Monday, September 30, 2013

NC's Voter ID Legislation prompts Justice Department Lawsuit

During the last presidential election, Philadelphia - in fact - changed it's laws to require potential voters to have a state mandated driver's license or I.D.  The central government allowed this change, however - only after the election had been held.

Now, due to it's leading role in conservative politik, North Carolina has been targeted by the regime - specifically the Justice Department - for attempting the sensible imposition of voter I.D. laws.  Much has been made on the left about the travesty of justice that is basically preventing voter fraud.  I would have to assume it is due to the sociological slant of this administration that the numbers on whom is less likely to vote should an I.D. card be required at the polls are proffered as discriminatory.

Farcical sophomoric idealism has no place in the unequivocally legitimate use of state mandated identification cards for verification that voter's rights aren't being quashed.  Let's break this line of tyrannical logic down:

1) NC (according to the NY TIMES) is a stain on all intellectual people's civilized discourse.
2) NC is discriminatory, intrinsically.
3) Studies show that poor blacks and ethnics are hindered by voter I.D. laws.
4) NC is rascist by enacting these laws.
5) Action must be taken by big gov'ment to stop these, apparently, liable actions of a sovereign state.

It's like my young, pretty, liberal Sociology went from dissertation to the wheel of Big Gov'ment.  From sociology textbook to application in government.  They can't be serious.

I will make this short, as obviously I'm peeved in a way at the moment.

The objective fact of voter's rights follows:

1) Civilians have the right to elect representatives in government.
2) This election process must be a legitimately lawful practice.
3) Voter I.D. laws such as those in Philadelphia and NC prevent voter fraud.
4) The fact that the poor are less likely to vote under these laws is, irrevocably and absolutely, an effect of keeping the law in order rather than a cause of the intentionality of the legislation.
5) i.e. Philadelphia's laws.
6) The tampering in the affairs of these sovereign state's attempts to enact reform at the polls indicates a far more problematic intent.  An intent to intimidate and manipulate state's into being more prone to election fraud.

The constitution clearly limits the powers of the Federal Government.

This act by the Administration's Justice Department are, as such, unconstitutional.

Wrapping up, here is a quote from serious *snigger* constitutional scholar, Barack Obama:

"What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future.  All of it's elaborate machinery - its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights - are designed to force us into a conversation, a deliberative democracy in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of test their idea's against an external reality, persuading others of their point, building shifting alliances of consent.  Because power is so diffuse, the process of making law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right... it challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly, and suggests that both our individual and collective judgements are at once legitimate and highly fallible."

- Barack Hussein Obama

I digress.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

In Service of Morality: Why Service Matters

Many young and brash counter-culturalists discount service.  Many see it as a form of conformity and laughable obedience.  Many of these students, and non-students, don't realize that this anti-service ethic is merely a form of what is known as resentement.  I'd suppose this never occurs to them due to the near universal and absolute rejection of philosophyand Tradition-as-such results in a sort of pathology that is hardly compassionate, though they espouse justice for the lower classes, nearly devoid of sympathy-as-such, yet they proclaim the virtues of love, and completely lacking pathe, or sufferings.

To suffer means to have emotional experience, in classical and modern senses of the word.

To suffer is to be human.

Yet the meaning of suffering is all but devoid of prescience in this notably ugly ideological adherence to the ethic of repulsion to service-as-such.

Service, in a pragmatic context, signifies giving back to the world, giving back to the foundation upon which one is capable of excelling, and in a basic sense giving back to our communities.  It is not extolling some blind ideological paradigmatic farce.  It is surely not the raised fist.  It cannot be espousal and whining.

Service-as-such is simply believing in, adhering to, and gracing with actuality the meaning of another humans emotional existence.  It is knowing that no matter what, other's have emotional integrity as members of civilization and recognizing our duty to evangelism and care-as-such.  It is probable that anti-service ethics is merely a form of rejecting, due to resentement, the substance and regard that all of a certain character believe to be the basis of Being-In-The-World.

I'll ignore the origins of this use of dashes and german translation for now,
However, service matters due to the fact that all people depend, in an independent and individualistic sense, on each other for our most salient necessities.  We depend on the grocer's service for basic nutrition.  They depend on their employer and the customer for the return on their service.  The employer relies on, and serves, bothe the customer and the grocer for his sustained activities in the market and, ultimately, the government depends on the corporation for it's very capability for to serve it's constituency.

As I once quipped to a friend, the constitution of constituents of the community constitutes the constituency-

So how much of service is going above and beyond the role of the market?

In a sort of hard sense one could say that it really has nothing to do with a call to do something extra, beyond the call of duty.  It is merely the function of an Adam Smithian invisible hand, the functionality of enterprise and capitalism. a soft  meaning, service could be construed as, by it's nature, going to lengths and measures for the call of duty-as-such, beyond what is merely required and demanded of oneself.

I would say, in this final passage on service (which by the way is inspired by an altogether North Carolinian take on service during this day of our lord, 9/11. presented by local media) I would say that service matters because putting others before oneself indicates the concept developed during the enlightenment and key part of the founding of our country known as compassion-as-such.

DDU 2013