l0rd

Overnight essay for school. It was a critical analysis of an article by this Hofstadter dewd. I posted it because I think most Americans don't even know the difference between the Declaration of Indep. and the Constitution. By 1787, flaws in the Articles of Confederations policy towards a centralized government were obvious (Princeton Review 91); a new constitution was needed. For four months in 1787, a group of fifty-five delegates met in Philadelphia and discussed and authored our now-ratified constitution. In Richard Hofstadters Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism, he brings to examination the anti-democratic political ideology of these delegates and how this formed the constitution that Americans are seemingly so unfamiliar with today. Before delving into explanations, Hofstadter establishes his thesis and the fundamental principle in these delegates ideology: To them a human being was an atom of self-interest. They did not believe in man, but they did believe in the power of a good political constitution to control him. (Hofstadter 4). In essence, the Founding Fathers thought that mans self interest, or even the interest of a majority, must be mitigated with government, as a majority of men, let alone one, do not have the hindsight to know what is best for the whole. It was the Founding Fathers belief that liberty should lay in the hands of those who have stake in it. As Hofstadter further defines their intended definition of liberty, liberty was linked not to democracy but to property. (Hofstadter 13). Thus, although these two seemingly parallel concepts in the modern-day Americans mind, the Founding Fathers would think a democratic republic to be an oxymoron. Hofstadter made it clear that the Founding Fathers believed that in owning property, you thereby have a greater stake in the hand of decisions of government. This may well be an explanation to the Declaration of Independences famous all men are created equal line. As all men are created equal, not all are worthy enough to be affected by laws regarding the freedom for property. Given their fundamental ideologies, they may be susceptible, or even favorable to moving towards a government similar to the British model they just broke away from; however, this assumption would be the furthest from the truth: What the Fathers wanted was known as balanced government. (Hofstadter 10). They did not wish to act as the only important constituent, but rather, as Hofstadter eloquently put it, A properly designed state, the Fathers believed, would check interest with interest, class with class, faction with faction, and one branch of government with another in a harmonious system of mutual frustration. (Hofstadter 10). This meant that they had to implement policies in a constitution that acted as regulators for each group within the whole. Thus, three devices were designated: the advantage of a central government, in maintaining order against a majority rule (effectively anti-democratic); the ability for citizens to vote, which allowed for a government representative of the majoritys political party; and two houses of opposing political party with an impartial overseer that had the power to veto (congress). Theoretically they could have recreated a monarchy and placed themselves at the top, but they obviously had more sense than that. And although it is fairly obvious that their political ideologies were determined greatly on their social class, they were controlledby a statesmanlike sense of moderation and scrupulously republican philosophy. (Hofstadter 29). Meaning that they wished to distribute the power. And as it should be apparent through the very title of his article, Hofstadter made it clear that the founding fathers were not idealists. These well-educated delegates were well aware of the historical failures of idealism, whether it be in religion, settlements, or government. Given their view on human instinct, we can deduce that they would think any sort of perfection within humanity to be impossible, as Hofstadter affirms, Modern humanistic thinkers who seek for means by which society may transcend eternal conflict and rigid adherence to property rights as its integrating principles can expect no answer in the philosophy of balanced government as it was set down by the constitution. However perfect a governmental model might be, conflict between factions, classes, and political ideologies will always occur and have to be dealt with. With a system that effectively pleases, or displeases, everyone as needed, a government can do its job most effectively. The Founding Fathers knew this, and wrote the Constitution accordingly.

Always get the same results on these things, except last time I was 100% introverted. Introverted (I) 90% Extroverted (E) 10% Intuitive (N) 52.5% Sensing (S) 47.5% Thinking (T) 90% Feeling (F) 10% Perceiving (P) 67.86% Judging (J) 32.14% Your type is: INTP 3.3% of population

What is up with the silhouettes on everyone's profile page? Does anyone know how to put your avatar or a different picture there?

Apologies for my obnoxiously caustic first blog post. It was actually a copy-and-paste from something else I wrote on Facebook today. Anyways, I can't decide between the white or black clone. Someone should make this easier for me and just make a clone of the old theme. Ah, anyways, I don't like blogs. They make me think that other people think that I think of myself highly and that my everyday whatdoings is interesting enough for the public eye. Just letting you know, if I do continue to add entries to this blog, most likely it is simply done for personal entertainment purposes. Help me make up more words that end in "doings".

