I think Pax and I think about the issues in a very similar way. Pax just happens to have a bunch of set beliefs that I disagree with strongly.

-Pax believes in the absolutism of law and legal enforcement. I believe that the ideas of justice, right and wrong and the intent with which the laws were signed are more important than just absolutely following the words written down.

-Pax believes that the government is never justified in interfering in the economy in any way, even when it's demonstrably to the benefit of the populace. I believe if the government has the ability to help people, it ought to take that opportunity. The government exists for the people.

But, I will say, I really hate viewing a person's politics as just a linear function. I think that view is destructive to rational discourse. Every issue should be seen as an individual issue. I take a person's opinion less seriously if they seem to always agree with the same political 'side' no matter what issue.

Oh yes, and one thing I thought I would add. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be the ones who can determine something 'Unconstitutional'. And a lot of the amendments are written in very vague, idealistic language that can be difficult to define. Interpreting 'freedom of speech' in a modern context, in my opinion, is not judicial activism.

All of these differences you reference Bob are part of my earlier remark about individual rights vs. community good. Both are desirable ends, but I think that individual rights is a better guiding principle for government. Government policies that take money from some people and hand it to poorer people will probably increase overall happiness (a desirable goal), but the economy AS A WHOLE will increase at a higher rate if everyone is left to earn for themselves (also a desirable goal).

Hah, Bob, do I need to go off on another originalist rant? You are just begging for it with this "interpreting freedom of speech in a modern context" business. When the First Amendment was written, the Founders thought they were protecting political speech. What is political speech? Well in a "modern context" it could be internet blogs or cable news, but there is no reason to think it is also pornography or corporate advertisements. While the conditions for political speech have changed, its nature has not. I agree that some of the language is difficult to define, but you can overcome that vagueness by looking to what the law was thought to mean when it was written. The Founders did not put free speech in the Constitution in order to protect the rights of pornographers. A good example of this "originalist" philosophy (which might lead to a new topic) is the gay marriage amendment in Texas that will be voted on in the next few weeks. Here is the language of the amendment (to the Texas Constitution)...

"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

You would be absolutely correct in saying that this language is vague and can be twisted to mean a lot of things (including that Texas should not recognize ANY form of marriage). However, when this amendment was written, it was clearly the intention of its authors to make gay marriage unconstitutional, so any judge intepreting this statuteshould keep this purpose in mind and not simply twist the text to mean anything he wishes.

It’s only through these drawn out (and sometimes turbulent) debates that we really see the priority of values behind the opinions.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
All of these differences you reference Bob are part of my earlier remark about individual rights vs. community good. Both are desirable ends, but I think that individual rights is a better guiding principle for government. Government policies that take money from some people and hand it to poorer people will probably increase overall happiness (a desirable goal), but the economy AS A WHOLE will increase at a higher rate if everyone is left to earn for themselves (also a desirable goal).

I think this is a very important statement, Pax. It tells me that you value a strong economy over the general happiness of the populace. I’d like to think that I’d value happiness over a strong economy, but I’m constantly reevaluating what I deem as important when I read these political debates. I’m not predictable. I make assumptions all the time. I also admit when I’m wrong. I’d love to hear a politician say, “Yeah… wow. I kind of missed the mark on that one.” We’ll never hear that in our lifetime though. ;-)

I think it’s back to that old adage, “money can’t buy happiness”, that propels a few of Bob’s values and mine. I’m not saying that you, Pax, don’t value happiness… but you seem to accept the brutally honest truths of human nature and work with them, while I (I won’t speak for Bob on this one) believe that people need to change their inherently destructive values. For example, “human beings are hard-wired to judge themselves not by their absolute standard of living, but in comparison to others” (quote from the article provided below). I think that is an honest truth. I try very hard to value what I have and derive my happiness from avenues that advertisers would try to steer me from. Truth be told though, if I had lots of money… I would spend it. Sure, I’d donate a little more to charity (I already do), but I can’t see myself spending the majority of it on others (outside my family).

