I do find it interesting that no one has bothered to respond to any of my comments regarding Mr. Buchanan.

Ziyal:

"Are you really that oblivious to the racism and bigotry in this country?"

I'm aware that it's there, but I'm also aware that it's dying. I've met more black people that are racist than white people. Heck, I've only met ONE racist white man (my grandfather, ironically). There are always going to be a few people that hates another group of people for no reason whatsoever.

"You've never been part of anything but the majority."

Me, accepted into a majority? Ha! I'm probably the least popular person you'll ever meet. Even my best friend doesn't seem to want to spend time with me (of course, that may have something to do with the fact that I told her I loved her, but...).

Reguarding health care: The problem with all these systems is that they all make the people that use them more and more dependant on the government. If you really want to help someone, help them to get back on their feet so they can help themselves. You know, "Teach a man to fish..." I'd suggest a government program that, instead of paying people who don't work, helps those people find jobs. Say one agent for ten people. Get their qualifications, then locate a job that they can do. Maybe even provide clean clothes and baths if needed to obtain the job. Then they'll have an income and can take care of themselves. If they have emergency medical expences, how about a low or no intrest loan? The government would eventually get the money back, and the person still gets the treatment they need.

As for businesses, I'd have to agree with the environmental laws and monopoly laws, but those are the limits. Telling a business that it has to tell you who it hires and when, and things like that, are crossing the line.

I do still watch Star Trek, but only because it presents a positive view of the future. Well, that, Nicole deBoer, and Jeri Ryan.

*wipes drool off keyboard*

H.M.S.:

You seem to keep defending me. Thanks again.

"the evil thing called 'Real Life' happened"

You have a life!? I guess I now have to agree with the second part of your sig!

Bryce:

You're welcome, and may I ask who?

"I'm aware that it's there, but I'm also aware that it's dying. I've met more black people that are racist than white people. Heck, I've only met ONE racist white man (my grandfather, ironically)."

I scarcely know where to begin. First of all we have the extremely disturbing implication that whites are in fact the ultimate victims of racism these days. I would laugh if I weren't crying. Racism is dying? I've used that same argument before. But I think I see the difference between us. I think racism is dying because it no longer serves any evolutionary purpose. There's no need to preserve ourselves from the culture of the outsider because we're rapidly approaching a planet with just one culture. But we're talking hundreds of years for that to show up as any noticable effect. Racism is no longer an issue in today's society? Just this morning there was an article in the paper about a study regarding the widespread effects of racism in modern life.

You seem to suggest that because minorities are racist too, that makes it ok. Allow me to express my feelings towards the validity of that viewpoint by chuckling loudly for several minutes.

Regarding the rest, well...I take it you are opposed to the interstate highway system? A Federal project which makes people very reliant on the State.

A quote from above:

"but there's a big difference between a state passing a law and a private institution denying entry. I'd suggest that if someone can proove in a court of law that they were denied entry to a school based solely on race, THEN the government can force the school to let them in."

Alas, institutions like, oh say the University of Alabama are indeed public institutions paid for in taxes by the very segment of the population (blacks) that was not allowed entry.

Therefore, it becomes clear that this was a violation of the civil rights of citizens of Alabama. The state showed that it had no interest in granting a section of its population its right to attend school; consequently it was the right and the duty of the U.S. government to step in and restore to those citizens the rights denied.

Now, to that other part. Is racism dying? God I hope so, but the slanderous statments of the fatheads like Pat Buchanan show me that it is alive and well. Further, I offer you a visit to my little hamlet of Los Angeles where you can see racism's ugly head most every week. Does the recent shooting of children at a jewish day care center ring a bell? How about the recent death sentence for dragging a black man to death BEHIND A FREEKING TRUCK. No, these events tell me that the monster is here, lurking in America's social conscience.

"First of all we have the extremely disturbing implication that whites are in fact the ultimate victims of racism these days."

Admitedly, black people don't treat white people as badly as was vice versa fifty years ago, and I've met many nice people of all races (all races that I've met, not all races that exist), but I've run into black people that treat white people the same way that some white people treat black people.

"You seem to suggest that because minorities are racist too, that makes it ok."

Uh, no. My point was that, in any given group of any appreciable size, there will always be SOME members that hate members of another group. (Unless, of course, being a member of said group precludes hating someone, as most religions do.) Racism can never be killed completely, but it can be reduced to minimal levels.

"I take it you are opposed to the interstate highway system?"

Well, I'd never thought about that before, but now that you mention it, I'm not sure the government was given that authority in the consitution, either. Article I, section VIII says that the government has the authority "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" (capitalization in original). I suppose that you could get by by saying that the interstates are designed for the use of the postal service, but the public is allowed to use them, but that's a bit of a stretch. So, the national government could get away with interpreting the constitution that way, but if it were me, I'd turn control of the interstates over to the states themselves.

Jay:

Should I ask who DT is?

"Alas, institutions like, oh say the University of Alabama are indeed public institutions paid for in taxes by the very segment of the population (blacks) that was not allowed entry."

For state-run institutions, I'd have to agree, but even there, the government has no business implementing quotas. If it can be shown that a student was denied entry based solely on the factor of race, then the government can step in (assuming the case reaches a national level, of course). For private institutions, like, oh, say, David Lipscomb University, the government can't do anything even if the sole factor can be shown to be race. It would be a sad thing, yes, but the government has not the authority.

For your examples of racism, one man is dead, the other will be. Again, there will always be that segment that hates another segment. It can be reduced to a minimum, which, admitedly, we have not reached, but, unfortunately, never eliminated.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

But we're getting off topic.

The topic, of course, being that the interstate highway system was built to ensure that the Rooskies couldn't take out our transportation system.

Of course, now I've got to go put some eyedrops in, because my eyes have turned to saucers. Be back in a jif.

Ah, that's better. Once more unto the...post.

"Unless, of course, being a member of said group precludes hating someone, as most religions do."

I'm starting to run out of ways to creatively express my shocked surprise. "Sol System's brains ooze out through tiny holes in his skull and congeal in a puddle on his blue carpet." Too icky. "Sol System stands gobsmacked." Too esoteric. And it sounds like something that only mommies and daddies can do.

My writer's block aside, I have two words for you. Please show me how they fit into the above statement. Crusade. Jihad.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is a bit unnerving, to say the least. First of all, so far as I know, the American ideal is not "as many rights as the states can grab!" It is, instead, the rights of the individual that are paramount. In the service of that ideal, I will support whatever branch of government provides the best option. There is nothing inherently "good" about giving power to a smaller section of government. Example? Jim Crow laws. Quite simply, I don't place my trust in a branch of government simply because it is small. Better a decent U.S. Marshal than a corrupt Sheriff. Better the FBI than the LAPD.

Secondly, the primary purpose of any society is to do for the community what the individual cannot. As much as we might like, my neighbors and I cannot construct a dam. Or fight a war. Or send humans to the moon.

The Constitution was not meant to provide a detailed list of every possible power every person anywhere in the government could ever utilize in any situation. Rather, it is a foundation for other laws. As such, just because the document never says "Congreff shall have the right to declare October 17th National Jeri Ryan Day", it doesn't mean they can't.

Were we talking about something that actually mattered, of course, it would be different. Congress cannot wage war, for example, and the President cannot declare it. If you were to say that such wars as Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, the Persian Gulf, etc, where unconstitutional, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

(On a case by case basis, of course. I'm not saying that I think every conflict listed was either right or wrong.)