I discovered today that I tend to try and repair other people's issues and problems instead of facing my own various dilemmas. I truly do have some large ones to take care of, and I simply don't want to think about them. The biggest is this: do I go to graduate school and be poor for a few more years, or do I finally get a job and actually not be so 'fiscally' stricken, and then go back for the masters degree, knowing what it is exactly that I'd like to spend 8 hours per day doing. That's the question, really.
See, I want to be outside, not stuck in an office all day for 30 years. That's rather not appealing. But how do you move up and be successful? Usually, you're stuck in an office. Maybe it's the cake and eat it both, but I want a job that gets me out there, where I travel and meet people and do interesting things. In short, I'd like to enjoy my job and work up from there.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Monday, October 10, 2005
Granted, I realize the logic in my previous post was largely flawed, but I still feel that it is true. I like Harriet Miers, perhaps simply because the Democrats aren't whining and moaning about how mistreated they are and President Bush supports the nominee. Instead, we have the conservatives, to which I claim most of my allegiance, very concerned about what she will do when she gets in. But the secret is this:
George W. Bush is really a moderate in disguise.
Complain all you want about how he's too hardcore about terrorism, but remember that his domestic policies have often been more moderate, which has always been a concern for the really really right-wingers. Campaign finance reform? Folks, John McCain and the President both supported that, and Limbaugh used up thousands of gallons of oxygen tearing the idea to shreds. And what about all that aid to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa? Where did that come from? Restructuring medicare? He did that too, even with the support of the AARP.
Honestly, I'm not sure what all the hub-bub is about. It seems to me that Bush chose a woman who is a moderate to replace outgoing Justice Sandra O'Conner. If Bush and Reid can compromise on a nominee, I can only see that as a positive thing.
Of course, I am a bit iffy on her record, but this isn't the first time a non-judge has been given a seat on the Supreme Court.
George W. Bush is really a moderate in disguise.
Complain all you want about how he's too hardcore about terrorism, but remember that his domestic policies have often been more moderate, which has always been a concern for the really really right-wingers. Campaign finance reform? Folks, John McCain and the President both supported that, and Limbaugh used up thousands of gallons of oxygen tearing the idea to shreds. And what about all that aid to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa? Where did that come from? Restructuring medicare? He did that too, even with the support of the AARP.
Honestly, I'm not sure what all the hub-bub is about. It seems to me that Bush chose a woman who is a moderate to replace outgoing Justice Sandra O'Conner. If Bush and Reid can compromise on a nominee, I can only see that as a positive thing.
Of course, I am a bit iffy on her record, but this isn't the first time a non-judge has been given a seat on the Supreme Court.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Oh no! A moderate! What will the crazies do?
The new Supreme Court justice nominee, Harriet Miers, was chosen, I believe, in the same way as Chief Justice Roberts. To the rather odd surprise of those on the right and left, Bush mentioned "there is no litmus test" on whether or not Miers was pro-choice or pro-life. "What matters to me, " he said, "is her judicial philosophy. What does she believe the proper role of the judiciary is relative to the legislative and the executive branch?"
That might seem like a lot of hot air coming from Bush, but if you take it at face value, what does it mean? It means that Bush chose someone he trusted to have great intellect, integrity and character who was a woman, and did not have a public opinion about hot-button issues. Those three aspects alone give anyone a head start in my book as long as they are true. The problem that many of the crazies on the left and right have is this: they can only see the justices from the standpoint that they might vote against their own narrow interests, whatever they may be.
Of course, abortion is always the big one, but there are many others which should be considered, but the point here is this: Bush is saying that there is a difference between being a congressperson that votes for a certain bill that might ban something and a justice who interprets the Constitution according the intent of the Founding Fathers. A justice's beliefs on a certain issue that comes up in the Supreme Court should have little bearing on cases, because judges are supposed to be as impartial as possible, and should not try to change laws they disagree with (morally speaking), which is where the "legislating from the bench" comes in. They are merely there to interpret the Constitution and protect citizens from overzealous government.
In the end, the Supreme Court can best be viewed this way: far from attempting to represent the beliefs and wishes of the masses, which is the explicit responsibility of Congress, the Supreme Court exists to interpret laws of the United States in relation to the Constitution, so that an overzealous Congress or Executive does not infringe on the rights of the majority or the minority.
Also, Bush's nominee shows us that Bush really isn't as staunchly conservative in every area - he gets beat down for his war in Iraq, but many people seem to forget that a lot of conservatives and libertarians never really liked Bush's more moderate stances on a variety of issues, including abortion rights, welfare, and the size of government.
That might seem like a lot of hot air coming from Bush, but if you take it at face value, what does it mean? It means that Bush chose someone he trusted to have great intellect, integrity and character who was a woman, and did not have a public opinion about hot-button issues. Those three aspects alone give anyone a head start in my book as long as they are true. The problem that many of the crazies on the left and right have is this: they can only see the justices from the standpoint that they might vote against their own narrow interests, whatever they may be.
Of course, abortion is always the big one, but there are many others which should be considered, but the point here is this: Bush is saying that there is a difference between being a congressperson that votes for a certain bill that might ban something and a justice who interprets the Constitution according the intent of the Founding Fathers. A justice's beliefs on a certain issue that comes up in the Supreme Court should have little bearing on cases, because judges are supposed to be as impartial as possible, and should not try to change laws they disagree with (morally speaking), which is where the "legislating from the bench" comes in. They are merely there to interpret the Constitution and protect citizens from overzealous government.
In the end, the Supreme Court can best be viewed this way: far from attempting to represent the beliefs and wishes of the masses, which is the explicit responsibility of Congress, the Supreme Court exists to interpret laws of the United States in relation to the Constitution, so that an overzealous Congress or Executive does not infringe on the rights of the majority or the minority.
Also, Bush's nominee shows us that Bush really isn't as staunchly conservative in every area - he gets beat down for his war in Iraq, but many people seem to forget that a lot of conservatives and libertarians never really liked Bush's more moderate stances on a variety of issues, including abortion rights, welfare, and the size of government.