I think that’s why Pax’s political opinions are typically in line with what’s already in place today. The current government does seem to reflect the values of the majority of voters (the values of human beings in general). The poor are just as greedy as the rich. I mean, the people that want more equal distribution of wealth, are those that are typically below the average. Are their motives really for the general good of the community… or are they simply exercising their desire for more?

I am very happy to live in a democratic society (I’m sure we all are), but where I once felt that the government wasn’t representing the will of the people… I’m now thinking it is. However, I believe it’s primarily representing those brutally honest (and sometimes destructive) values that are inherent in all of us.

An interesting article… Money Can't Buy Happiness. Er, Can It? Yup, it’s an article from your buddy, Pax… Paul Krugman. ;-)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Echolocating,

Ahh, but I do value individual freedom over community good. The thing is, safety net programs do increase individual happiness and freedom. People who have to choose between buying groceries and paying the heat bill aren't particularly happy, or free. Your statements seem to imply that the government can't possibly act and thereby increase individual freedom. Which is ridiculous.

And you still seem to think that only the government is capable of limiting freedom. If a corporation limits another person's freedom or threatens their life, liberty, or property, the government should stop the corporation from doing so. Every person's actions affect other people. So the government needs to stop them from taking actions that hurt other people.

--

And with regards to constitutional originalism, I would argue that 'freedom of religion' has come to mean 'freedom to hold one's own moral beliefs'.

Did the founding fathers write anything in the consitution against gay marraige? It wasn't an issue for them. And, the founding fathers were raised in the 1700's. If they were raised today and the here and now, I guarantee they would be pro-gay rights. If you apply the principles with which the constitution was drafted to the modern cultural context, the constitution protects gay rights. Just like when they applied those principles to slavery in the 1860s they came to the conclusion that humans could not be made into property. (The founding fathers were pro-slavery).

I would also argue that the constitutional guarantee of 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' trumps any other part of the constitution. And any law that threatens those, is inherently unconstitutional.

You keep saying that the legislature should make laws, not judges. But..in Massachussetts, the state legislature has voted in favor of gay marraige. So what's your answer there? Should the supreme court just exist to make the law immutable? Also ridiculous.

From Krugman article...

"Now there are faint hints in popular culture -- though certainly not yet in the spending numbers -- that Americans are starting to become disillusioned with high consumption, that in years to come the American consumer will become wiser and more prudent. Let's hope it really happens -- but not too fast."

Mr. Krugman was right and Americans finally did quit spending (which ushered in the recession of 01-03).

I would never say that money increases happiness (on an individual level), but I believe that overall economic growth DOES increase overall happiness (at least much more than taking from the rich and giving to the poor ever would). The last 200 years have seen the largest economic growth in the history of the world. What have been the results? Well we've replaced polio with the iPod, horses with SUV's, fires with air conditioning, wooden ships with 747's, and the printing press with HP. Have these inventions (all driven by Western capitalist "greed") hurt quality of life (as Paul Krugman seems to be implying with his reference to the inconveniences of cell phones)? Of course not. They have led to much longer lives, more time for the arts, and better living conditions for the poor. The average "poor family" today is not without two color televisions, a car, and a refrigerator. Should we call that good enough? No, but it is certainly better than 20 years ago, 40 years ago, or 60 years ago. "Overall economic growth" IS better than ephemeral "happiness."

Bob, are poor people any more free when the government GIVES them the money to buy groceries? I don't see how the government handing out money to some and not others would make anyone more "free." It would make them richer, but not more free. My definition of individual rights is the ability to succeed and fail on your own.

And we've saved the best for last...wow Bob, I could spend hours delving into this last section of yours, but I'll just go over the highlights.

1) Nobody has ever argued that someone can't hold his or her own "moral beliefs." That is part of freedom of religion AND freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech" (according to the Founders) meant that anyone could hold any political beliefs he wanted. "Freedom of religion" meant that anyone could hold any religious beliefs that he wanted.

