Apparently five members of the Supreme Court have not completely lost their minds. By a (frighteningly close) 5-4 vote the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (which states: "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.") actually means that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The other four either a) believe that the amendment actually meant that the rights of the militia to bear arms or b) do not care what it says. Scalia dealt with the militia argument in his majority opinion (some highlights here and here). The case in question was with regard to Washington D.C. ( many parts of which I wouldn't care to visit, armed or unarmed) which had placed a complete ban on handgun possession within the city. Of course this only affected those who are inclined to obey the law in the first place. What amused me the most today were the reactions to what seems to me an obvious verdict. In the dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens seems to show open contempt for the Constitution saying the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons". Mind boggling. Yeah, that's absolutely the choice they made. Limiting the "tools" "available" to the State is kind of the purpose of the entire document. Have we learned nothing from the last century about the danger of governments with too many "tools available" to them? If you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, ( Jefferson in particular) they tend to be way more extremist than me on this issue. What's more disturbing in that statement to me is the "over 200 years ago" part. He seems to be implying that because the Constitution was written a long time ago, it shouldn't really apply. There is a system in place for dealing with obsolete portions of the Constitution. It's called "amendment", but that would require actually trusting the people and our elected representatives to do something right; much easier just to legislate from the bench. The mayor of D.C. in full-blown histrionics said "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence". I mean think of the street gangs. What are they supposed to do now that someone might be able to shoot back? Aren't we too moral of a society for this? Isn't the civilized thing to do if someone is kicking in my front door to call the police and ask them to send another young man over to put his life on the line while attempting to capture the person(s) who murdered me in the ensuing ten minutes it took the police to arrive? I mean we've banned certain narcotics and now nobody can get ahold of those. I have no reason to believe a gun ban isn't equally effective.
The fact that four justices didn't see it this way gives me more reason to want to keep the Obamunists out of power this fall.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Quick Hits 9: When the Oceans Started Receding.
I haven't posted anything lately because work has left me completely exhausted for the past few weeks. So here are a few things on my mind lately.
-So were finally down to two candidates. I find myself agreeing with George Will on a couple of points he has made about the upcoming election. He stated that Obama is the more volatile a choice than Hillary would have been. Hillary would have gotten between 48% and 52% of the vote pretty much regardless of what transpired between now and November. Obama, on the other hand, could rise as high as 55% or sink as low as 46% depending on what happens. He also said that this election really isn't about McCain. It will wind up being a referendum on Obama. McCain is a known quantity, so people pretty much already know where they stand with regard to him.
-If I were advising Obama, I would have him take a week to do nothing but sleep, with maybe a few radio interviews and other low intensity campaigning. Last week I heard him give an answer to a question (a couple of them actually) that was almost Bush-like in terms of verbal ineptitude. At one point he continually groped for the word "ventilator", at one point saying "breathalyzer" before settling on "inhalator". I can only assume this was due to the physical exhaustion of all the months of a grinding campaign schedule.
-If McCain has gained any traction in the past few months, I haven't seen much evidence of it.
-The Obama's Witness/Obamamessiah phenomenon seems to be returning after seeming to wane during all the talk about his nutty pastor. I can't decide if this is just the result of people wanting to believe in something so badly that they'll put this guy up on a pedestal, the result of the ongoing dis-enlightenment (a phenomenon I believe is perfectly summed up in a lot of the utterly meaningless and anti-rational language used in this article), or something he is actually working to cultivate. His speech after the last primaries makes me think that the latter may be the case. The lofty rhetoric about when we started "caring for the sick", receding oceans, etc. probably rallied the faithful, but left me chuckling and shaking my head. He does mention that he's not a miracle worker often enough, but which part do you think sticks in peoples' minds? Also whenever he says (paraphrasing) "it's not just about me it's about you" I feel like completing the sentence by saying "it's about your ability to elect me". This carries a risk of disillusionment if he is elected and doesn't bring about rapid economic growth, universal health care, or "end the war" (something he seems to me to be trying very careful not to promise).
-For all the talk of McCain not having any new ideas, I've heard two that interest me. The "League of Democracies" idea seems to be one that could be a good idea. And I really like his idea about having the president have to go before congress on a regular basis to get grilled the way the British Prime Minister has to in the House of Commons.
