Shinken

[url]http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2082.IS:[/url] [QUOTE]`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari [A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court], or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.[/QUOTE] It seems to me as though this proposed Bill is trying to make the Supreme Court unable to even be able to use the power of judicial review (which is the Supreme Court's power to deem a law unconstitutional) in the case of a law that is based on Biblical law. For example, if President Bush manages to get his proposed "Protect the Sanctity ( :rolleyes: ) of Marriage Act" passed, the Supreme Court would never be allowed to use the power of judicial review to repeal the amendment under this proposed bill. I do realize that this Bill is highly unlikely to ever get passed, but I am still concerned by this Bill (and others similar in nature). Doesn't this run against the separation of Church and State? (NOTE: the term "writ of certiorari" in the quote is not well-known, so I added the definition in brackets for clarity. This is my source for the definition: [url]http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/certiorari.htm[/url] )

A few days ago I rented this film, and I must say that I enjoyed it- to a degree. The film, while interesting, was a bit... drawn out, in my opinion. Ashton Kutcher did well in such a serious role, much better than I thought he would. However, I was still somewhat dissatisfied with his performance, mainly on the basis that I couldn't stop telling myself "Yes, Ashton Kutcher [i]is[/i] being serious". The plot was great, but like I said, a bit drawn out. As for the ending, it was okay. It also brought up an interesting (albeit somewhat self-defeating) question: If the main character does what he does to himself at the end, how would he manage to go into the past to do so in the first place? *scratches head* Oh well. Here's a tidbit of hilarity involved with this film: As the credits rolled across the screen, my grandmother proclaimed the following. [i]"I'm surprised that Christ didn't strike us down for watching this movie."[/i] And she [i]wasn't[/i] referring to any faults she may have found with the movie's cast or their abilities.

[QUOTE=LostProphet] [IMG]http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/img/07-04/0701saddam2.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] "...And no lettuce on the Big Mac!"

[quote name='KarmaOfChaos][SIZE=1][color=deeppink]...Things like religious beliefs, physical health, emotional health, and mental health play a very big part chi/ki, and the stronger you are in each of these, the more likely you are to feel comfortable with yourself and be able to find calm and truly get in touch with your chi...[/color'][/SIZE][/quote] I'd have to disagree with that. I'm not exactly a "religious" person, in the common sense of the term. As for physical health, I'm overweight, so that kinda throws it out the window. Emotionally I'm fine, and mentally... I scare my own family. :blah: Just kidding. However, I'm not saying that these factors are wrong. Just that they don't apply for me.

I know what [b]outlawstar69[/b] is talking about. I'm not arrogant about it or anything, but I will admit that I am a tad bit smarter than most people in my area. Just for being in English 11 Honors, while being only in the tenth grade, I'm instantly labeled as a snotty rich kid, which I definitely am not. Especially not rich. This also brings me the label of "geek", which is by and large absolutely true, and I'll admit it. As for the religious discrimination, well... Don't really have that problem (personally, anyways), but only because I actively avoid the problem. My area is predominantly Christian, so it's a big to-do when there's somebody who doesn't subscribe to the Judeo-christian norm (I should know- I'm Buddhist). It's not quite active discrimination as much as something that causes one to be isolated and looked down upon as a bad influence or something.

I'm personally sick of hearing people saying that old [i]"We're in America, we shouldn't have to speak anything but American!"[/i] jargon. (Since when was there an "American" language?) Seriously. You have no idea how many people I've heard say that. The worst part is that they're [i]not[/i] quoting the doting psycho-mom from VCPR in Vice City. They actually believe it! As for morals, I'd have to agree that they're relative. After all, one man's satanic ritual is another man's prayer group.

This is extremely ironic. Today in English class, a friend came in with a radio and started blaring the [i]Fresh Prince[/i] theme song. I've only seen a few episodes of the show, but I enjoyed it. The only reason I've never really seen it was that it was a bit before my time, as the nineties was the period of time that saw me turn double-digits only when they were coming to a close. (Then again, it seems to me that the nineties were just a ten-year extension of the eighties.)

Last Comic Standing... All I can say is, [i]"Dat Phan, you crazy!"[/i] I know there's a sequel program coming out soon, and I personally can't wait. Of course, the name is no guarantee of another Dat Phan in the making...

If you ask me, race, nationality, religion, or any of that stuff should have nothing to do with recognition of a person. If you do something great (or horrible), no matter where you're from, or what you believe in, you're still doing it as a human being.

You know you're easily amused when... 1)While standing in your driveway waiting for your bus to arrive, you put your stuff on the ground and try and catch mosquitoes as they fly by you, and improve daily. (This is actually pretty fun. They can't bite you- they're too scared.) 2)When you find yourself Googling for random words. 3)When you find yourself translating entire posts/paragraphs into Al Bhed via an online translator. (Btw, there actually is one, and I use it all the time) 4)You have a CD collection that includes the soundtracks to Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy (random installments), and Sonic games. (Maybe this fits under the "You know you're a geek when..." category... :D ) 5)You find yourself genuinely enthralled by a rubber yo-yo filled with water. (It's more amusing to hit people with it. That, and poke a small hole in it, spin it really fast, and then watch with glee as people try to figure out where all the water's coming from.) In conclusion, I have no life. :D

Being not of voting age, I'm currently unable to partake in the mayhem. However, if I were able to vote... Anybody who reads my blog knows I'd go for Kerry any day. Instead of wasting time giving my reasons, I'll just kindly direct you to check the archives of my blog. I'm sure I ranted about it somewhere... Anyways, my vote goes for Kerry. Imaginary though it may be... :tasty:

Well, it's not the country that's doing it. It's a few (possibly more, according to reports from Afghanistan) soldiers who went overboard, lost sense of morality, etc. In a recent poll, CNN found that 73% of Americans felt the abuse was unjustified. So, it shows that the majority of the country does not (at least outwardly/publicly) hold the "They did it to us, it's only fair!" opinion.

And the winner is... James! But, to get back on topic, anyone who thinks that the Iraqi prisoners "deserved it", and justify it with the age-old "well, they did it to us!", I think Gandhi can handle this one. [i]"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."[/i] -Mohandas Gandhi

Let me get this straight: Since the Iraqis tortured and belittled our soldiers, it is absolutely fine for our soldiers to do the same? I disagree. Lowering ourselves to such a dishonorable level, purely for revenge, is not justifiable, no matter what. Torturing people who are at one's mercy is a horrible thing to do, and yes, I do recognize that the Iraqi military has done this to an extent that nobody will ever know how far it went. But we should not have to stoop down to such tactics. It's deplorable! Look at Saddam's regime. We constantly criticize and denounce their torture tactics, and yet, when a few of our soldiers decide to go morally AWOL and do the same to prisoners, people say that they deserve it. Why? Aren't they human beings as well? No matter what a person has done, as Sting said, "we have the same biology". Also, I hope that people don't go all anti-military because of the actions of a few. I have a cousin in Iraq, and a good friend of mine has her brother in Iraq as well. So, I obviously have respect for the military. Just not for the people who did this. (I apologize if this post seems somewhat unfocused. I'm somewhat tired.)

I'm of the belief that it would be impossible to change the past. Why? If you go into the past and change something intentionally, you would then eliminate that event from ever ocurring in history. Thus, you would have no reason to go back into the past and change something while you were in the future, erego the event would still happen. However, if one did change something, maybe some sort of "alternate timeline" would be created. It's pure speculation. Entertaining, thought-provoking speculation that makes for some pretty good discussions.