2) I guarantee you the Founding Fathers would NOT be in favor of gay rights, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be in favor of honoring a population that DID want to have gay rights legislation. That is the key difference. Today's activist judges do not want to honor the people's choice to decide certain issues for themselves. Should gay marriage be allowed? Personally I would say no, but I would respect the decision of state legislators who thought otherwise.

3) The problem with your philosophy of "transferring the constitution to the modern cultural context" is that there can be little agreement about what the "modern cultural context" is. I agree that societal beliefs about religion, abortion, gay rights, and the death penalty have changed since the 1800's, but does that mean judges should have the power to decide for everybody how those beliefs have changed? Of course not. People (through their representatives) should be allowed to make such a decision for themselves. And if they feel that these values have changed significantly enough to make something a fundamental constitutional right (like outlawing slavery or allowing women to vote), then they can amend the constitution accordingly.

4) Slavery is an interesting issue. Blacks often claim that they have no real obligation to America since they were originally "3/5 of a person," but they neglect to mention that it was the Northern, anti-slavery establishment that pushed to have blacks counted as less than one person. Pro-slavery Southerners obviously wanted blacks counted as a full person since that would increase their representation in the Congress. You must therefore conclude that counting blacks as less than a full person was a decision made in favor of abolitionists.

5) Slavery was not eliminated because judges in the 1860's found it unconstitutional based on "modern cultural context." It was eliminated because of an AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. Up until that point there was nothing unconstitutional about slavery. The elimination of slavery is a perfect example of how social change of heart can be expressed through amendments to the constitution and not by arbitrary decisions by judges.

6) "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Declaration of Independence and not the US Constitution. They should be a guiding legislative principle, not a judicial principle.

7) If the Massachussetts legislator wants to make gay marriage legal, fine. They are free to do so. States control marriage and can do what they please with the institution.

One more thing about Miers being withdrawn...if I were on the far left or one of those Rolling Stone, moveon people, I would be very very scared right now. I really didn't think the far right had this much power in America, but lo and behold, they do. This withdrawal is all about the far right bullying Bush around, and don't think for a second it isn't. Now Bush will nominate a far-right Scalia guy, he/she will be confirmed in a brutal confirmation fight, and liberals will be mourning for years.

Are they free because of welfare? No. They're free because they can not have to worry about not being able to feed their children while they're out looking for another job. And when Cody received unemployment insurance, he was certainly freer than if he lost his house.

People who are trying as hard as they can to find a job, should get help. Most people on welfare are. So how come every time we talk about welfare you jump straight to the sizeable minority that aren't? It's like you're ignoring that the people who are on welfare and trying to become employed don't exist.

Even with your thickest Cognitive Dissonance hat on, you can't possibly deny that a majority of Americans couldn't remotely support their current lifestyle on the amount you get on welfare. So, when they lose their income source, all but the very, very poor and skill-less will scramble to get a new job as fast as possible.

You don't ax the entire program just because a few people exploit it, as you suggest. (Every argument you've ever made against welfare has ONLY applied to the people who aren't really trying to get jobs). You can curb exploitation without axing the program.

And I'm a little confused. Previously you said that you cared about individual freedom, not the public good. But now you're saying that the effect the gross domestic product has on technological progress justifies doing nothing but inflating the bottom line. Isn't that a 'public good' argument, not an 'individual freedom' one? Make up your mind! Or at least, get your doubletalk straight.

--

The thing about cultural values, there's anchoring and adjustment going on. In 1770s, the anchor was at 'Black people are not people and we can do whatever we want to them.' So, any acknowledgment of black rights at all was 'liberal'.

Now, in 2005, the anchor is 'Every race is equal and deserves equal consideration for everything'. So how can you possibly justify interpreting the principles of the constitution the same way now as in 1776? You need to separate general principle from contemporary application of that principle. The function of supreme court justices should be to interpret the principles without getting bogged down in explicit intent of people who lived in 1776.

