Mission Statement
This blog is not intended to be a medium that simply furthers partisan ideas on either side of the political spectrum; rather, we at WASP Blog will try to take a more common-sense approach to issues instead of the typical bitter partisanship of media punditry circulating across the political spectrum today. While at times this blog will favor one argument over another on the issue at hand, such preference will only be shown when the author believes it is in the best interest of the nation, not to advance biased rhetoric. All posts will back up assertions and opinions with citations and practical/factual arguments, and are designed not to "spin" issues, rather they are designed to present issues and advocate the position for which the known facts seem to indicate is the better position. The term "WASP" effectively encapsulates this idea: When America Suffers from Politics means that America suffers at the hand of partisan politics instead of benefitting from a practical examination of individual issues. We at WASP Blog hope to bring attention back to the issues, first and foremost.
Note: Discussion will be kept as free as possible, but all comments deemed inappropriate will be removed.
This post will be rather pithy, considering the length of my previous (and long, long ago--sorry) posts. A friend of mine recommended this article to me, and I think everyone should read it:
It's an interview of previously nominated Judge Robert Bork. I find it to be very interesting. I also pose this question: can you provide me an example that would show Bork's philosophy concerning how one should interpret law to be unconstitutional, or even wrong?
Posts
