Friday Free-For-All

[midtermmockery]

Our gracious Polibock moderator type person allowed me to be the substitute teacher for the usual Free-For-All. The ground rules were to post three questions -- one from each side of the issue and then a...I'll say 'grab bag' question. But, since I was stuck on the fence between two different issues I've been thinking about this past week, I had

Comments

[greyraziel]

1) In my own personal opinion, the courts are responsible for dealing with issues of justice and equality. If it's an issue about justice and equality, then it should be the courts' jurisdiction. Also, see the thing about gay rights in Washington state, where the court went, "Uh, we don't want to deal with this. Let the legislature deal with it." Now NOBODY'S going to touch it, because the court is wussy and the legislature will be afraid to take a stance on a controversial issue because they might not get reelected. It's enough to make me march to Olympia and set some shit on fire. Uh, I mean, what? (The preceding is not an endorsement of setting shit on fire.)

2) No. And anyone who thinks differently should be marched to Olympia and set on fire. No, seriously, by the definition of "equality," how could gay rights and equal rights be separated? I mean, aside from us nasty homosexuals being aberrations against God and all that.

3) I say Senator Lott could use the exercise, and there's no real danger because I don't think he'll catch any illegal immigrants. Now I have a mental image of Senator Lott dressed up as Elmer Fudd: "Be vewy, vewy quiet! I'm hunting immigwants!" Crap, that's gonna be in there all day.

[midtermmockery]

1) I'm with you, for the most part, on your point. I come from a little different perspective, but I think we come to basically the same conclusion. I feel that if a constitutional question comes into play on an issue -- like there was here with discrimination -- then it's absolutely within the court's scope of authority. I think it's also important for a court to not shy away from making tough or unpopular decisions for many reasons, one of which is exactly what you described that's going on in Washington state at present. So, in essence, we agree.

2) For me, I also believe equality cannot be achieved if there is outright disparate treatment. To paraphrase the Brown v. Board of Ed decision [as a side note, I feel there are many similarities between racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation, but that's a rant for another day], separate but equal is inherently unequal.

3) I cannot disagree with you more. That is not funny. How dare you paint Senator Lott as a man who goes around shooting people with a shotgun when we all know this activity is within the sole purview of Dick Cheney's authority! Shame on you, madam. Shame!

...."I'm hunting immigwants!" Hehe.

[greyraziel]

1) That's what I was trying to say without any working knowledge of the U.S. system of justice besides what I learned in fifth-grade civics class. (Not to be confused with fifth-grade Civics class, in which we learned about Hondas.)

2) YES. THANK YOU. I totally agree that there are a lot of similarities between racial and sexual orientation discrimination. There is no such thing as "separate but equal" because the separation ITSELF implies difference, and while difference does not necessarily imply inferiority, in some cases it does.

3) "Eh...what's up, Lott?"

[midtermmockery]

You, my dear, are a funny, funny person. Why arent YOU writing for Polibock? Huh huh huh??

[greyraziel]

Because my political humor is pretty much limited to finding unflattering pictures of politicians and giving them sarcastic captions...which reminds me to harass Jessi about putting up some more Photo Snarks.

No, seriously, I'm not analytical enough to be a person who pays attention to politics. (You might think this is odd, since I study neuroscience, but honestly I think politics requires more analytical powers. In my line of study I never say things like, "I cannot BELIEVE that guy's orbital frontal cortex. Its stance on abortion is just unconstitutional." Maybe I should start, but it might start freaking out my colleagues.) Ask Jessi. The last time we talked about politics I threw a glass of water at her (yes, there was alcohol involved), and that was one of my more articulate political arguments. "Oh yeah? Well, SPLASH"

And why thank you. You are quite humorous yourself. Although I just imagined Senator Lott running through DC with a whip and my imagination added bondage gear to that, and now I think I have to go poke out my mind's eye.

[midtermmockery]

Maybe you're right; neuroscience and politics dont seem to match too well. Especially if you're making constitutional interpretation jokes like that. I, personally, found it funny because I used to date a neuro major in college.

And I'm sorry I made you think of Senator Lott in bondage gear, because...well...I didnt think anyone would read that and go straight to the gutter with it. But now that I know you're that kind of person, maybe you are just right for politics and Washington!