words, words, words
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
If I begin to detail myself here, will you understand?
P. I am me
Q. I don't always know exactly who that is
R. I am Quaker
S. I like words and playing with them
T. I like genmaicha tea
U. I like the word napkin more than most others
V. I spend time walking my neighborhood
W. I cook rice often
X. I sleep well most every night
Y. I eat large amounts of fruit and vegetables
Z. I munch, sleep, write, create, cook, bike, watch, walk, listen, hope, learn, drink, live, breathe, touch, know, question, taste, copy, read, stare, carry, talk, dance, finger, try.
raisin@gmail.com
albums:
Magnetic Fields: 69 Love Songs
Erasure: I Say, I Say, I Say
Depeche Mode: Black Celebration
The Beach Boys: Pet Sounds
Marvin Gaye: What's Going On?
David Bowie: Hunky Dory
George Michael: Listen without Prejudice
George Gershwin: Porgy and Bess
Yo La Tengo: And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside Out
songs:
Wild is the Wind: Nina Simone
Come Undone: Duran Duran
Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini: Rachmaninov
My Funny Valentine: Chet Baker
Feeling Yourself Disintegrate: The Flaming Lips
This Must Be the Place: The Talking Heads
Hyperballad: Bjork
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
When the press has asked Bush about the planned protests as he arrives in Britain, he has given the same answer as the many other times protestors have greeted him around the world, that he's happy to be in a democratic place which allows protests. It's a good answer, no doubt, trying to focus on what he claims to be doing in Iraq with all this killing. However, while protests are certainly a healthy part of a democracy, what Bush doesn't mention is another part of a democracy, voting. If, as it seems in Britain, the majority of voters disagree with the war in Iraq and yet, the government has still gone along with it, where's the precious democracy? Just how precious is the democracy when the majority does not win?
We can circle around this argument though, and question the benefit of a majority always winning. Certainly, our founding fathers were afraid of total majority rule, which is why we have a representative democracy and not a total democracy, and why, i suspect, the electoral college still exists. If an election in 1800 had been so close that the popular vote overruled the electoral vote, which way would the founders have perferred the decision to fall? Were the members of the electoral college to vote their own consciences and preferences or were they to simply abide by the will of the people and present a somewhat distorted view of majority rule?
I certainly know the majority of Americans would not prefer marriage rights to be extended to same-sex couples, and yet, that's exactly what i would argue needs to be done, with or without majority rule. How far does democracy go, and how do the courts assess the view of the constitution against the views of the people?
These aren't easy questions, and weren't meant to be. But that's what America is all about, consistently redifining our rules and constitutions to reflect the people and the new understanding of laws, so that no tyranny can last for long, so that no one group consistently exerts power over others. But this needs constant work, dialogue, and thought, which most Americans refuse to do. Our democracy does not so much rely on our legislators and presidents to do the right thing but on the extent of regular americans to be aware of the world around them and to conscientiously make decisions. would the schools taught more of this and less of mathematics and athletics.
5:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
