As long as it's translated correctly...

Constitution - Original Intent

noreply@blogger.com (~SoACTing) — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 04:09:00 +0000

In honor of Independence Day, I have decided to begin a running theme on my blog aptly termed BuzzWords of Ignorance. I'm not particularly impressed with what Google offers as a definition for buzzword, but the closest application comes from Wikipedia which states:

"A buzzword…..is a..…term that is used in the media and wider society,…..often in an inaccurate manner, or for purposes other than the conveying of information."

Technicalities aside, I define BuzzWords of Ignorance as:

A word or phrase used for its emotional connotation where the speaker relies on the assumed ignorance of the audience - generally for the purposes of manipulation.

Oftentimes, it's employed as a propaganda technique embodying a good lie. (Think - bumper car slogans)

Today's BuzzWord of Ignorance is CONSTITUTION

The Constitution is many things to many people. Beginning with it being the frame work for the Government of the United States of America, it goes on to grant certain powers to the federal government and grants other powers to the states. And finally, it guarantees the basic rights of the people.

There are basically three cases where I see the word CONSTITUTION and/or one of its derivatives bandied about out of ignorance.

Original Intent - Policy X goes against the Founding Father's original intent of the Constitution.

Unconstitutionality - Policy X is unconstitutional.

Restoration - Politician XYZ will restore the Constitution.

As they say, this is a day late and a dollar short. Beach chairs have been put away, fireworks are no longer screaming into the night sky, and the smoke has cleared. But the Constitution has been there protecting our rights since this great country's inception. Today I'm only going to cover argument #1 - Original Intent.

Divining the intent of the Framer's when the Constitution was penned has been a major debate dating back since the inception of this country. Inherent in the assertion that the Framer's had an original intent in the first place is to assume that they had the same intent. Without this assumption, there would be no way to use it as an interpretive standard to begin with.

From the beginning, the original intent argument is a logical fallacy: It invokes the special case argument from authority and goes one step further by basing itt the argument from antiquity.

The biggest problem with the original intent argument is all of the original parts that have been done away with. To date, there has been 27 times thus far where the Constitution has been amended. Originally, slavery was legal, there was no Federal Income Tax, the U.S. Senate was unelected (meaning the state legislator's picked the state's Senators), women weren't allowed to vote, and not all of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments; ratified four years after the Constitution) applied to the states. (In fact, freedom of speech and separation of church and state were only protected by the Federal government. States that wanted to restrict rights did so. Restrictions varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature. While many states did voluntarily get rid of these restrictions before 1850, they wouldn’t have had to until the passing of the 14th Amendment; and even then, not until the Supreme Court set precedence on the application of the amendment. Even today, some state constitutions like Maryland, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania contradict the Bill of Rights and disqualify Atheists from holding office or testifying as a witness. Granted, these laws can't be legally enforced.)

With a few exceptions, the original intent argument is generally bunk. While flaws in the Constitution have been fixed (and have a built in system to continually be updated to reflect changes in society), the question becomes: Why would someone want to go back to the original intent of the Constitution??

If one knew exactly what they were going back to, my guess is they wouldn’t. The idea of going back to the original intent is based on a legendary perspective of the Founding Fathers being like knights in shining armor. Pointing out, for example, that Jefferson may have bore up to six children with one of his hundreds of slaves (AKA "Property" - AHEM - if you get where I'm going with it!!!), Sally Hemmings; and after his death, nearly all his slaves were sold to pay off his debts --- has the potential to call into question the near infallibility status and absolute moral authority that the Founding Fathers seemingly hold (through no fault of their own) - and by association, it would call into question the supposed divinity of the Constitution.

Inherent in the argument of going back to the original intent of the Constitution is the subtle suggestion that anyone who is doing anything differently must be wrong. It's a way to avoid presenting a rational argument and instead its aim is to provoke an emotionally manipulative response.

Earlier I said:

"With a few exceptions, the original intent argument is generally bunk."

So what are those few exceptions? An exception would be when a person makes an argument disagreeing with some sort of policy/policy proposal provides an additional statement or rational argument that recognizes that the Constitution and/or the Founding Fathers have been wrong on other issues, but is correct in the topic at hand. (I. e., The Constitution/Founding Fathers are fallible.)

