Post #196,030
2/22/05 8:51:55 PM
|
Well now
wasn't that precious.
Find this and decide that it calls into question the fundamental structure and role of government.
Stick to the marxist revolution.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,031
2/22/05 9:24:38 PM
|
Because obviously
Corpses in the last century is preferable to freed slves the century before.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #196,032
2/22/05 10:42:55 PM
|
Obvious to some
not to others.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,061
2/23/05 9:15:03 AM
|
I didn't think you could defend your position. Thanks.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,083
2/23/05 11:47:34 AM
|
Defend against what?
An idiotic attack against a section of the document made irrelevent through legislation passed by the appropriate government organization?
You really need to do better than that.
Same situation gave the right to vote to all persons in Art XV...but then was revised again to allow it for WOMEN in XIX. This was done by following the process that the document itself proscribes.
Does this change the even more fundamental structure of government defined by the document that dictates that laws should be made by the appointed legislators?
I think not.
Your indignation is "duly noted" and dismissed.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,084
2/23/05 11:49:03 AM
|
The position that you said you had.
The same as Scalia's. Interpretting what it meant "at the time it was adopted" and not thinking it changed since then.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,093
2/23/05 12:13:24 PM
|
You may want to re-read the thread then.
Because I never stated that position.
I started this with "Legislators should legislate"
You then had some sort of brain spasm and launched into your tirade.
So...thanks again for the enjoyable read.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,100
2/23/05 1:26:01 PM
|
Will you quit baiting me, I'm compulsive.
Do the following words sound familiar to you?
This is the most fundadmental of his [Scalia's] and my "strict" readers of the Constitution..
Pint. Set. Match.
(And yes, Pint was intentional ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,109
2/23/05 2:32:45 PM
|
chuckle
sent off on a typo.
many
my point has simply been to agree with the principle that the bench should not legislate.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,176
2/24/05 6:03:24 AM
|
Re: You may want to re-read the [code] then.
Gawd knows what you or Scalia believe to be "The Intent of the Founders".
But it don't take Gawd to observe the placement of this phrase on the list of Far Right codewords, this very flexible Blab-word, this aging slogan:
It is "legislating from the bench" if it isn't in accord with [my Objective view].
It is [something else; but Good] if, oh just maybe.. this little bit of change is an umm clarification -?- Yes, that's it - just a simple restating of the Good view.
Been there, heard Gingrich's stuff (he literally Wrote the Book on means of obfuscation in political debates, to hand out to the less adept; this during that Contract On Murica spasm. Remember those halcyon days? That handshake about 'election reform' and other amusements for the gullible?)
You can repeat the phrase in all its pristine vagueness, and try to make that sound like profound brevity. Clearly you think you Said something deeep, Beep.
And you did: a code word meaning ... whatever you Want it to mean. cf. Alice
Unless of course, you think there is some book somewhere which perfectly describes the intent behind every English word uttered, to a Moral Certainty\ufffd. Umm, I think you can find a lot of folks who believe in Objective Morality, too.
Slogans. The cyanide pill in the top drawer of the Language Murder beginner's kit. Now sold at WalMart.
Sorry, Charlie - Scalia is a troglodyte; not as oily as Gingrich.. but then, he's got a sinecure and we got to fire the Grinch, back then. (But well may he be back for the final preparations for a nice Xian Armageddon.)
Ya never know How a particular coterie will choose to commit seppuku, natch: for the whole bunch..
|
Post #196,180
2/24/05 6:58:55 AM
|
And that 'code word' was?
Let's go over it again; you tend to forget. Perhaps it's your trouble with language. Perhaps you should get a coach.
Judges interpret the law.
Legislators make the law.
Executives enforce the law.
Judges are not SUPPOSED to legislate.
Legislators are not SUPPOSED to enforce.
Executives are not SUPPOSED to interpret.
etc, etc.
Beep said that Scalia should not make laws. Just interpret them. Of course, in your knee-jerk reaction to anything Beep says, added to feelings toward Scalia, you have to rationalize some half-baked 'reason' for opposing whatever he says. After all, Beep's an EVUL CAPITALIST (tm)
Of course, it's OK if YOU 'murder' the phrase "legislating from the bench".
But then, when you use language, it's NOT murder, it's "mercy killing".
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #196,189
2/24/05 8:51:28 AM
|
ICLRPD :-) (new thread)
Created as new thread #196188 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=196188|ICLRPD :-)]
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,288
2/25/05 5:54:59 AM
|
I do so love stories from True Believers in 'theories'.
