Sunday, January 2, 2011

Editorial: No good reason for Pearce to reinterpret Constitution

The unnamed Courier editor gets it right on Sen Pearce's idiotic war on mythical anchor babies. I'd only have encouraged him to be a little more pointed about it, and it's "tenet," editor, not "tenant." Look it up.

What the editor doesn't get to is the developing pattern in Pearce's actions. With 1070, the birther bill, the anchor-baby foolishness, assigning himself as chair of the Senate Rules committee and the attempt to rig the redistricting commission, Pearce is constantly asserting that he knows better than anyone, including decades of judges and our country's best legal minds, what our laws "really mean." There's a whiff of megalomania in everything he's doing, and the national-media attention on him is making it worse.

So far I've been giving him the benefit of the doubt, in a way, imagining that he's been simply pumping up these never-win issues to gain notoriety and power, not really believing that his arguments carry any legal weight. But lately I'm less sure. He may really be as nutz as he appears.


dovh49 said...

Is this not true of any politician that wants to rule our lives?

Is this not the general tenant of why government controlled health care is so bad? Is it not why licensing is so bad?

Steven Ayres said...

d=> Is this not true of any politician that wants to rule our lives?

No. Many authoritarians are a lot smarter and more subtle. Like Richard Nixon.

=> Is this not the general tenant of why government controlled health care is so bad? Is it not why licensing is so bad?

I can only guess what "general tenant" is supposed to mean, but I suppose if you're frightened of public health care you will indeed imagine that it will be administered by scary monsters. The licensing idea is simply around the bend, sorry.

dovh49 said...

Yes, I suppose there are a minority few that don't want to rule our lives and take our money. Some, I'm sure, don't think that they are ruling our lives but they are.

It doesn't take scary monsters to not like government controlled services, it only takes observation of other government controlled entities to realize that I don't want any part of it (but have to take part since I live here, not very fair). What we have today is the culmination of over 100 years of government interference in the health care sector. Government caused the problem and we ask government to solve the problem. I see a pattern here.

Steven Ayres said...

If we're all being victimized by our government, d, why do you stay? The world's full of opportunity for a young man, and many nations suffer far less "government interference" than we do. What keeps you here? More "government interference"?

dovh49 said...

Yes, the classic "if you don't like then leave."

Not a very good argument. Most the time you do have good insight but this argument doesn't hold water.

No where is it perfect and I have friends and family here so no reason to leave. The US and AZ have many problems but other places in the world have their problems too.

I prefer to just challenge peoples ideas and make them think of what they're saying. Am I always right? No. But maybe people will think more and some will decide, "Hey maybe government isn't the solution to everything that challenges us." Thank goodness they didn't get to choose my wife for me too (oh the anarchy of it all). Maybe people will, one day, begin believing in true freedom and liberty.

Steven Ayres said...

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Your victim whines are getting a little tiresome, and I thought I might hear about what motivates you to put up with so much horrible injustice.

If you hope to persuade anyone of anything, my friend, you'll have to do a whole lot more homework and critical thinking about your own biases. Simplemindedly blaming "the government" for the things you don't like only boasts your insophistication.

dovh49 said...

Interesting you are criticizing me for the same things you do on this blog. All you do is whine about different things that you don't like in the courier. How is it any different from what I do in the comments section?

Steven Ayres said...

How am I different? I'm trying to make things better, with some success, and I generally know what I'm talking about.

If I'm so tiresome, why do you read my stuff?

dovh49 said...

I don't recall saying your stuff was tiresome. I think there are some interesting posts you put down. But you do the same thing I do. You believe in big government and anything that deviates from your ideologies you call not a "critical think[er] about your own biases", "simpleminded", and "insophistication". You given the same arguments before.

I also try and make things better by challenging people's ideas. I also know what I'm talking about.

So the question you should be asking is, "Why do I respond to this commenter when I know it will just stoke the fire and he'll comment even more?" Sir, if you knew what you were doing you would just ignore me or ban me from your blog. I must be striking some nerve if you keep responding. So maybe I'm making some progress with you dear statist.

Steven Ayres said...

Or perhaps you just don't know when you're being played, dear naif.

dovh49 said...

So the next question also is, if you are so intelligent, like you like to think you are, why do you devolve to name calling so much?

Steven Ayres said...

My man, I have answered your questions, responded to your arguments and given you the best advice I can, quite sincerely, on several occasions including this exchange, and you continue to assert your intellectual superiority with blockheaded, selfish generalizations and "challenge" me like the Black Knight with all his limbs cut off.

You won't listen to respectful response or be content with saying your piece. I get that you don't like me, but you won't bugger off. What would you do in my place? Lead us by example, O wise grandstanding-challenger-with-nothing-productive-to-do?

dovh49 said...

I responded to the article you had written with a generalization extended from your generalization of Pearce.

You responded by inferring my logic and myself as intellectually off since "I'm afraid of monsters." I would not call this a "respectful response". The same things you accuse me of you do yourself. I was content with saying my piece but then you goad me and I respond.

Your arguments are not intellectually superior to mine since you use name calling as a way to put down others perspectives. I never joined a debate team or studied it but I would imagine these tactics are poor for true intellectual discussions. You then pipe yourself as intellectually superior. How can this be true with the juvenile responses you give me?

As for what you can do? I've already told you. In comment number 9 paragraph 3.

Steven Ayres said...

I agree -- responding to you is a complete waste of energy. Time to start your own blog.

dovh49 said...

I have started my own blog. It's called