Repeating what I said in my original example: "Policy X goes against the Founding Father's original intent of the Constitution…which they got right because…" subverts committing the fallacious argument from authority. It opens up the necessity of being able to disagree respectfully and paves the way for productive, interesting, intellectual, and substantive debate.

Times with My Grandparents

noreply@blogger.com (~SoACTing) — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 01:52:00 +0000

Relationships between grandparents and grandchildren are special. There's a bond forged from the moment of birth that offers grandparents the greatest gift in life: the opportunity to continue growing.

In 2005 I penned a poem entitled Times with My Grandparents that I gave to them on Christmas morning:

Memories of my youth flood through my mind.

Where did I get such great grandparents, who were such a wonderful find?

The gatherings at your house with all the family there,

We made lots of memories for all of us to share!

The long nights just spent visiting with you,

We got a while to catch up on things with the many board games and food.

The times on the slopes and the hours in the car,

Are just a few of the memories that brought us to where we are.

The adventurous sports and the different array of teams,

You support me in all that I do which means a lot to me!

Alaska, New York, and Washington DC...

All the fun times I had, I got to spend with thee.

The lessons you have taught me guide me through my life...

Since I listened closely, I didn't go a strife.

Love and commitment, both of you have drilled into me,

Making the person that I am just who I want to be.

As I look into your eyes with all the love I see.

How did I get so lucky that you were the grandparents chosen for me?

Love Your Favorite Second Grand Child

In my last post I wrote about My Grandparents Racist Past because I wanted to highlight how they were able to overcome their racism due to the love of a grandchild. It took the birth of a grandchild to learn that COLOR DIDN'T MATTER.

In 2008 it was in this star-stricken love and awe I felt for my grandparents that I believed I was being given the chance to open up my heart to them --- to accept and to be accepted; to be enjoyed for who I was and had the potential to become as a GAY INDIVIDUAL.

My Grandparents Racist Past

noreply@blogger.com (~SoACTing) — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:11:00 +0000

My consciousness of racism in society was non-existent until 1st grade. I'm half-white and half-black. My biological father (AKA "Sperm Donor") is a light-skinned black while my mom is white. My skin tone was smack-dab in the middle of theirs. (Nowadays I'm barely tan. The entire white side of my family is darker then me!). Skin color was something that I never paid any attention to until one day on the playground when a girl my age called me a nigger. That was when I learned the proverb:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

It was about eight years later when I learned of one of the numerous divides between my mom and my grandparents.

My mom ran away from home at 14. Her parents, my grandparents, had an unspoken rule of her not allowing to date anyone of color. This would be an easy rule to follow because she grew up in an inherently racist white town, population 20,000 (??). I use the word inherently because there were zero people of color. My grandparents had virtually no contact with blacks. They didn’t hate them per se. People of color were just deemed inferior; they were "The others". When my mom ran away, ironically, she hooked up with a person of color. When that relationship ended poorly, she clung to another African-American who she eventually married. From these two relationships my mom had three children (a sister - 18 months older; brother - 2 years younger). All three of us were 50% black!

The three of us is what ultimately cleared the scales from my grandparent’s eyes. It was easy to be racist when the people they were directing it towards lived a couple hours, if not, a couple states away. But when my grandpa had to babysit my older, colored sister and I, while my grandma rushed to the ER to watch my mother give birth to her third, colored grandchild - COLOR DIDN'T MATTER.

noreply@blogger.com (~SoACTing) — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 05:56:00 +0000

Getting to the Point, Concisely

Say all you have to say in the fewest possible words, or your reader will be sure to skip them; and in the plainest possible words or he will certainly misunderstand them.

John Ruskin

One of my main struggles when I write is trying to keep my writing concise.

Concise (adj.) - giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.

When I was originally writing my Introduction on my Blogger Profile, I had no idea that I was limited to 1,200 characters. Just when I thought I was done piecing together my thoughts in a semi-coherent matter and hitting the SUBMIT button, I was in for my first BLOGGER truth:

Determined, I began chiseling away from both ends; SUBMIT, again!

And again, and again, and again…

Ultimately it would take a total of 8 more times before I was able to neuter it to fit within my limit. I have a niche for rambling; for going on, and on, and on, and, well…

I just have too much to say! I know what I want to write, but then I overcompensate because I feel as if I'm leaving out important details. It's a challenge, for me, to convince myself that I can use less words and still get my point across effectively. Substance is the key! According to the aforementioned John Ruskin quote:

MORE REPEATING + MORE EXPLAINING ≠ MORE UNDERSTANDING!