Theories like, Judges interpret the law.
Legislators make the law.
Executives enforce the law. Funny. Especially when delivered in high dudgeon and considering all events since 1/00 VS your Theories. Every new decision is an interpretation as may be, on occasion quite different from precedent. Makes no difference if qualified/spun? as "well.. because I think that's 'what' the Legislators Really MEANT" ... yada cha cha. Next you'll be asserting that, Congress Critters '05 represent The Peepul and not preferentially, those who fund them. Because, theoretically: that's "true". Too. Map/territory; heard another person today, besotted with The Theory VS Actual Life involving homo-saps 'thinking'. All theory, dear friend is gray
but the golden tree of life is green.-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe It must be comforting to fit-in the daily shenanigans, ostensibly according to these nice clean \ufffds and pretend that this entire topic, "legislating from the bench cha" is not just a slogan, and in this case -- clearly coopted by the One Party with Two Right Wings. {yet another slogan? / or accurate description. You Be da Judge} Dream on, Mr. Theoretician. (I guess that's sorta expected though; regularly dealing with those neat logical tables which so often work exactly as Mr. Boole suggested. Gosh, so then: it Must Work with actual people, too Oh and, with that other 'Science', Econ. - right?) You can't fire me. I resign from this chicken thread.
.. the whole pseudo-science of The Law.
-- Fred C. Rodell, Dean, Harvard Law School
(Eons ago, I heard him use that phrase after a similar pointless exchange. Nothing. Changes.)
|
Post #196,293
2/25/05 7:28:10 AM
|
Since you are 'chickening' out from this thread
I'll conclude with why you are so completely, terribly wrong that you must raise the 'Boole' strawman again (since 'language murder' failed, and you seem to have a pathological need to rationalize your knee-jerk opposition to anything Beep says)
It's awful funny that the phrase 'legislating from the bench' is far older than the assholes in power right now.
Beep didn't coin it, and it's ALWAYS referred to the same thing.
You know, overstepping the separation of powers and trying to LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH.
Like children, all of our branches of government test their boundries constantly in their hunt for power.
So - because they try to cross them, they don't exist? They are meant to be permiable (gray) in some way? No. NOR SHOULD THEY BE, you idiot. Saying that Scalia shouldn't legislate from the bench is recognition that Scalia is overstepping the bounds for branches of government. It doesn't deny that it can happen. It's not a sloppy phrase.
Here's an illustration that might penetrate your completely closed mind: There are 'boundaries' painted on the shoulder of a road. They are necessary. They are clear. Sometimes cars pass on the shoulder (a dangerous act), however. That doesn't mean the boundary is a 'gray area', even if the get away with it. If another driver says 'Hey - you shouldn't be driving on the shoulder', that doesn't mean they are saying something wrong, or foolish. The comment isn't something that requires a weighty judgement call. It is, simply, correct.
Get it? I mean, this is so simple, even you SHOULD be able to get it - unless you decide to view things through your frosted glasses again.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #196,299
2/25/05 8:04:17 AM
|
He's got a point. As do you.
The problem with a lot of legislation these days is that it is vague. It seems to be written, in many cases, to invite court challenges. In addition, in many cases the law is written to say, "the executive agency shall draw up rules to enforce this act" or some such, inviting suits by those who disagree with the enforcement provisions, or lack thereof. The lines between the branches get blurred and the courts, in many cases, have to sharpen up what the legislation means over time. To do otherwise - "We can't decide this case because the legislation is too vague. Congress should change the law and make it clearer" - is to invite even more gridlock in the courts and in government.
I think Mike goes a little overboard when arguing against Original Intent. It's a fairly standard part of judging a case to look at the legislation as it was written, look at the arguements presented for and against the legislation at the time, etc. That doesn't mean that court decisions since the legislation was passed are ignored, or that subsequent amendments aren't relevant. But OI supporters present it as if it's a black-and-white approach to making rulings, and it is not. There's always a balancing act between the states and the federal government, between the individual and society, between privacy and public discourse and the free flow of information, between property rights and society's needs. Using OI still involves judgements because society changes and the law must as well. (E.g. the Constitution doesn't say anything about cloning.)
It's a balancing act. One person's Legislating from the Bench is another person's applying Original Intent. Was court-ordered busing LftB or applying the equal-protection laws? When a court makes rulings on a function of local government (e.g. overseeing the [link|http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/10893340.htm|school budget in Wichita, KS]), is that LftB?