I can't help but raise my chin at a slightly more obtuse angle than my fellow TIFer; but righteousness is had, as I believe I have earned rights of superiority to my fellow man. You see, there are three kinds of people in this world: there are the have-nots, the haves, and the l(zero)rds. I am your king, messiah, and superior to you in every way. ALL shall be taxed for their earned right to stay on my friends list--and they shall be glad to pay up, for they shall consider themselves privileged. My blog will consist of the everyday whatnots and whodoings of the single most important man on our planet. I hope you enjoy your stay, although I know you won't be enjoying yourself as much as I.

The change we can believe in. Anywhoo, still testing things out. Looks like we can have built-in statuses and blogs >.>. Edit: wow that's cool, looks like if you click on the book beneath my editorial badge it links to my blog.

Auricularis anterior Auricularis posterior Auricularis superior Buccinator Corrugator supercilii Depressor anguli oris Depressor labii inferioris Depressor septi nasi Frontalis Levator anguli oris Levator labii superioris Levator labii superioris alaeque nasi Mentalis Nasalis Orbicularis oculi Orbicularis oris Platysma Procerus Risorius Zygomaticus major Zygomaticus minor

Auricularis anterior Auricularis posterior Auricularis superior Buccinator Corrugator supercilii Depressor anguli oris Depressor labii inferioris Depressor septi nasi Frontalis Levator anguli oris Levator labii superioris Levator labii superioris alaeque nasi Mentalis Nasalis Orbicularis oculi Orbicularis oris Platysma Procerus Risorius Zygomaticus major Zygomaticus minor

I liek mudkipz kill me now, kill us all

I don't have any established meals on the weekend, and mind you, I eat a lot more on weekend days than weekdays. But today I ate: Banana Bowl of granola Meatloaf & peanut butter sandwich Hummus sandwich Two granola bars Fish taco Popcorn Omlette Can of chicken soup And drank: Water Orange Juice I've been starving all day, it's rather annoying.

Speaking of the Alchemist, I have to read it in Español for school. Anyways, I want to read for leisure, but I've been so busy. I hate having a book just sit on my desk bookmarked at the same place for days at a time. -.- Thanks for the suggestions Lateralus, I will definitely eventually check those out.

First off, you don't know that he doesn't care about the holiday, it is just a theory. Complimenting someone insincerely is not a malicious act, but rather a kind one. Telling your girlfriend her pants don't make her look fat, even when they do, is the better thing to do. It means you're being a GOOD boyfriend. Even if she knows you're lying, she'll know that you care enough about her to lie about it. This isn't a phenomenon confined to politics at all! If you think that's what a politician's job entails, then I can't provide you with a counterargument.

It's not like he was forced into being a politician though. He knew it was a game of deceit when he signed up for it. I'm not gonna cut him any slack just because that's what his job requires. I'm still gonna be a critical rebellious teenager. After all, I'm only doing what my position dictates I should do. His position doesn't dictate any of that, those are just my personal (and many others') criteria for what a good president should do. Why would he need any "slack to be cut" for him when he is potentially saving American lives. It seems that you see him in the defendant's seat, and maybe naturally so because many people don't trust transparency and simplicity in politics. There is no evil plan, he does not value Islamic holidays over Christian ones, and so on. Anyways, the product of your argument is that the ideal president shouldn't "take-nuttin'-frum-nobuddeh" (as said earlier), and should have the highest chin at all times, no matter how many stupid lil' treaties o' peace or public displays of the acceptance of Islam we have to push away.

Because the ingratiation in question is fueled by deceit, as you've said yourself. Now telling someone their butt doesn't look big is one thing, but praising a particular religion for the sole purpose of making the public think you're a good president is a little different, don't you think? Since when does being disingenuous nullify any position you hold. His duty, among many others, is to keep the US looking good, and to keep it safe. What he is doing is nothing more than fulfilling those duties in the best possible, and practical, way. Look, if a serial killer comes into a nursery and asks you whether or not you agree that his hair looks good, you're sure as hell going to tell him that his hair is the best you've ever seen.

