Hey, this is not my post; and, truth be told, it really is not my son, Adam Hansen, who made the original posting.
However, Adam has made a posting on his blog that revisits someone else's work that is just so darn worthwhile, I thought I would share it with the readers of Roland Hansen Commentary.
Ready? Then, click on over to read Hack Yourself as recommended by Adam Hansen.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
God Bless the TSA (Transportation Security Administration)
You gotta love the Transportation Security Administration, aka the TSA.
I just cannot understand all the people who are slamming the TSA. Did you know there are some folks who want to protest the thoroughness of the job that the Transportation Security Administration is performing in trying to assure the safety of all who fly the skies in the good ol' United States of America? Yes, indeed, these good Americans want to disrupt the rest of us in our air travel; they want to impede the TSA in the performance of its duty and thereby consequently delay all the airline passengers across all of America, or even causing innocent passengers to actually miss their flights.
Please, go on over to my other blog, Roland's Ramblings, to read The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) Watches Out For Our Safety.
The protesters allege that our right of privacy is being abridged by the new TSA procedures. What these folks fail to understand is that there is no such thing as a constitutional right for privacy, per se. Constitutionally speaking, there is no broad general expressed right to privacy or right of privacy in the United States Constitution.
None-the-less, in regards to an implied right of privacy, there are decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting various sections of the Constitution and applying those interpretations to certain types of situations. Generally, speaking however, none of those situations really apply the right of privacy for an individual in a setting that involves the public at large. As an example, an individual may generally expect an implied constitutional right of privacy to be applicable to conversations taking place in a person's private home or even conversations held on a person's land-line home telephone; but, there is no express or implied constitutional right to privacy that is applicable to conversations being held over a cordless telephone that uses public radio airwaves.
Commercial airlines are available to the general public. Air travel is conducted in the skies of the public air routes. Why on Earth or above the Earth should anyone expect any right to privacy? Come to think of it, why should anyone even think they have the right to wear clothing at anytime during the process of participating in air travel?
This whole thing about a constitutional right of privacy is clear as mud!
I just cannot understand all the people who are slamming the TSA. Did you know there are some folks who want to protest the thoroughness of the job that the Transportation Security Administration is performing in trying to assure the safety of all who fly the skies in the good ol' United States of America? Yes, indeed, these good Americans want to disrupt the rest of us in our air travel; they want to impede the TSA in the performance of its duty and thereby consequently delay all the airline passengers across all of America, or even causing innocent passengers to actually miss their flights.
Please, go on over to my other blog, Roland's Ramblings, to read The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) Watches Out For Our Safety.
The protesters allege that our right of privacy is being abridged by the new TSA procedures. What these folks fail to understand is that there is no such thing as a constitutional right for privacy, per se. Constitutionally speaking, there is no broad general expressed right to privacy or right of privacy in the United States Constitution.
None-the-less, in regards to an implied right of privacy, there are decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting various sections of the Constitution and applying those interpretations to certain types of situations. Generally, speaking however, none of those situations really apply the right of privacy for an individual in a setting that involves the public at large. As an example, an individual may generally expect an implied constitutional right of privacy to be applicable to conversations taking place in a person's private home or even conversations held on a person's land-line home telephone; but, there is no express or implied constitutional right to privacy that is applicable to conversations being held over a cordless telephone that uses public radio airwaves.
Commercial airlines are available to the general public. Air travel is conducted in the skies of the public air routes. Why on Earth or above the Earth should anyone expect any right to privacy? Come to think of it, why should anyone even think they have the right to wear clothing at anytime during the process of participating in air travel?
This whole thing about a constitutional right of privacy is clear as mud!
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Are You A Sarah Palin Fan?
Little Johnny is not a Palin fan
A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Palin fans. Not really knowing what a Palin fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different... again.
Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not a Palin fan."
The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Palin?"
Johnny said, "Because I'm a Democrat."
The teacher asked him why he's a Democrat.
Little Johnny answered, "Well, my Mom's a Democrat and my Dad's a Democrat, so I'm a Democrat."
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom were a moron and your dad were an idiot, what would that make you?"
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me a Palin fan."
MY VOTE IS FOR JOHNNY.
p.s. My thankful appreciation goes out to Jerry Rosen for bringing this cute little story to my attention.
Incidentally, I think that Little Johnny is wise way beyond his years.
A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Palin fans. Not really knowing what a Palin fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different... again.
Little Johnny said, "Because I'm not a Palin fan."
The teacher asked, "Why aren't you a fan of Palin?"
Johnny said, "Because I'm a Democrat."
The teacher asked him why he's a Democrat.
Little Johnny answered, "Well, my Mom's a Democrat and my Dad's a Democrat, so I'm a Democrat."
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, "If your mom were a moron and your dad were an idiot, what would that make you?"
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, "That would make me a Palin fan."
MY VOTE IS FOR JOHNNY.
p.s. My thankful appreciation goes out to Jerry Rosen for bringing this cute little story to my attention.
Incidentally, I think that Little Johnny is wise way beyond his years.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Good Things, Objective and Subjective
This entry is not the usual Roland Hansen Commentary. In fact, it is not a Roland Hansen Commentary at all.
Instead, I would like to direct you over to the blog of Nina Amir that is called As The Spirit Moves Me in order that you may read her blog entry about objective good and subjective good:
Is What You Want "Good" For You?
I pretty well think that most people could learn a lesson or two from reading that writing of Nina Amir and take it to heart.
Instead, I would like to direct you over to the blog of Nina Amir that is called As The Spirit Moves Me in order that you may read her blog entry about objective good and subjective good:
Is What You Want "Good" For You?
I pretty well think that most people could learn a lesson or two from reading that writing of Nina Amir and take it to heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)