Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Something most interesting happened yesterday. I'm quite sure what it portends will take some time to sink in, perhaps generations. But it struck me as monumental nonetheless. The Supreme Court of the United States of America officially declared that "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Predictably, the horribly biased mainstream media has its collective panties in a twist over it. I was so elated, I actually watched Katie Couric to see CBS' take on it. Their mature, reasoned, moderate opinion on the subject was a montage of people shooting pistols. That's right liberals, the Supreme Court has just ordered every one in the country to arm themselves to the teeth and begin vigilante justice on their neighbor's loitering.
The HuffPo is just as morally outraged. I managed to get all the way through one paragraph of a piece where the author declared Dick Cheney wants to turn DC into the Triangle of Death in Iraq. Moderate, contemplative, tolerant, thoughtful analysis need not apply.
The ruling itself isn't all that grand. It basically says that governments can not outright ban firearms. Justice Scalia went to great lengths in instructing lower federal courts that this does not mean there can be no reasonable regulation of guns - thank God. I believe the thought of Charlie Manson getting paroled and stopping by Walt's World of Guns on his way home is enough to rankle even the most fervent gun rights supporter.
What it does do is tell local and state governments that they cannot simply ignore the constitution. And for that I'm ready to set off fireworks. Of course, as a resident of New York, that would be illegal. Interesting enough, Founding Father John Adams preached that the Fourth of July should be celebrated with cannons, firearms, bonfires, and all manners of loud, boisterous hoopla. But what the heck does he know? He was only there.
I see two important issues in this ruling. One good, one not so much. Let's start with the bad news.
Re-read my second paragraph above. The Supreme Court had to actually rule that the meaning of one sentence, 27 words in all, simply means nothing more than what it actually says. Is it just me, or does it seem absolutely ludicrous that this question rises to the level of anything more than a kindergarten recess argument? "Does too! Does not!" How on earth did our society sink to the level where the Supreme Court of the land has to specifically rule on the meaning of a clear, concise sentence? That is nothing but sad in my opinion.
On to the good news! The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that yes, a clear concise sentence means exactly what it says. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! I may not have a flintlock or a blunderbuss, but I do have a pitchfork somewhere in the basement!
Here is what I find so optimistic in this ruling. I've read the analysis of Roe v Wade in the past, and I'm not going to surf the web for specifics now, its late Friday afternoon, but as I understand it, the Supreme Court basically took 2 or 3 or 4 Amendments from the Bill of Rights and created a kind of realm, where 'rights' can be created out of thin air, based upon nothing more than a majority of Justices. Even though the Constitution specifically states that is not to happen (it's all through the document, just read it and see).
[Editor's note: Here's where I have a slight disagreement with the author. The Constitution outlines specific powers that the federal government has; everything else is reserved for the States (to regulate) and/or the People (to enjoy in freedom). So in my mind it's not so much that there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to privacy, as that the federal government has no legitimate authority to ban abortion (or prevent States from banning it), since that is an act not under their specified umbrella of powers. Likewise, there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to alcohol, it's just that they do not have the power to ban it (without an amendment). Same for marijuana (although somehow they forgot the need for an amendment...sorry, different topic).]
[Author's response: While I agree with the editor's thoughts on aspects of federalism involved with this issue, I must admit, I don't have a solid or satisfying response to this proposition. From what I've learned about the Revolutionary times and the Founding Fathers, the lines between the states and the federal government were left blurry on purpose. As I understand the concept, the idea was to keep the boundaries fluid and murky, allowing for future generations to of American politicians at the various levels to basically argue it out during the issues of their times. They understood power would change hands back and forth, some generations having stronger state rights, and others having stronger federal rights. The idea being that times change, issues change, generations change, and so the relationship between state and federal authority would be flexible to change with them, and most importantly, change back as the issues and the people change. What I see in this ruling is, that ebb and flow of power heading back towards the states and the people, and away from the federal government. Some states will agree that strict gun regulation is appropriate, while others will agree otherwise. In other words, just the way it's supposed to. ]
This Supreme Court ruling says "no" to that. It says no, what the document says it what it says. I know there will be future rulings that will infuriate the hell out of me, I have no doubt of that. And I know governments at every level will do whatever they can to legislate around this ruling. That's the way politics work. But still, the Supreme Court firmly, beyond any doubt, no exceptions (thank God for reasonable restrictions), the Constitution of the United States of America, in this case, means exactly what it says!