I find it funny how you guys are labeling certain sects of Islam as "bad". I'm going to shy away from the word "bad", as in the eyes of anti-American, and even in many civilians' eyes, US soldiers are the terrorists. Anyways, what exactly are you arguing? I think we all know that the minority of Islam is not actively plotting or taking part in any violent activity, anyone who thinks otherwise is probably too busy being stupid somewhere. There are 2.5 billion Muslims, 10 million of which are Salafist Jihadist, and most of this minority provide just as much of a threat than a neo-Nazi teenager who has a stick-on swastika tattoo, who doesn't even know what eugenics is. Given this, I concede that there are a few thousand Salafists who plan on committing acts of violence against infidels. But, should everyone hate Christians because of the few dangerous KKK members that committed murder last year because of their beliefs? Or should we hate African-Americans because of the small minority that kill other gang members? Also, SirHemen, you're blowing this out of proportion. Does anyone you know say "All muslims are bad!". I know most people are fairly ignorant, but I think the majority of people who are blatantly prejudice against Islam are either too old to have any kind of decent brain function, or are just too stupid to pay any mind to.

God i hate politics and politicians. How the hell is that a justification for hating politicians, and how is ingratiation at all limited to the realm of politics (it's probably something you practice in your daily life with authoritative figures, or to stay out of trouble, unless you're one of those "don't-take-nuttin'-from-nobuddeh" kind of person, in which case we have a whole new can of issues to discuss). How can you hate someone for not caring about a holiday that you most likely don't care about? All the while he is going out of the way and pretending that he does in attempts to do the most that he can do in that circumstance to appease the right people.

Weekdays: 7am- ~11:30pm Weekends: 2am- ~11am Summer: 4am- ~12:00pm Last year, and even more so the year before, I was getting at most six hours of sleep daily--never again.

The few Muslims behind violent acts of terror, namely Jihadists, wanted nothing more than to kill Bush and the Administration, along with every other infidel in the world. I think what Obama is trying to do is simply raising the opinion of the US in the eyes of those that we want to like us. Pretty useless to complain about. I'm certain Obama doesn't give a rats [wagon] about the holiday itself.

I've never make eye contact with people unless I consciously go out of my way to, or I'm having a staring contest of something. I wouldn't even know my mother's eye color if she didn't recently mention it.

Recently I've read: Typee (pronounced tie-pee) by Herman Melville. After reading Moby [bleep] for my school, I grew to like Melville's writing style. Although I don't think this book totally captured his genius. Also, don't read this book if you want to read a book packed with plot: similarly to Moby [bleep], this book is around 30% plot. The Virtues of War by Steven Pressfield. I hated this book, but for some reason persisted in hopes of it getting better. It bastardized the glorious and debaucherous life of Alexander the Great by making him narrate this historically inaccurate, romanticized, bombastic piece of crap in the most uninteresting way possible. This book was like a textual version of 300, except with even more repetitive, cliched battle scenes and "pseudo-epicness". Just got Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad. Hopefully I'll have time to read it in between my busy schedule. ALSO I feel like reading some really morbid/depressing/disturbing/sad books, so give me some suggestions if you know of any. No Holocaust books please, sick of those.

Printing out essays; waking up to a snow-covered landscape; resting after a vigorous workout; waking up from horrid nightmares in which people that I know die; gloomy weather; getting random conversational emails or PMs from friends; relishing in moods, sensations, or tastes that would by most be considered unpleasant.

You're getting older, eat some goddamn vegetables. Anyways, this observation can easily be refuted by comparing the ingredient composition from the above products for it's respective years.

Not much to say besides my classes this year: AP U.S. History, Honors Precalculus, Honors Spanish 4, AP Language and Composition, Debate, Physics, (and possibly introduction to Mandarin)

5'11'', 162 lbs., ~10%(depends how accurate the home test is :?) body fat Methinks I have a cross-country/bikers body.

1. Call the police on your father if he is trying to steal your PS3 (which is what he is doing if he forces you to give it to someone). If you do give it to your brother, he won't have to buy a PS3 for your brother, I can see why someone would want that.