"Count"
by TACMANAugust 28th, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Filed under: Featured Member Series
 |
|
The American Critic® Featured Member Interview Series  1) What brought you to TAC, and generally speaking, what do you get out of it? I am one of the original 10 or so users that were invited when the site was in beta. Stableman, AngryDuchess, Desert_Rebel, TheGreatEscapeOf2008, and XboxNerd are some others that come to mind. Back then there weren't many interesting articles, I think we argued over the movie Hitman that's how long ago it was. I was gone for a long time but what brought me back was an article called 'Stricter gun laws might make sense'. I disagreed so strongly with it I decided to start posting again. 2) What is the story behind your username? It was either this or VoteRaptorJesus2008. Sometimes I wonder if I made the right decision. 3) What do you do for work? I am a grad student at UCF majoring in humanities. 4) What do you do for fun, and what are your newest and oldest hobbies? Among other things, I read a lot of books and message boards. Science, religion, classic, philosophy, biography, text, novel, I read them all. Books are great for raw ideas, but when it comes to testing those ideas, forums are superior because you get to see how those ideas are interpreted by different kinds of people, from all walks of life. Reading diverse opinions about a topic is what gives you real understanding about an issue. At the end of the day, understanding an issue is far better than “winning” an argument.  5) How would you describe yourself politically and why? I don't belong to either major political party and I don't classify my views as being anything deserving of a label. The short answer is that I believe in freedom, plain and simple. I believe that any law which limits the freedom of others is wrong, and any law that protects it is good. Yes, there are exceptions (yelling fire in a crowded building), but they are in place to insure the preservation of freedom for everyone. Both the liberal and conservative views help protect some freedoms, and infringe on others. To put simply what could easily be an article in itself, I agree with the protection and disagree with the infringement, with very limited exceptions. I'm against in particular the creation of 'slippery slopes,' laws which sound reasonable at first, but are used as a precedent later in the creation of a law that goes further. Gun registration is one such law that comes to mind. Many laws that are necessary right now can unfortunately be used as slippery slopes at a later time, which is why I think it's important when drafting a law to outline exactly what it covers, does not cover, and what it will never cover. This is because our laws, just like any other nations' laws are subject to the law of entropy and will ultimately change, given enough time. History repeats itself over and over, but people forget the lessons of the past and tend to see their times as different. As a society we should look ahead, think about the repercussions of what we're doing, and learn from others who have made the same mistakes. 6) Who is your favorite TAC member and why? I don't really have a favorite, every author on this site has written things I agree with and disagree with as well. Except for Desert_Rebel, that guy was dumber than a screen door on a submarine. 7) When was the last time your political views changed and why? I don't hold strong views on issues I'm not versed on, so but there are other political issues I know more about which my views on haven't changed in a long time. 8) Has being a member of TAC changed your perspective on anything, and if so, provide a notable example? There hasn't been anything that has really rocked my entire perspective, but I have learned a lot of things I did not know; some historical background on the democratic party and private opinions of the founding fathers are two that come to mind. 9) Whom would you like to see in the White House? Let’s see who we have running in 2012. Hopefully we won’t have two main candidates who are both from different sides of the same coin. 10) Who is your all-time-favorite president or statesman and why? King Solomon. He had impeccable common sense and didn't let his emotions cloud his decisions (before he got really old and lost it). 11) If elected president, what would your first course of action be? Appoint John Ashcroft as Attorney General so I can fire him personally. 12) What issue(s) do you feel strongly about and why? Pretty much anything involving the First and Second Amendment. Gun control, freedom of speech, obscenity laws. My most current interest however is in insurance, liabillity and the litigious nature of this country.  