You tend to think that there's no way that your personal belief about what's right and what's wrong could possibly be incorrect. I don't feel that way, so you accuse me of ethical relativism. But I do believe in absolute right and wrong. I just don't posess such immense hubris to think that I, out of all the people who've ever lived, am the one to have it all right.

That's why I refuse to judge somebody 'evil' who isn't hurting anyone, and that's why you must take context into account making any judgment. Values applied out of context amount to nothing more than a rationalization not to upset the status quo.

That's why I don't buy that 'Strict Constructionist' rhetoric. Scalia, and other 'Stirct Constructionists' happen to agree with an explicit word for word interpreation of what's written. So they call themselves 'Strict Interpreters' as an excuse to do what they want anyway, and a label to villify those who go against them.

I’m on your side, Bob, when it comes to keeping welfare and other financial safety nets… but I differ with your arguments regarding the small percentage of Welfare abusers in that I think the problem is larger than people want to admit.

The exploitation has to be higher than you claim it is. I mean, it’s so easy to get Welfare… it’s so easy to stay on it… it’s so easy to make extra money under the table… people want an easy life and if you’re willing to say to yourself, “I can do without a fancy car, a new couch, and a yearly two-week vacation” (which most of us can, regardless of whether you're on Welfare or not) …where’s the incentive to get off Welfare (as Pax has mentioned)?

You can look at the problem of Welfare abuse from a percentage of people… or from a percentage of money. For example, one person abusing the system for 9 years vs. 9 people who really needed assistance for only a year each shows an exploitation of only 10 % of all the Welfare recipients, but the cost of supporting the exploitation (in this case) is 50% of the Welfare money given out.

Here’s an interesting thread…
http://discuss.ctv.ca/forums/showthread.php?t=1733

Maybe the numbers are low like you’ve said, Bob (and I realize that I pulled that above example out of my ass)… but I feel your playing down the problem of Welfare abuse in order to support your opinion (and mine) of its need.

-----

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
The average "poor family" today is not without two color televisions, a car, and a refrigerator.

That’s exactly my situation… maybe I should apply for Welfare. ;-) But seriously, you can’t use basic advancements in technology and compare the absolutes in impoverished homes today vs. those of the past. It’s like saying in 100 years from now that poor people have never had it better because they have floating bubble cars (while they scurry along the polluted, crime-ridden surface… and the rich live in the clouds).

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Have these inventions (all driven by Western capitalist "greed") hurt quality of life (as Paul Krugman seems to be implying with his reference to the inconveniences of cell phones)? Of course not.

I agree that the cell phone complications were a confusing point to support his argument, but the focus of the article was that our perception of happiness is derived from comparing what we have to what other people have. Thus, if that is how we measure happiness… then you must be able to purchase happiness with money. Of course, he doesn’t believe that you can buy happiness, thus the question in the title of the article. Is our own human nature perpetuating our general unhappiness? Do we have to change our inherent need to compare ourselves to others to actually be happy? How does this all impact our existing society?

However, my stance (and Bob’s) is that a person should never have to struggle to have basic necessities (shelter, food, water, education). Should we all just be given these things? No, of course not (for reasons that you cite, Pax.), but the fair and “equal” chance to earn them should never be a struggle and that is where I believe the problem exists… exactly where you don’t see a problem (or maybe it's a problem that you accept).

-----

Children in impoverished homes will continue the cycle of poverty without an intervention fueled by a huge amount of time and energy (and money). What if every child (regardless of their family’s personal wealth) had the exact same educational opportunities and educational quality (with the same level of importance stressed to it)? That is what I’d like to see happen, more so than any other form of aid.