Happy Fourth of July America!
Friday, June 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Change you really can count on: The race to the center is on!
There's an interesting phenomena in modern American presidential campaigns which I first heard about with respect to the Nixon campaigns. And that is during party primaries, candidates, on both the right and left, make a mad dash to the lunatic fringes of their respective
parties in order to capture as much as possible of those of the devoted base (those most likely to believe volunteering for campaign grunt work will actually save the world). Once a candidate secures their party's nomination, the second phase is a mad dash as far and as fast as possible away from those very same voters, to the center, in order to try and convince the vast majority of American voters that they really aren't as crazy as they've been insisting they were since before the Iowa caucuses.
This sordid tango of disentanglement produces some of the most hilarious situations of both comic and tragic theater, that we Americans refer to as Politics.
Who can forget the sight of John McCain, back in the 2000 election, on stage with presumptive Republican nominee George W. Bush, repeating over and over "I support George Bush, I support George Bush, I support Bush...." in a vain attempt to shame the press who kept demanding a public recitation of concession speech. I could almost envision him leaping off the stage and throttling one of the reporters "I said it okay, are you happy you rat bastard!"
Or John Kerry proudly proclaiming himself as the 'anti war candidate' when losing the primaries to Howard Dean, and then 'storming the beaches' at Boston Harbor when officially arriving at the 2004 Democratic Convention, in an absolute farce salute to his service in the Navy during Vietnam. How about the salute and "Reporting for duty" line? I still wonder how much his campaign paid the team that came up with that one.
In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and the left are already making their move. I've noticed two items in the last few days that tells my superior sense of political analysis, the race to the center has begun on the left.
This little nugget from the L.A. Times.
"Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence vs. knowingly propagating falsehoods."
When the United States Congress granted the President the authority to use force against Iraq back in 2002, I'm convinced they did it entirely based upon Bush's astronomical poll ratings following 9/11. Senators and Congressmen were falling over each other to get on the
record as being on the President's side. When polls on support for the war sank in the run up to the 2004 Presidential elections, Democrats sought to distance themselves from the war. But this brought a special dilemma all its own. How to dance away from their own words? And some of their speeches in favor of military action were quite enthralling. How do they now attempt to insist that never happened? My guess is they went back to the PR team that thought up Kerry's 'storming the beach' in Boston Harbor. Because the best they came up with was 'We was lied to.'
That might have been a plausible political strategy but, unfortunately, it was based on the premise that democratic voters would forget - or forgive - the fact their 2000 Presidential campaign was based on the concept that George Bush was an idiot. Think about that for a moment. They decided the best strategy was the person they declared the most stupid, idiotic person this side of the Americans with
Disabilities Act tricked them. Now that's ballsy.
I told you this was entertaining.
What was even more entertaining, and frustrating, was with the help of the hopelessly biased media, they essential pulled it off. George Bush was re-framed as a puppet, manipulated by the evil neocons who actually controlled the administration, and if we didn't all vote Democrat, we would all be doomed to a fascist hell. I still can't believe it worked. Ballsy and entertaining, if not entirely
satisfying. After all, I still have to live with whatever ridiculous laws these people come up if/when they do regain power.
This line of thinking worked fine when the democrats were more interested in control of Congress than they were in control of the White House. Now their interest is in the White House. And while this train of thinking worked fine with the far left Democratic fringe during the primary campaigns, it will not fly with the center, which is where general elections are won and lost. Hence, the grand race to the center.
For the last five years or so, the Democrats main campaign theme is not only was the war in Iraq the worst foreign policy endeavor since America conquered all of Asia, Europe and large parts of Africa on a dare at a cocaine-fueled frat party, but it was a lost cause, losing good money after bad. Once again, a small problem when you move this argument from the far left to the center.
The Surge worked.
So, the question as I see it for Barack Obama and the Democratic power brokers is, how do they move their campaign rhetoric from the last 5 years of 'Iraq is a complete failure' to the American center that obviously can see that's not true?
