Warrior Tang ([info]tangaroa) wrote,
@ 2008-07-02 15:15:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: blah
Current music:The Offspring - Pay the Man

Etc

I rarely disagree with E.J. Dionne's columns and twice in a row is unprecedented, but this nearly made me laugh out loud:

But the more important question is whether conservative judges will see fit to do exctly what conservative courts did for much of the New Deal era by using a narrow, 19th-century definition of property rights to void progressive economic, environmental and labor regulation.

Yeah, he is upset that those 1930s judges respected the precedent of the time. Dionne writes as if being "progressive" should have made the constitutionality of New Deal legislation unassailable when there were serious questions at the time of whether Congress had the lawful power to pass these types of laws. FDR got around it by lasting long enough to appoint judges that he knew from the start would support his programs. That does not make these judges any more correct in interpreting the Constitution than their predecessors, and there are valid arguments that they might not have been.

There remains a valid cause for concern that conservative judges would throw out some federal laws as unconstitutional. The commercial groups that would rather not be regulated have spent a lot of money promoting interpretations that would be in their favour.


Guantanamo Bay torture techniques based on Korean War era document titled "Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War". Seriously. Read that again and try not to laugh or cry.

Now think of all the times you have had some Republican tool tell you that the information gained from this torture is so important and reliable that ending the torture would threaten our national security.


Clever workaround: The Pentagon has become so comfortable with lying about Iraq that they probably lie to themselves about it, but the mercenaries who have money involved in the war will want to know what is really going on. The Washington Independent has a tidbit of information in that regard. I would like to see more.


A student in Britain wrote "fuck off" on a writing test. The amused professor decided to give him two points out of the 27 possible because he at least spelled "fuck" and "off" correctly, and the essay certainly conveyed a meaning. Judging by most of the headlines I've seen on the subject (example), the media is having a hissy fit about it. In all the fuss about the integrity of English instruction, no one has done the math to see that 2/27 is a failing grade. It is bad for a failing grade. It is a "fuck off, yourself!" grade. The student is not exactly being rewarded here.


Other linkage:




(Post a new comment)


[info]zibblsnrt
2008-07-03 01:27 am UTC (link)
I'd've given that student a 2/27 for that. There's something to be said for "fuck off, yourself!" grades; I only "had" to give one out this year but I have to admit I didn't feel terribly bad about myself doing it.

Giving someone a grade of 6% (as I did in that case) is at least IMO worse than simply giving a zero, which I've had to do rather more times. A grade of 30 or 40 or 20 or whatever is one thing; if someone gets single digits - or a 49 - on anything other than a multiple-choice quiz, it's usually because there's a bitchslap being delivered.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…