I recommend watching Born into Brothels and viewing the DVD extras of the status of the children years after the documentary and the commentary itself (which consisted of a split screen of the documentary and the children, featured in the documentary, watching the DVD for the first time). The documentary shows the most extreme form of intervention, but you can’t deny the fact that what happened was a good thing… and destructive situations like that are closer to home than we think.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Echolocating,

quote:

Originally posted by Cody K.:
Children in impoverished homes will continue the cycle of poverty without an intervention fueled by a huge amount of time and energy (and money). What if every child (regardless of their family’s personal wealth) had the exact same educational opportunities and educational quality (with the same level of importance stressed to it)? That is what I’d like to see happen, more so than any other form of aid.

I would like to see that too Cody, but unfortunately that just wouldn't be possible unless you increase taxes dramatically. Also keep in mind that American universities are the best in the world (partly) because they have such high tuition rates. If the government paid the tuition of anyone who wanted to go to Harvard or Northwestern or Princeton, then the quality of those schools would no doubt decrease substantially (like they have in Europe). Would people be getting an "equal opportunity" to education? I guess, but they would have an "equal opportunity" to a lesser standard of excellence.

Bob, why do you keep thinking that I am only arguing against "abusers" of welfare? Providing a "safety net" naturally encourages people to make detrimental choices that would lead to their use of such a safety net. In other words, if there were no welfare, there would be fewer poor people because people would know that if they failed, they have no other options (and therefore there is more incentive for them not to fail).

I heard a funny story the other day about this poor-people-quality-of-life debate...In the 80's CBS ran an anti-Reagan documentary designed to show how bad the American poor had it because of the Reagan administration's free market policies. The Soviets got ahold of the documentary and used it as propaganda in their country to show their workers how much worse things were in America. However, a funny thing happened, which is that when the documentary was shown in the Soviet Union, the poor people grew incensed..."The poor people in America drive cars!" "The poor people in America have microwaves!" "The poor people in America have food to eat!" The Soviet Union had to quickly withdraw the documentary because it reminded tens of millions of Soviets how bad they had it. My point (which goes back to Bob's question about individual freedom vs. public good) is that providing equal rights for citizens in the end will lead to a greater public good than simply trying to correct "injustices" whenever one comes across them. Poor people would be better off without welfare, old people would be better off without social security.

Bob, the problem with adapting a law written 200 years ago to today is, who should decide how public mores have changed? Usually such a decision is left up to legilsators to decide...if judges get to decide how society has evolved then you end up with an arbitrary and imperial judiciary. Also you are wrong that Scalia and other originalists simply read into the text what they want to see. There are many examples of times when Scalia has cast a vote that goes against what he believes is the right state policy. Examples could include the "commercial speech" instance I referred to earlier (as a conservative Scalia would obviously be against government regulation of business, yet he refuses to declare such regulations unconstitutional) and also flag burning (Scalia is no doubt against the practice of flag burning, yet he has overruled state laws that prohibit such a practice).

The judicial branch is supposed to have the check and the balance of declaring executive and legislative actions unconstitutional. What if they retrospectively look back and realize an existing law is unconstitutional, well after the fact? As was the case with segregation.

--

Pax, nobody wants to be on welfare. The only jobs that don't require I9 forms and such are illegal ones. The only way to have a job and stay on welfare is for it to be an illegal one.

I would argue that overall, a majority of people who go on welfare are honestly looking for jobs. But, you're right Cody, the ones that are would get off welfare quickly. So, there would be a higher percentage of people *currently* on welfare.

Pax, I would argue that the detramental incentive to most people is minimal. Even with entry level wages, welfare is *so* low that people would see being on welfare roughly equivalent to being broke, in long term consideration. I'm much better off making $25,000-$30,000 a year than on welfare. Nobody with a legitimate, well paying job would even consider welfare as an alternative. Your deteramental incentive only applies to the very, very poor and unskilled. And that's an acceptable loss considering we need it for the people who just go on it due to bad luck or a risk that didn't pan out.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
The judicial branch is supposed to have the check and the balance of declaring executive and legislative actions unconstitutional. What if they retrospectively look back and realize an existing law is unconstitutional, well after the fact? As was the case with segregation.

