|
| This Xanga's Not My Home, I'm Just A-Postin' ElsewhereWell, I used to use this special program to copy all my posts from my real blog to this Xanga for a while, but that broke last semester. Since most people just go to my real blog now anyway, this Xanga is officially closed. (I'm just leaving the account open so I can comment.) Check out my real blog: to Give an Answer
| | |
| Originally published at to Give an Answer. Please leave any comments there. Merry ChristmasMerry Christmas! | | |
| Originally published at to Give an Answer. Please leave any comments there. This is How They Find MeAccording to my statistics for this blog, I am now getting around 4,000 visitors a month. How do they find out about me? Well, many find me through the search engines, and some of those using the most unusual searches. In the spirit of Mounty's Corner, here are some of the recent more "unusual" searches:
- do you really know me -- actually, probably not
- danger seeker -- may i recommend extreme ironing?
- spiritual cake -- white, chocolate, or Calvinist?
- fundamentalism and trivium -- ahem...refrain from fundamentalist joke here
- jesus answer for dating -- I don't think Jesus really cares a whole lot whether you date or court, sorry
- god is a woman -- actually, no
- when god was a woman -- actually, no, not ever
- i will not flinch in the face of sacrifice hesitate in the presence of adversity negotiate at the table of the enemy ponder at the pool of popularity or meander in the maze of mediocracy -- well, you take the cake for the longes, most random search ever
- james fenimore cooper complex sentences -- i'd have to agree with that
- taking off toupee -- Dr. Wood once did that
- college debate flows -- sorry, thew mine out as soon as the last tourny was over
- defending rick warren -- excuse me? this is a fundamentalist site!
- funny bju -- yeah, it can be funny sometimes
- warm nun
-- freud would have fun with this one
- random xanga post -- most are
- homestar runner christianity -- sorry, i don't think that Strong Bad is among the elect
- my parents committed me -- i'm sorry
- what is on spam blocker can you get it off -- no; it's spam -- that's the point
- i hate numa numa -- so do i
- i walk toward lamposts in my sleep -- another one for freud
- good xanga names -- they're all taken (just like AIM screennames)
- joke en francais -- this is what we call frenglish (or franglais)
- epignosis definition -- somebody's in seminary
Well, there you have it. To Give an Answer gets some pretty odd questions.
| | |
| Originally published at to Give an Answer. Please leave any comments there. Just What I Want for Christmas: DiapersHot from the presses: the most "wished for" Health & Personal Care product on Amazon.com is a jumbo pack of Pampers Swaddlers diapers (Sesame Street, size N). In case that doesn't strike your fancy, diaper products take third and fifth places too: Huggies fragrance-free baby wipes and "baby-shapped" diapers. Just what I want for Christmas! 
The last item does seriously concern me, though: if these diapers are baby-shaped, then does that mean that the Pampers aren't? Should we be concerned that most of America's baby butts are being swathed in non-baby-shaped wrappers? Also, the Huggies diapers claim to have a "Gigglastic" waistband. Is that safe? I'm not sure it should be. Hmm.... | | |
| Originally published at to Give an Answer. Please leave any comments there. Attention Liberals: This Is What You Asked ForWith a twist of history so bizarre that it almost seems fictional, liberals are finding themselves on the same side Bob Jones University did back in 1982, when it lost its tax-exempt status. Some of the nation's most prominent law schools (including NYU, Georgetown, and Stanford, with amicus curiae support from Columbia, Chicago, Cornell, Harvard, Yale, and U.Penn.) are suing the Secretary of Defense, alleging the unconstitutionality of the Solomon Amendment (which allows the federal government to withhold grants from universities refusing to allow military recruiters on campus). At issue is the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allegedly discriminates against gays and lesbians. These law schools claim that to allow military recruiters on campus would tacitly associate them with discrimination; however, they depend on federal grants for existence, so the Solomon Ammendment diminishes their intellectual freedom and effectively denies them freedom of speech.
Now, rewind to 1982 for a recap of the BJU case: at the time, BJU banned its students from interracially dating or marrying. Because the IRS considered this policy to be discriminatory, they revoked the University's tax-exempt status. In response, BJU sued the IRS, saying that the IRS's action violated BJU's constitutional first amendment rights to free speech and exercise of religion (since, at the time, it claimed a religious reason for the policy). After bouncing back and forth in lower courts, the IRS eventually appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which decided against BJU. As rationale, the Supreme Court explained that the government only offers 501(c)(3) tax exemption because of the "common-law charity" (i.e., good) provided by an organization, not because of inherent right. Therefore, if the government holds that discrimination is incompatible with common-law charity, then it is not an infringement on the organization's rights to withhold tax-exemption "whatever may be the rationale for such … policies."
Let's consider the fundamental reasoning that the BJU case shares with the current law school case. The primary question at hand in both cases is whether the government can contravene open expression (free speech) in favor of public interest. In the BJU case, the answer from the Supreme Court was clearly positive. Because BJU did not support the public policy of nondiscrimination, they did not uphold common-law charity. Thus, even though their discrimination was religiously grounded, public interest trumped free speech.
When presenting their opinion on the law school case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the court that last had the case) cited precedents in which the Supreme Court determined that the government could not deny a benefit on the basis of a speech issue. Their primary support came from Perry vs. Sindermann, which held that the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially, his interest in freedom of speech." However, the law schools' protested interest is not free speech itself, but freedom of expression. This freedom is not universally protected, as the Supreme Court held in Roberts vs. United States Jaycees (and cited recently in Boys Scouts of America vs. Dale): "The right to associate for expressive purposes is not … absolute. Infringements on that right may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas."
The directly relevant question, then, is if military recruitment at top law schools is a "compelling state interest" or not. Indeed, this is likely to be the issue on which the case will be decided. However, if the Court does find military recruitment a compelling state interest (as it did racial nondiscrimination in the BJU case), then legal precedent will require the Court to rule in favor of the government. The most interesting point to me, though, is the wishy-washy political convictions of the American left. In the BJU case, the left was outraged that government would grant a benefit (tax exemption) to an organization that violated public policy (BJU). Now, the left is outraged that the government would refuse a benefit (federal grants) to organizations that violate public policy (the law schools). Attention, liberals: this is what you asked for. | | |
|