13) What is one thing (it can be anything) that you would recommend other people try? Calm the hell down. That is without a doubt the very first thing worth doing. You can't be unbiased if you're overly passionate about an issue, regardless of how unfair you think it is. People have a tendency to attack other people rather than the topic itself. Looking at an issue without emotion can be very difficult, but is necessary to truly understand its long-term effects. This cannot be accomplished while angry. After that, I think exposing yourself to as many different viewpoints as possible on any given issue is a must. People are different and do not see eye to eye. I try and step in the other person's shoes and see things their way. Saying someone is “just stupid” is a cop-out. Everyone who believes what they believe about anything, no matter how outlandish it seems, has reasons that make perfect sense to them. I try to find out what those reasons are, they may show me a side I hadn't seen before. Don't let your own personal beliefs prevent you from considering alternatives. No matter what the belief, there's always a chance you are wrong. Most issues are not as simple as they're made out to be. What is great policy for some peope can be a disaster for others. 14) Is there anything else that you would like to add? Don't let a political party define who you are as a person. Don't be a democrat because of your hatred for republicans or vice-versa. If you're thinking about a specific issue, don't just automatically adopt the liberal/conservative stance. Think about how each view affects different kinds of people: Who benefits, who doesn't benefit. Is it fair to everyone? No system will ever be perfect, but the ultimate goal of any form of government, in my opinion, should be to keep pushing closer to it, learning lessons from history and building a better society over time. Some of Count's contributions are presented as References. |
 |
Rate this Article
Submit a Critique
Critiques
Show Oldest First
12) What issue(s) do you feel strongly about and why?
Pretty much anything involving the First and Second Amendment. Gun control, freedom of speech, obscenity laws. ---Count
What's your perspective on this case, which heavily involves freedom of speech?
High court debates dog fighting videos
Justice Samuel Alito's points are very convincing, especially his mention of Crush videos and the tangible case of banning child porn.
Liberal activist judges like Ginsburg, as well as unchecked legislative and executive overstepping have already de facto overhauled the Constitution. America has been more prosperous and has survived the turmoil of every other place in the world because we have the oldest written constitution in history, and we have until recently respected the rule of law.
The Constitution is the law of the land, not some loose guide to social activism, and politicians of both parties have treated it as toilet paper in the last 70 years or so.
Marc- My question stems from the fact that the image has somewhat of a nihilistic connotation, which leads me to wonder sometimes:
Would there be value in a thorough Constitution overhaul, or would it be a grave danger?
Likewise, would there be danger or value in forging a brand new US Constitution altogether?
There would be a lot more danger than there would be value. It would set up an immediate precedent that it's ok to discard the Constitution because the times have changed. Once the overhauled or newly-forged constitution is in place, what's to stop the next generation from doing the same with it 30 years later?
Would there be value in a thorough Constitution overhaul, or would it be a grave danger?
I personally believe it would be a grave danger. Our founding fathers knew it needed to be a living document that's why they included Article V. Remember the framers weren't serving special interest groups which is more that I can say about our modern day government. One amendment I would like to see is term limits for congress but they never are going to vote themselves out of power.
The Amendment Process
Count, quick question for you---
This image that you added in a previous article now serves as my mental reference to any mention of the US Constitution.
My question stems from the fact that the image has somewhat of a nihilistic connotation, which leads me to wonder sometimes:
Would there be value in a thorough Constitution overhaul, or would it be a grave danger?
Likewise, would there be danger or value in forging a brand new US Constitution altogether?
Hi TACMAN and welcome back! Awesome talk.
References
Visit (http://theamericancritic.com)
"My Thoughts on the Left and Right" May 09)
Visit (http://theamericancritic.com)
"Raptor Jesus Attack!" (May 09)
Visit (http://theamericancritic.com)
I don't like to see animals get abused and the people that mistreat them should be prosecuted. Making all forms of media that depict animal abuse illegal to view or own however, I'm not so sure about. What would be illegal and what would retain First Amendment protection? Obviously crush videos would be illegal to possess. Would nature documentaries that depict predators in the wild be illegal? Would people who produce movies with violent animal scenes in them (eg The Ring) be prosecuted? Will cartoons depicting animal violence become illegal? Any changes made to the Constitution itself should be done with the utmost care and be meticulously outlined. This case has the potential to set a precedent that is far too broad.