I don't really understand your point...if a law is unconstitutional then the judicial branch has the power to invalidate that law.

I'm not really saying that people want to be on welfare, but knowing that "safety net" is there will no doubt lead people to make choices they would not normally make (ie choices that would lead to using welfare).

Anyone for a new topic? Lately I've been thinking about our society's obsession with "multiculturalism." In the 60's and 70's, people thought that the best way to deal with diversity was by means of a "melting pot," whereby people from all walks of life would come together in America, embrace American ideals of hard work and individual rights, and integrate their own cultural practices with those of American citizens. However, sometime within the last 20-30 years this concept was dismissed as ethnocentric or even "racist" because it presupposed the superiority of American values. Thus "multiculturalism" was born. Multiculturalists preach that since no culture is better or worse than another, immigrants who come to the United States should feel no pressure to amend their habits in order to "fit in." I think this philosophy is dangerous, the main reason being that American culture is superior to other cultures. If it weren't, why else would people be flocking to come here? It can't just be money since American cultural influence can be seen around the world (Barbie, McDonalds, Pizza Hut, baseball, etc.) Nobody ever talks about "Anti-Englandism" or "Anti-Chineseism," but everyone knows what "Anti-Americanism" is. This is because America is more than just a country...it is a set of beliefs and values, and I would argue that multiculturalists who seek to proclaim the equality of all values are hurting America by denegrating what continues to make it so attractive.

Who decides what culture is the superior one? You? Or, some supernatural entity of 'correctness' that you presume yourself always to be in agreement with?

You're defining 'culture' a little broadly here. I'm not sure specifically what you're getting at. But I think there's no reason to force people to discard their identities just because they're living among people who find them distasteful. And unless there's some demonstrable reason a person should change, then it's pretty obnoxious to judge and exclude people just for trying to retain their identities.

Another slightly tangental comment. American culture right now tends to focus on instant gratification, hedonism, and materialism. Do you consider those values superior to their opposites? Do you consider spiritualism backwards and idiotic?

Just in case you feel like accusing me of ethical relativism again, I'll reiterate: I believe an absolute right and wrong exist, but neither you nor I are keen enough to know exactly what they are. So, when nobody's being hurt I see no reason not to give people the benefit of the doubt. And, if *I* don't know absolutely what right and wrong are, I find it terrible to judge people for not knowing either so long as they're self conscious about it and constantly reevaluating their values as new information comes in.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
…everyone knows what "Anti-Americanism" is. This is because America is more than just a country...it is a set of beliefs and values, and I would argue that multiculturalists who seek to proclaim the equality of all values are hurting America by denegrating what continues to make it so attractive.

Living in Canada, “multicultural” is a very common term passed around. There are plenty of buildings, museums, parks, and events all over the place highlighting different cultures. One of the largest events we all know is Heritage Days. Interestingly though, you’ll find music, food, and dance from cultures all over the world when you visit a Heritage days festival in Canada… but, from looking around online, I see a trend to Civil War related themes with heritage celebrations in America. I don’t see much Ukrainian egg painting going on south of the border. ;-)

Unless I’m mistaken, that speaks volumes as to why multiculturalism hasn’t really taken root in America.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit (to paxsoprano):
Who decides what culture is the superior one? You? Or, some supernatural entity of 'correctness' that you presume yourself always to be in agreement with?

Just a comment… I’m not meaning to interrupt. ;-) America is a great country. I’ve been to a few places in the US and all have amazed me with genuine friendliness and hospitality above and beyond the call of duty. If money was no object, I think I would move to Georgia in a heartbeat. However, I know where your frustration is coming from, Bob… it's the fact that Pax says what he thinks. I have to respect him for that… and that is why Pax will continually rub people the wrong way.

Believing you’re the best is one thing, but constantly informing people of that belief is another thing entirely.

I don't mean to single Pax out. But, if I do it it's not because he speaks his mind. Heck, everyone who posts in this thread speaks their mind.