I see this as step one. Slowly dismantling the program of the last five years, 'Bush Lied People Died.' I don't see any other way for Obama to move to the center on Iraq, unless this great and glorious platform of the democratic party from 2003 till, say, about 2 weeks ago, becomes history. And this is how it starts.
Earlier I mentioned two things that caught my attention. This is the second.
"The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . .
. Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will
not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's
response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all
that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising
a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic
administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden
decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your
stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made
through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military
commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with
those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq
that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen
carefully to what they are saying."
The race to the center is on.....
parties in order to capture as much as possible of those of the devoted base (those most likely to believe volunteering for campaign grunt work will actually save the world). Once a candidate secures their party's nomination, the second phase is a mad dash as far and as fast as possible away from those very same voters, to the center, in order to try and convince the vast majority of American voters that they really aren't as crazy as they've been insisting they were since before the Iowa caucuses.
This sordid tango of disentanglement produces some of the most hilarious situations of both comic and tragic theater, that we Americans refer to as Politics.
Who can forget the sight of John McCain, back in the 2000 election, on stage with presumptive Republican nominee George W. Bush, repeating over and over "I support George Bush, I support George Bush, I support Bush...." in a vain attempt to shame the press who kept demanding a public recitation of concession speech. I could almost envision him leaping off the stage and throttling one of the reporters "I said it okay, are you happy you rat bastard!"
Or John Kerry proudly proclaiming himself as the 'anti war candidate' when losing the primaries to Howard Dean, and then 'storming the beaches' at Boston Harbor when officially arriving at the 2004 Democratic Convention, in an absolute farce salute to his service in the Navy during Vietnam. How about the salute and "Reporting for duty" line? I still wonder how much his campaign paid the team that came up with that one.
In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and the left are already making their move. I've noticed two items in the last few days that tells my superior sense of political analysis, the race to the center has begun on the left.
This little nugget from the L.A. Times.
"Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.
Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence vs. knowingly propagating falsehoods."
When the United States Congress granted the President the authority to use force against Iraq back in 2002, I'm convinced they did it entirely based upon Bush's astronomical poll ratings following 9/11. Senators and Congressmen were falling over each other to get on the
record as being on the President's side. When polls on support for the war sank in the run up to the 2004 Presidential elections, Democrats sought to distance themselves from the war. But this brought a special dilemma all its own. How to dance away from their own words? And some of their speeches in favor of military action were quite enthralling. How do they now attempt to insist that never happened? My guess is they went back to the PR team that thought up Kerry's 'storming the beach' in Boston Harbor. Because the best they came up with was 'We was lied to.'
That might have been a plausible political strategy but, unfortunately, it was based on the premise that democratic voters would forget - or forgive - the fact their 2000 Presidential campaign was based on the concept that George Bush was an idiot. Think about that for a moment. They decided the best strategy was the person they declared the most stupid, idiotic person this side of the Americans with
Disabilities Act tricked them. Now that's ballsy.
I told you this was entertaining.
What was even more entertaining, and frustrating, was with the help of the hopelessly biased media, they essential pulled it off. George Bush was re-framed as a puppet, manipulated by the evil neocons who actually controlled the administration, and if we didn't all vote Democrat, we would all be doomed to a fascist hell. I still can't believe it worked. Ballsy and entertaining, if not entirely
satisfying. After all, I still have to live with whatever ridiculous laws these people come up if/when they do regain power.
This line of thinking worked fine when the democrats were more interested in control of Congress than they were in control of the White House. Now their interest is in the White House. And while this train of thinking worked fine with the far left Democratic fringe during the primary campaigns, it will not fly with the center, which is where general elections are won and lost. Hence, the grand race to the center.
For the last five years or so, the Democrats main campaign theme is not only was the war in Iraq the worst foreign policy endeavor since America conquered all of Asia, Europe and large parts of Africa on a dare at a cocaine-fueled frat party, but it was a lost cause, losing good money after bad. Once again, a small problem when you move this argument from the far left to the center.
The Surge worked.
So, the question as I see it for Barack Obama and the Democratic power brokers is, how do they move their campaign rhetoric from the last 5 years of 'Iraq is a complete failure' to the American center that obviously can see that's not true?