Unfortunately, this is a scenario that has seemed to play itself out over and over again and has been since I started writing over a decade ago. In fact, I have dozens of posts started for blogging purposes, chalk full of quotes, thoughts, ideas, life stories, etc. that I haven't been able to tweak in just the right way while keeping it concise!

So, I'm setting a beginning GOAL:

700 words!

4.5 pages

3,500 characters with spaces

(Includes graphics, text boxes, etc.)

By putting a limit on my writing, I can, both consciously and subconsciously, implement the concept of being concise, challenging me to pack a lot of punch in as few words as possible.

Albert Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." These words are a challenge to me to learn and to grow in understanding before I take to the keyboard with psychobabble.

If I cannot be concise (clear, comprehensive, and brief) while explaining a topic, then perhaps I should go back and learn it again.

Aslongasitstranslatedcorrectly,

~ SoACTing,

Allow Me to Officially Introduce Myself - Sort of

noreply@blogger.com (~SoACTing) — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:48:00 +0000

They say first impressions are everything - dress to impress, edit your body lanyguage, choose your words wisely (don't sound like a complete doofus when you talk), and if all else fails, keep the other person talking about themselves! (Not to mention - RELAX!) Making the right impression, say, for example, at the start of your career, helps define who you are and what you're capable of. The fact of the matter is, however, you can't see what I'm wearing, body language evn in real life can be misleading, and, through a screen, god is the only one who can see me assuming he's not too busy and wants to take a peek. As far as sounding like a complete doofus goes, thank your lucky stars you don't have to hear me talk; my own mother has a hard time deciphering my slurred, hundred-words-a-minute, incoherent babble.

This leaves us with choose your words wisely (or they may come back to bite). The question that remains is - HOW? How do you convey your full personality through words on a screen? How do you show that you're passionate, gutsy, funny, provocative, dynamic, and vibrant like your friends and family know you to be? How do you let people know your full values, traits, and even quirks through writing? And this, for me, is the stickling point - THIS BLOG IS ABOUT USING WORDS TO TELL OF MY JOURNEY. IT'S A COLLECTION OF MY PAST, THERAPEUTIC FOR THE PRESENT, AND A GATEWAY FOR THE FUTURE!

So at the risk of sounding important, allow me to officially introduce myself - sort of.

This blog is my diary where I'll share all of my past indiscretions and family secrets. Just kidding - sort of! For what it's worth, I do plan on sharng poems, stories, and rants I've written in the past about my turbulent childhood, how my parents fucked me up, and why all of my problems are really not my fault. (Half-way joking!)

This blog will serve as my breaking-news outlet. DISCLOSURE: I consider myself gay (though some would say bi). I'm in a mixed orientation relationship with DL (Dear Lover). I may write about lots of gay things, I may write about none. (Okay, I'm sure there will be a few posts about it.)

This blog will serve as my pulpit where I'll preach my views, both past and present, religious or otherwise. DISCLOSURE: I was raised as a Christian, but no longer consider myself such. I am dating a Mormon (DL; see above). It was through studying Mormonism and seeing it's flaws that has led me to reject Christianity. I am now questioning the mere existence of a god, or any god for that matter. So allow me to insert this little warning now - WARNING: VIEWS SUBJECT TO CHANGE!

This blog will serve as my political soapbox where I get a chance to blend in with the crowd that always seems the loudest - you know, The Idiots Crowd! (Sign me up!)

On a final note: This blog will contain my thoughts, questions, unfortunate misgivings, personal (mis)understandings, and things that I find troubling in my life and in the world. Oh, and I'll include RECIPES! I love cooking new things!

My posts are in no particular order. I expect some to contain errors, not the most unbiased of sources, or even incomplete information leading to an erroneous conclusion. If that's the case, I'm more than willing to make any necessary correction.

With all that said, WELCOME TO MY BLOG: AS LONG AS ITS TRANSLATED CORRECTLY

~ SoACTing

A Work in Progress

noreply@blogger.com (~SoACTing) — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 04:56:00 +0000

I'm in the process of trying to figure out this blogging world!

Hopefully in the next day or two once I figure out how all of the 
formatting and configuration stuff works, I'll be able to pop out an 
introductory post or two!