I believe Pax to be smart and well-intentioned, but I believe his ideas in general to be flat out unfounded.

I love America. It's my country, and the culture of Northeastern or West Coast America is what's right for me. But, the difference between what I'm saying and what Pax is saying is, he believes that American culture is right for everybody and all but uses the old 'If you don't like it, go to Russia' defense.

I have a fundamental value difference from Pax in that he believes what's right for one person in one situation should be right for all people in all situations. With Pax, if you take a step in any direction, you fall off a cliff. And, he seems to think that he's got a monopoly on truth. What he believes, now, must be the absolute truth of all the universe, for everyone. It's that sort of ethical narcissism that rubs me the wrong way, Cody. I appreciate and respect his brazen manner of speaking his mind.

I think listening to the views of people who disagree with me and discussing them openly is a good thing, and I think Pax is what makes this thread interesting.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bobthespirit,

Pax and I are on completely opposite ends of a broad spectrum, but I like the fact that at least he is able to support his beliefs in a manner that does not involve calling the opposing beliefs 'stupid.'

...I dislike Alito even more than Miers. What are your thoughts?

I don't know a lot about Alito yet, so I am going to hold off on expressing any opinions, but one thing that is already bugging me is the renewed talk of "up or down votes." Already the right is harping on this idea, and all I have to ask is, where was this talk with Miers? All summer when the question of filibusters was at its height, all we heard from Republicans was that every nominee deserved such a vote. But after the Miers debacle, I get the feeling that only the nominees the party likes deserves to be heard and deserves an up or down vote.

I think you guys misunderstand...I'm not saying America's culture is better because I like it more, I'm saying it is better because it gets better results. If an immigrant gave up his old culture in order to come to America, there is probably a reason (more than just money). He probably wants a better opportunity for advancement, a more hospitable climate, more freedom for his family, etc. This decision should be respected and Americans should encourage (not force) that person to embrace American values, while at the same time integrating facets of his own culture into ours (hamburgers and pizza are "American" foods today, but were German and Italian before immigrants arrived). German, Irish, and Italian immigrants succeeded in this country because they learned how to adapt their cultures with those of America (essentially creating a "melting pot"). Multiculturalists however (since they think that all cultures are equally capable of achieving) preach that immigrants (Hispanics) and "oppressed" minorities (blacks) should reject American culture (because of racism of course) at the risk of losing their own voice, which would then hurt the ever-important goal of "diversity." Immigrants of a hundred years ago overcame prejudice by showing they could conform in America, and that their native cultures had something unique to offer, but today's immigrants (or just nonwhites in general) are told that America's culture will not help them achieve their goal of prosperity any quicker (again because of racism). American culture isn't right for everybody, but if everybody embraced it, they would be better off (some people just never will be able to).

Hah, Bob I like how you say you are not practicing moral relativism in one post, then in the next post say that what's right for one person in one situation isn't necessarily right for all people in all situations.

Alito? Hah, Republicans definitely got what they wanted with this guy. Filibuster? Probably not, Dems wouldn't do that, no guts (and no valid reason to do so).

PRG...I agree, I'm really getting sick of all this political spin (and it always comes from both sides). Do these people think we are idiots? I guess so.

However, the up-and-down rhetoric does have a point...in 1993 Clinton nominated Ruth Ginsburg, and despite having well-known liberal leanings, she was unanimously confirmed. People I see on TV seem to be almost embarassed that Alito is a conservative. Why?! Of course the answer is because most Americans favor a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, so Republicans figure that most Americans associate overturning Roe v Wade with ending a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy (the two are not the same thing). When the Republicans bitch-slapped Miers back into the White House consel's office, I figured it was because they wanted a knockdown, drag out fight about issues like the "right to privacy" and other ludicrous insertions made into the Constitution. I hope that we do get that fight and that Republicans don't underestimate the country and think that it wouldn't understand.

That is probably one of