Do read, and be excellent ot each other!
Now with more Alt-Text!
Ita erat quando hic adveni: This one is a more modern phrase (although doubtless much used by delinquent Roman kids) which means "It was that way when I got here".
Update 2: Well, I didn't win this one then. I must at this time point out that since the other three nominees in this category actually took the time out to think up of a good tagline for their blogs, while I just lifted mine from Wikipedia, all three of them probably deserved the award more than I did ;-). Anyway, thanks to the bloke who nominated my tagline, the jurors who voted to shortlist it, and all 57 people who voted for it, I really appreciate it. Oh, and congrats to Shivam!
What irks me is portraying concerns about the Patriot Act, indefinite detentions without trial, and eavesdropping outside of the normal separation of powers checks and balances as "concern for the civil liberties of terrorists".
I am sure that there is a name for this kind of semantic trick, though I can't remember it, but I will say its bush league, right out of high school debate. You could just as easily stump for repeal of the fourth amendment because it is only concerned with the "civil liberties of criminals".
No one except a few crazies cares much for the civil rights of convicted criminals and terrorists. After all, what could be more of a violation of their civil rights than incarcerating them, but I have seldom seen a bond issue for more prisons that people won't vote for.
No, the problem is with the civil rights of the rest of us who are innocent. We don't want our email read just in case we are terrorists. We don't want our houses broken into at night just in case we are drug dealers. And if we find ourselves in police custody, we want our habeas corpus rights respected and we want to get our due process or be released.
An association of people not subscribing to socialism had to swear allegiance to the philosophy to get themselves registered as a political party and get an election symbol, he said.As expected, the
Of course, they are, as always, totally wrong. The declaration that India is a socialist republic, and the requirement of candidates to uphold the said socialism must go, not because socialism is no longer relevant (even though it is), but because this clause totally limits the ability of the Indian people to elect to public office people whom they believe will represent them. It is impossible, under the current state of affairs, for anyone who is opposed to socialism to stand for office without lying under oath. Denying the people of India the right to elect people opposed to socialism is quite undemocratic, IMO. That is the real issue here.
Disagreeing with Joshi’s plea that socialism has lost its relevance and, therefore, should be dropped from the Constitution, Congress members Moolchand Meena, Raashid Alvi, E.M.S. Natchiappan and Jayaram Ramesh said spirit of the Constitution had been democracy, socialism and secularism which was not fully understood by Joshi. (H/t for both links: Madman)
Why is it that, despite all of the money we have spent over the years on education, half of our students are still below average?