![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A much better day today.
Jun. 8th, 2005 12:01 amThings went smoothly today - not much in the way of strange occurrences. At least, on my end, anyway. Then again, my normal life might look a bit like the Coolest Picture Ever (that's their title) so your mileage will vary. Either that or a lot of people in my lifetime will think somewhat hard about turning their hamsters into fighting weapons. The interested (or the merely bored) are directed to read the Book of Chaos (this is probably one of the many mirrors of such a book).
When trying to order coffee, are you confused by the options? Well, some people are apparently more so when stoned than normal, and they've developed a coffee ordering device made of concentric rings depending on what you want. Align the wheels and then read it from the center out and you have your order. A practical device, indeed. And speaking of marijuana, there's a ruling that just happened that basically says that growing your own weed is a threat to interstate commerce, and can thus be legally confiscated by the Feds, even in a state where the state statute says that medicinal use is legit.
That's the Court doing strange things. As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
uncle_pervy points out, Congress is not slouching any themselves. Two bills he noticed are the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 which prevents the Court from reviewing any case where the plaintiff says that they were harmed because they acknowledged (the Christian) God as "the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government". It only says God, but the implication, I suspect, is of a particular one. Tacked on in Segment II is something that says that "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution , law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States." So no foreign law excepting for English Common up to the Constitution, and no foreign law after the Constitution, can be consulted to decide whether a law is unconstitutional, and even better, it then says that any decisions that have been made utilizing such documents will be not binding in precedent. Plus, any judge who uses such things can be removed from the bench. That would make it considerably easier (if it isn't easy enough) to run roughshod over anyone.
The second (The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005) is one that basically says that life begins at conception, and that the Court has no jurisdiction over cases involving the rights of the unborn or over any cases that prohibit/regulate abortions or tax dollars that could be used to perform abortions. The bright spot is that both of these bills are three and four months old and have not yet escaped their committees, at least according to Thomas.
Going from the merely strange to the slightly farther out, and cycling a bit back to the drug culture from whence we started, we hear from Cary Grant about his LSD experience. Sounds pretty positive - too bad that LSD 25 is now under lock and key. Instead, you may have to content yourself with the tale of a firebreather. Once that did it under scientific scrutiny, and apparently with no gimmicks.
And going simply into the realm of the memetic or the ethereal... possibly both, now that I think about it. An interesting posit about how our various conceptions of Deity are memeplexes that vary in strength depending on how many people subscribe to it. It's the premise that gods need followers to invent them. If that's true, though, then do we make an exception somewhere for people with exceptionally strong wills that create or utilize their own gods, rituals, and designs? And how do we explain out the design of the Christian God, who supposedly has milliards of followers (even billiards) but whose documented miracles are considerably less? (Well, okay, documented Major Miracles - the Minor ones most people think about but don't report.) Do I just go with the "faith of a mustard seed" argument and leave it at that, possibly aided by the Buddha's Self-Enlightenment? Or is it something else entirely?
And last (and finally catching up, sort of), we have at our disposal two things - first, the trend towards students getting cheeky about their grades and the parents that put the extra pressure on the teacher to give in. The second is the Recommended Reading List for most students (I'm bad - I recognize titles, I could probably do the Cliff's Notes, but I've never actually read any of those books cover to cover. Shame on me and my education.)
Oh, yes. One last, and semi-important thing. When I get time, which might mean tomorrow, I'm finally going to inflict upon you some of the scans that I've been collecting. I put one down today in ink off a pencil drawing that I'm quite proud of and am finally willing to let other people see. So you can stop threatening me that you'll break me arms if I don't show you and start threatening to break my arms if I continue drawing. G'night everybody.
When trying to order coffee, are you confused by the options? Well, some people are apparently more so when stoned than normal, and they've developed a coffee ordering device made of concentric rings depending on what you want. Align the wheels and then read it from the center out and you have your order. A practical device, indeed. And speaking of marijuana, there's a ruling that just happened that basically says that growing your own weed is a threat to interstate commerce, and can thus be legally confiscated by the Feds, even in a state where the state statute says that medicinal use is legit.
That's the Court doing strange things. As
uncle_pervy points out, Congress is not slouching any themselves. Two bills he noticed are the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 which prevents the Court from reviewing any case where the plaintiff says that they were harmed because they acknowledged (the Christian) God as "the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government". It only says God, but the implication, I suspect, is of a particular one. Tacked on in Segment II is something that says that "In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution , law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States." So no foreign law excepting for English Common up to the Constitution, and no foreign law after the Constitution, can be consulted to decide whether a law is unconstitutional, and even better, it then says that any decisions that have been made utilizing such documents will be not binding in precedent. Plus, any judge who uses such things can be removed from the bench. That would make it considerably easier (if it isn't easy enough) to run roughshod over anyone. The second (The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005) is one that basically says that life begins at conception, and that the Court has no jurisdiction over cases involving the rights of the unborn or over any cases that prohibit/regulate abortions or tax dollars that could be used to perform abortions. The bright spot is that both of these bills are three and four months old and have not yet escaped their committees, at least according to Thomas.
Going from the merely strange to the slightly farther out, and cycling a bit back to the drug culture from whence we started, we hear from Cary Grant about his LSD experience. Sounds pretty positive - too bad that LSD 25 is now under lock and key. Instead, you may have to content yourself with the tale of a firebreather. Once that did it under scientific scrutiny, and apparently with no gimmicks.
And going simply into the realm of the memetic or the ethereal... possibly both, now that I think about it. An interesting posit about how our various conceptions of Deity are memeplexes that vary in strength depending on how many people subscribe to it. It's the premise that gods need followers to invent them. If that's true, though, then do we make an exception somewhere for people with exceptionally strong wills that create or utilize their own gods, rituals, and designs? And how do we explain out the design of the Christian God, who supposedly has milliards of followers (even billiards) but whose documented miracles are considerably less? (Well, okay, documented Major Miracles - the Minor ones most people think about but don't report.) Do I just go with the "faith of a mustard seed" argument and leave it at that, possibly aided by the Buddha's Self-Enlightenment? Or is it something else entirely?
And last (and finally catching up, sort of), we have at our disposal two things - first, the trend towards students getting cheeky about their grades and the parents that put the extra pressure on the teacher to give in. The second is the Recommended Reading List for most students (I'm bad - I recognize titles, I could probably do the Cliff's Notes, but I've never actually read any of those books cover to cover. Shame on me and my education.)
Oh, yes. One last, and semi-important thing. When I get time, which might mean tomorrow, I'm finally going to inflict upon you some of the scans that I've been collecting. I put one down today in ink off a pencil drawing that I'm quite proud of and am finally willing to let other people see. So you can stop threatening me that you'll break me arms if I don't show you and start threatening to break my arms if I continue drawing. G'night everybody.