One could probably make the argument that judges LftB every time they decide a civil case that involves another branch of government in some way. I think there are cases when judges do LftB, but more often than not it's a code word for rulings that go against one faction or another.
Is it black and white, or is it gray? It's both. :-)
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #196,371
2/25/05 7:18:30 PM
|
Oh hell no, you don't believe that do you?
The problem with a lot of legislation these days is that it is vague. It seems to be written, in many cases, to invite court challenges. And why in hell would a bunch of lawyers write legislation that causes other lawyers to have to go to court and argue? [image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...] That's the real flaw in the "don't let judges legislate" fan's reasoning. All law is written by lawyers in the first fucking place. Why not let the judges "legislate". Tell you what, I'd a FUCK of a lot rather let a judge - any judge from any court - selected at random legislate than leave it up to the Hasterts, DeLay's, etc. ad nauseum we have in the vaunted legislature. bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,376
2/25/05 7:42:28 PM
|
But of course YOU would.
You are an enemy of democracy. You stated opinion is that you would rather have an 'elite' cabal rule.
As long as YOU are a member of that cabal, of course. You are an enemy of freedom.
Period.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #196,442
2/26/05 7:23:08 PM
|
Yes, I'd rather have Breyer making law than Souder (R) IN.
And I'd be careful, if I were you, supporting having Souder write your laws for you.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,377
2/25/05 7:51:59 PM
|
You're a fan of Roy Moore then?
...rather let a judge - any judge from any court - selected at random legislate than leave it up to the Hasterts, DeLay's, etc. ad nauseum we have in the vaunted legislature. [link|http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/alabam14.htm|Roy Moore], and our [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=114884|earlier discussion]. I'd much rather have DeLay have the limited power he does than have Roy Moore sitting on a state Supreme Court deciding what the law means. Hastert, DeLay, etc., can be voted out of office. Alabama Supreme Court justices are also elected (to 6 year terms it looks like), so Moore could have been voted out, but he was was [link|http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/|removed from office]. But Federal Supreme Court, Appellate Court and District Court judges serve for [link|http://www.uscourts.gov/faq.html|life] and can only be removed by impeachment. Courts have a lot of power vested in a judge. It's really not a good idea for them to take over functions of the legislature. Yes, quite often the law lags behind society and sometimes creative interpretations are needed. But those should be very rare decisions, IMHO. And your argument doesn't make much sense as presented: 1) Lawyers are in the legislature. 2) The legislature writes the laws. 3) Judges are lawyers. Therefore judges should be able to write laws? That doesn't make sense because high-ranking federal judges are supposed to be independent of the pressures of elections, political pressure, etc., and are supposed rule on the law impartially. Even elected judges are supposed to be impartial. Politics by its very nature is an endeavor filled with partiality. The legislature and judiciary are designed to be different and shouldn't usurp each others roles. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #196,441
2/26/05 7:21:06 PM
|
It all depends.
Most of the law written by legistlatures (State or the HOR) is poorly written and vague to the point of almost incomprehensibility. Legislatures are comprised chiefly of attorneys. Even in the case where a particular representative is not an attorney, he has on staff attorneys who read the bills and summarize them for the representative. It is from this basis that the representative votes up or down on the bill. The point I was trying to make is that attorneys write the legislation, even if you let the legislature write it. And I don't see the advantage of having one set of lawyers write laws over another set. Moreover, I'd argue that the lawyers that finally make it to "judge" are better legal minds than the attorneys advising legislaters.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
God Bless America.
|
Post #196,594
2/28/05 6:03:46 AM
|
Very good post, you fucking moron...
...so what the fucking fuck is it doing in *this* fucking forum?!?
(If you see what I mean... :-)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #196,596
2/28/05 7:59:43 AM
|
That's a problem with this forum. (new thread)
Created as new thread #196595 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=196595|That's a problem with this forum.]
|
Post #196,737
3/1/05 2:35:53 AM
|
Received with appropriate satisfiction..
Your Civics 101-R Primer.. 'boundaries' | 'not-to-be-crossed' | Such Perfectly-Clear Ones | cha cha
Where we are unlikely to be reconciled is: in the degree of belief each of us places in the actuality following the lovely THEORY.
