Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:16:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3405 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > You would be well served not to use "West Wing" as your basis for research,
> > or even for sound bites. It's terribly biased in the statist/socialist
> > direction
>
> I've never watched the show, but I'm given to wonder if the people to whom
> it's marketed are themselves disposed to the sort of government depicted on
> the small screen. I'm loathe to use the term "statist" since it's become
> something of a hot-button word, but I'm curious whether the writers are just
> writing what the viewership wants to hear. And why not? It's
> entertainment, after all (except to Canadians, apparently!) 8^)
I believe the word you're looking for is 'idealism'
> > and the writers are quite skillful at twisting things to their own
> > ends, as they have happily admitted.
>
> And it's important for our neighbors to the North to recall that the show
> is Fiction, and we shouldn't base national policy on that show any more than
> we base the space program on Star Trek (but maybe we should re-work national
> lifeguard policy based on TV. Hmm...)
And I think it's important for our neighbours to the south to recall that we
Canadians play the best Americans on T.V. I can;t speak for the ROC, but I
know that I like my entertainment to educate as well as entertain. Fiction
is a reflection of the world. Good fiction gives us an alternative
expression, or a 'What if it were like this instead...' and the ability to
see multiple sides to the same issue. From the discussions I've seen lately
regarding issues in the USofA, those living south of the border would do
well to educate themselves with the realization that there are more than 1
side to the issues they're facing.
Not that I'm still griping about this, but it also seems that Canada gets
more respect from a fictionalized White House than it does from Dubya's
White House.
I appreciate the show. It informs, and fleshes out a bit the poli sci
courses I took back in college.
>
> > Think for yourself.
>
> Now you're just talking crazy.
Yes, it's unconstitutional--The Constitution covers all the bases so you
don't ever have to think for yourself.
>
> > A law preventing cream in coffee is indeed unconstitutional, as are about
> > 98% of the rest of the laws we have nowadays. The mere fact that courts
> > don't find that way doesn't mean that it isn't unconstitutional, just that
> > the constitution has been mostly abrogated.
>
> This point has come up before in other forms, but there's something that's
> always messed me up. I thought (but am happy to be corrected) that the
> Supreme Court has Constitutionally-granted authority to judge the
> Constitionality of laws. Am I wrong in this?
>
> Dave!
I thought that was the entire mandate of the Supreme Court--to judge whether
or not any law is unconstitutional, and if found to be against the
Constitution, to be removed. If I keep on appealing a verdict against me,
until it rests on the desk of the Supreme Court, the basis for their
deliberations can only come from the constitution--If the decision goes
against the Constitution, the judgement is overturned, but if it fits into
the constitution, the verdict is upheld. But again, I'm Canadian--has no
direct bearing on my life ;)
Think I'll go watch that reality TV show called West Wing--What, you don't
have a president named Jed Bartlett?
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