I see this as step one. Slowly dismantling the program of the last five years, 'Bush Lied People Died.' I don't see any other way for Obama to move to the center on Iraq, unless this great and glorious platform of the democratic party from 2003 till, say, about 2 weeks ago, becomes history. And this is how it starts.
Earlier I mentioned two things that caught my attention. This is the second.
"The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . .
. Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will
not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's
response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all
that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising
a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic
administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden
decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your
stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made
through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military
commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with
those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq
that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen
carefully to what they are saying."
The race to the center is on.....
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Audacity of Socialism
And so Barack Obama has declared himself the democratic nominee for the president of the US. Personally, I wouldn't count out Hillary Clinton until they're throwing the dirt on her grave, but this is the story the media is going to run with until the convention. So let's start with this one.
Barack Obama, the audacity of hope for transparent change. A new kind of politician, kind of like the "anti-politician." Or so the story goes. He will bring the country together with his soaring rhetoric and glorious smile. We will unite, and the world's problems will all suddenly become solvable, because of him. Is any one there buying this load? I'm certainly not.
For starters, there is no way any politician can unite Americans together. By definition the most he can do is unite one political party against the other. There's no way his warmed over socialist/Marxist, cavalier attitude toward economics and constitutional rights are going to unite anyone on the right.
Which is why I predict it won't be very long until we see all this talk of unity, new kind of politics, etc. will simply fade away, much like the "Dennis Kucinich for President" bumper stickers have. The only question for me is when, where, why and how. Will the new kind of campaign head straight for the swamp? Or will they dance around the edge for a while first? Or will the McCain or the GOP or some right-wing whacko land a solid punch right to the jaw of audacious change so resoundingly that Obama attacks full-bore out of reflex?
Perhaps his wife will finally blow her cork and that starts the mud. (Personally I'm rooting for this one. I can't stand rich people making several figures, ensconced in the lap of luxury lecturing me on how tough they have it.) Or perhaps, when the starstruck and biased media realizes that if they don't start asking real questions of him they will lose their last shred of dignity (along with their cushy jobs), they will begin to zero in on his numerous gaffes, stumbles and outright lies. Of course he and his campaign will accuse the media of being in McCain's pocket, racist or just plain not up to the level of the "new" political landscape.
Either way, the gloves will come off, we will see what kind of politician Obama really is. And then we'll find out if Hillary Clinton was right, and the Democrats should have chosen her. I think she was. But I don't think she would do much better against Senator McCain in November.
Barack Obama, the audacity of hope for transparent change. A new kind of politician, kind of like the "anti-politician." Or so the story goes. He will bring the country together with his soaring rhetoric and glorious smile. We will unite, and the world's problems will all suddenly become solvable, because of him. Is any one there buying this load? I'm certainly not.
For starters, there is no way any politician can unite Americans together. By definition the most he can do is unite one political party against the other. There's no way his warmed over socialist/Marxist, cavalier attitude toward economics and constitutional rights are going to unite anyone on the right.
Which is why I predict it won't be very long until we see all this talk of unity, new kind of politics, etc. will simply fade away, much like the "Dennis Kucinich for President" bumper stickers have. The only question for me is when, where, why and how. Will the new kind of campaign head straight for the swamp? Or will they dance around the edge for a while first? Or will the McCain or the GOP or some right-wing whacko land a solid punch right to the jaw of audacious change so resoundingly that Obama attacks full-bore out of reflex?
Perhaps his wife will finally blow her cork and that starts the mud. (Personally I'm rooting for this one. I can't stand rich people making several figures, ensconced in the lap of luxury lecturing me on how tough they have it.) Or perhaps, when the starstruck and biased media realizes that if they don't start asking real questions of him they will lose their last shred of dignity (along with their cushy jobs), they will begin to zero in on his numerous gaffes, stumbles and outright lies. Of course he and his campaign will accuse the media of being in McCain's pocket, racist or just plain not up to the level of the "new" political landscape.
Either way, the gloves will come off, we will see what kind of politician Obama really is. And then we'll find out if Hillary Clinton was right, and the Democrats should have chosen her. I think she was. But I don't think she would do much better against Senator McCain in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)