That's all. And yes, as too often hereabouts: j'accuse! of being lulled? massaged? besotted with the nice 'logical' sound of the admirably Reasonable tenets upon which (we all love to believe) "this nation was founded". You then suppose you may observe this mind-stuff in Action; izzat it, bunky? Hah! Next there shall be formulas; let's call them Statutes, then next we can ___
Human Reason is, however - never reducible to mere logical steps - as seems to be your major whine, here. Imagining that these putative boundaries [ever so MichelMerlin-clear to you] possess any measurable life outside of the neuron/language sphere whence they came: is a proposition up with which I shall not put.
There's {surely still..} a difference between saluting some lofty-sounding Principles and imagining that, much beyond lip-service ever is paid to Them. I cite, as an even more obvious example of human actual behaviour:
The pious protestations of the Religious [quoting endlessly from their inscripted encrypted dogma. Too.]
-VS-
How these acolytes LIVE 24/7 [less a couple hours a week on Good Behaviour, safely if briefly incarcerated: while renewing the unfulfilled pledges for yet another week].
Cutting to the chase:
I reiterate, Activist Judge {and synonyms} is so patently obvious a Partisan code phrase -whenever employed- it doesn't deserve this wasted space, EVEN in the FUCKING FLAME FORUM, >MORON<
ie. Language-space NEVER IS Living-space; language/Ideas! are. all. only. in. the. mind. HTH
|
Post #196,742
3/1/05 6:36:00 AM
|
I get it now
Since it is a goal unachievable, you've decided its time wasted on the attempt.
Why bother complaining then. Its a difficult fix at best, just give up. Save you alot of time and angst in the process.
And please...send me the Cracker Jack box from which you get yuour Ashtonizer Decoder Ring. This way I'll know what "code word" du jour is...and maybe even before you've spend 6 posts trying to make that point.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #196,744
3/1/05 7:19:17 AM
|
Bah. You are an idiot.
Again, because the line can be crossed, that means we should look the other way when it is? You believe that 'Lofty Principles' should be cynically sneered at because they are less adhered to than you like? Gee, I guess calling 'bullshit' on politicians and the like is useless too, then. Why, with your new attitude, who needs the press? Who needs to know what's going on? Who cares about even having separate branches of gummint, then?
I agree with you over one thing, though. Your posts regarding this subject are a waste of space.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #196,355
2/25/05 3:50:59 PM
2/25/05 4:53:20 PM
|
My goodness, Ashey, stop pussy footing around...
This is the flame forum. Nuff said... Put this in simpler terms:
Judges interpret the law.
Legislators make the law.
Executives enforce the law.
Should read: Judges interpret the law - thereby making NEW LAWS from their interpretations.
Legislators make the law - and interpret and enforce the law by adding riders and additional new laws if the original new law does not have the desired intent OR BY PROPOSING "NEW" LEGISLATION THAT SUPERCEDES EXISTING LAWS.
Executives enforce the law - ??? The executive branch? They create agencies that create new laws and enforce them. They appoint the supreme court justices who oversee all of the federal judges and have final authority over what laws reign supreme.
etc. Now in throwing my .02 into the ring, I have to once again come to the political agnostic conclusion that this whole thing (regardless of founders intent - what a f*cking travesty...), both Mike and all others who take any of this shit seriously have escaped the moronosphere, passed through the holey bozone layer and are on a collision course with the absurdosphere or worse, the black hole of total indifference... In other words - true believers - well, you know. ;-) Join me at the monthly meeting of Royal Astronomers? All are welcome. You MFACS right shifted me for this long for this conclusion? I'm going to have to make my avatar an mpeg... Just a few thoughts,
Danno
Edited by danreck
Feb. 25, 2005, 04:53:20 PM EST
|
Post #196,739
3/1/05 3:27:22 AM
|
Fucking Reillusionment. What a concept -
Hola, O endentured acolyte of the Insanely-Grreat new digi-University system.
How go the surds and other flighty remnants of the dread testable hypotheses?
S'OK.. we're just performing the necessary periodic NIST-recalibration between mind-fluff and the ackshull Mean Repo Streets du jour. {sigh} Every once in a while, I admit I even imagine that there is a There there; then I recall that I've been sentenced to a stretch; as-if I were a homo-sap. (I suppose that was something about a teaching assignment; strange though.)
(Sometimes it's all too thrillingly 'realistic'. Fortunately something usually wakes me up before a reset is necessary) Four Years More of that boring bunch of wannabe Calvinists on Tee Vee is going to be a real soporific; I think I'll be scheduling more unconscious periods, with main systems powered down.. kinda like the Mars Rovers: wait till Daylight returns; skip decoding garbage data.
Ashton
Reality Is: Sergei Nakariakov doing Perpetuum Mobile on the trumpet!
