "Liberal Democrat" to begin with, but, as Rocky says, I most certainly do NOT identify with the Democratic Party. From my perspective, this whole country's ideological spectrum is shifted so far to the right that there's no meaningful left in national politics. I'm a leftist, not a liberal. As such I'm almost completely off the American political map.

I also find the presumptions behind this question to be wrong. First of all, I don't know what "the party line" is since there is a great deal of internal disagreement amongst liberals, Democrats, and leftists in this country, so it would be impossible to follow any one party line. Second, I completely reject the notion that just because your political positions don't fall on both sides of some arbitrarily defined "center" that you are therefore not an "independent" thinker. The question is why you take the political positions you do, not where those positions fall on some map of all possible ideologies. Provided you have thought through the principles underlying each issue, and have some philosophical grounding for your position, then you're an independent thinker, even if each and every one of your positions happens to dovetail with the official platform of the Democratic (or Republican) Party.

Let me put it this way--I know you like to fog things up (kinda like Ken) by clouding things over by saying such and such is undefinable. And that's fine. If you want to think its impossible to define soul or impossible to define a Leftist party line or impossbile to define every other thing I've tried talking to you about, then that's your right. But Jesus it seems liek that is jsut an excuse so tht you dont have to actually take a HONEST look at an opposing opinion. Sure, anytime someone enters a territory in which my line of thinking is challenged or has loopholes in its logic I coudl just as easily start declaring that everything is undefinable too. I could its impossible to define Women's rights because every woman is an individual and no two women are in the exact same sitauation and some women have had sex change operations and there are some androgenous people who are born with both the male and female genetailai and then there are also simese twins connected at the ass, one a boy and one a female, so how can they/it have woman's rights, and so and so on. But for practical purposes, most people think about things, examine them, come to understand them somewhat and then define them (if even on a temporary basis). So in the spirit of co-operation, in the spirit of progress, shit, in the spirti of entertainment, can you at least try to imagine a leftwing party line--imagine any issue out there and then imagine what the leftist ideology would think about that issue-- and then can you tell me of one single thing you have ever disagreed about in regard to that party line.

your lack of comprehension never ceases to amaze me, pew. semantics my ass. more like an excuse you use to justify your own lack of understanding.

[Matheus]

I'm drunk...

[pauledwardwagemann]

sisyphus said:

your lack of comprehension never ceases to amaze me, pew. semantics my ass. more like an excuse you use to justify your own lack of understanding.

I think I liked you better when you were a cheerleader...

[sisyphus]

Matheus, thanks for the reminder.

[Kensterberg]

Matt - we may not agree about abortion, but on a fundemental level we're not that different. I think we both want to believe in things, but just can't make that final leap, I know I can't.

In keeping with my shitty mood, I'm left to just once again quote Adam Duritz ...

believe in me, 'cause I don't believe in anything, and I want to be someone who believes ...