All the rest is inconsequential..
|
Post #196,922
3/2/05 2:11:48 PM
|
Waiting for Daylight...
If it were only 4 more years, I'd be happy as a pig in shit... I've got the mental image of my own idealistic "worldview" laying in wait next to Spirit and Opportunity (No shit, Ash, that's their names :-O ) for the first ray of hope to rise on the Martian horizon for this old Royal Astronomer. I've been lying dormant for about 30 years.
It's best for folks like me not to get involved in these types of discussions. I've stated many times that the Sacred Scrolls are in need of a serious rewrite. I think perhaps we could petition our congresspersons to venture into the Forbidden Zone of sanity and take stock once a century of how well the Scrolls are holding up. Perhaps they're afraid of ending up like Taylor... Staring at the ruins of a once great civilization?
Choose a side - are you a chimp, orang, or gorilla? I even felt like the old orangutan (Dr Zaius?) was a Royal Astronomer of the first magnitude. Ah, let the spectacle continue. As you know, each generation becomes smarter than the last! Buhahahahahahahah! Conversely, it's probable that each generation prior was as screwed up as the current... Etc.
Who am I to judge (or, bringing it back home to this thread, who are judges to judge)? And who are we to judge judges? Mike? Judge not and ye shall not be judged (unless of course you are a judge). And so on.
Wearing a face that I keep in a jar by the door,
Screamer
But take your time, think a lot,
Why, think of everything you've got.
For you will still be here tomorrow, but your dreams may not.
Y. Islam - Father and Son
|
Post #196,975
3/3/05 1:09:49 AM
3/3/05 1:14:46 AM
|
Hey.. I know_____Who. Knows.
what E-villl lluurrr--kkkks --- in the mind of man.
Recommend a literary diet of at least one/week, for the duration.
(I'm rationing.. lest I run out before we run these pecksniffs Out on a rail, try a few of them and see if the lease on Spandau prison can be renewed: that's where Wolfie and Perle go, for starters.)
I mean, of course -
Venue: Discworld
Creator, Messiah (er, author): Terry Pratchett
Samples:
And elsewhere in Ankh-Morpork, the Fools' Guild was on fire.
This was a problem, because the Guild's fire brigade largely consisted of clowns.
...
Semaphore had been around for centuries, and everyone knew that knowledge had a value and everyone knew that exporting goods was a way of making money. And then, suddenly, someone realized how much money you could make by exporting to Genua by tonight things known in Ankh-Morpork today. And some bright young man in the Street of Cunning Artificers had been unususally cunning.
Knowledge, information, power, words ... flying through the air ... invisible ...
And suddenly the world was tap dancing on quicksand.
[The Fifth Elephant]
...
"I fail to see the problem," said the Supreme Grand Master. In fact, he saw it all too clearly. This was the last hurdle. Help their tiny little minds over this, and he held the world in the palm of his hand. Their stupefyingly unintelligent self-interest hadn't let him down so far, surely it couldn't fail him now ...
...
"Got any suggestions about what we do next, Sergeant?' said Nobby.
Colon didn't reply. I wish Captain Vimes were here, he thought. He wouldn't have known what to do either, but he's got a much better vocabulary to be baffled in.
[Guards! Guards!]
ie Think of the mind-boggling perplexity of the similes of a G. I. Gurdjieff, the incisive quip of an HL (Mencken) and the Truth within a Marx Bros. skit (almost any one). And that doesn't begin to limn the n-dimensional save-phase-space of Mr. Pratchett
[safely: a UK resident :: unlikely to be incarcerated by Fatherland Security].
Any Discwork title can substitute for -
- a Presidential 'speech',
- word of new Chief Justice Clarence Thomas-Scalia (if he's formally adopted) or
- YAN episode of, The Pueriles of Pauline.
Bon appetit - - -
I Who Be
(and Who keeps his face in a Klein bottle, next to the Armagnac)
Edit tpoy tyop
"While I'm still confused and uncertain, it's on a much higher plane, d'you
see, and at least I know I'm bewildered about the really fundamental and
important facts of the universe."
Treatle nodded. "I hadn't looked at it like that," he said, "But you're
absolutely right. He's really pushed back the boundaries of ignorance."
-- Discworld scientists at work
(Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites) via our own Tom Sinclair
Lo, I have become Death. [link|http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/art.htm| Stealer of pie].
Edited by Ashton
March 3, 2005, 01:14:46 AM EST
|