-If I were the Republican National Committee, I would pay for Howard Dean to be on one of the Sunday talk shows every week. The last time I saw him on there he dealt the race card at least 4 times in the course of 10 minutes. If the Dems want to alienate the electorate, screaming "racism!" for the next 5 months would be a good way to do it. I think they should save that for cases of, you know, actual racism. But I don't know if that's in there DNA. I guess it's one of the dangers of building an electoral coalition on identity politics and grievance-mongering.
-I read Barry Goldwater's book The Conscience of a Conservative recently. Having been written in 1960, some parts were dated but the majority of it is just as true today as the day it was written. Many of the principles he talks about have been completely repudiated (to their detriment) by the current Bush-led GOP. For example he says spending cuts need to come before tax cuts. The current plan is tax cuts and increased spending based on the ideas of Laffer, etc.
-I read an article that said the home town of Ernesto Guevara, tee shirt model and executioner for Castro, has built a bronze statue in his honor. Maybe Charles Manson's home town should build a statue in his honor. Okay, maybe that's not fair. Guevara was involved in a lot more deaths than Manson was. "Go ahead and try them tomorrow morning- but execute them NOW!"
-Gore Vidal reminded us this week (again) how a steady diet of ideological extremism can atrophy a person's brain when he suggested that perhaps John McCain wasn't really a POW in Vietnam. This seems odd to me given the fact that the North Vietnamese used him for propaganda videos, took pictures of his capture, and built a monument at the spot where he was pulled out of the lake. The odd part is not that Vidal would say something stupid (he's made a lucrative career out of that), but that he would actually disbelieve the claims of a communist regime. I guess there's a first time for everything.
-The tribute to Tim Russert on Meet the Press was very well done. I wonder who will take over hosting that show. I hope it will not be Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann, both of whom are way too obnoxious for that show.
-Finally, I was talking to my mom last night about her recent trip to Europe. At one point while in Bavaria her tour group went to the site of a mansion that had belonged to Adolf Hitler. I cracked up when she told me that. The thought of my mom touring something associated with Hitler was hilarious, because I can't imagine two people farther apart on the spectrum of human behavior than Hitler and my mom.
-So were finally down to two candidates. I find myself agreeing with George Will on a couple of points he has made about the upcoming election. He stated that Obama is the more volatile a choice than Hillary would have been. Hillary would have gotten between 48% and 52% of the vote pretty much regardless of what transpired between now and November. Obama, on the other hand, could rise as high as 55% or sink as low as 46% depending on what happens. He also said that this election really isn't about McCain. It will wind up being a referendum on Obama. McCain is a known quantity, so people pretty much already know where they stand with regard to him.
-If I were advising Obama, I would have him take a week to do nothing but sleep, with maybe a few radio interviews and other low intensity campaigning. Last week I heard him give an answer to a question (a couple of them actually) that was almost Bush-like in terms of verbal ineptitude. At one point he continually groped for the word "ventilator", at one point saying "breathalyzer" before settling on "inhalator". I can only assume this was due to the physical exhaustion of all the months of a grinding campaign schedule.
-If McCain has gained any traction in the past few months, I haven't seen much evidence of it.
-The Obama's Witness/Obamamessiah phenomenon seems to be returning after seeming to wane during all the talk about his nutty pastor. I can't decide if this is just the result of people wanting to believe in something so badly that they'll put this guy up on a pedestal, the result of the ongoing dis-enlightenment (a phenomenon I believe is perfectly summed up in a lot of the utterly meaningless and anti-rational language used in this article), or something he is actually working to cultivate. His speech after the last primaries makes me think that the latter may be the case. The lofty rhetoric about when we started "caring for the sick", receding oceans, etc. probably rallied the faithful, but left me chuckling and shaking my head. He does mention that he's not a miracle worker often enough, but which part do you think sticks in peoples' minds? Also whenever he says (paraphrasing) "it's not just about me it's about you" I feel like completing the sentence by saying "it's about your ability to elect me". This carries a risk of disillusionment if he is elected and doesn't bring about rapid economic growth, universal health care, or "end the war" (something he seems to me to be trying very careful not to promise).
-For all the talk of McCain not having any new ideas, I've heard two that interest me. The "League of Democracies" idea seems to be one that could be a good idea. And I really like his idea about having the president have to go before congress on a regular basis to get grilled the way the British Prime Minister has to in the House of Commons.
-If I were the Republican National Committee, I would pay for Howard Dean to be on one of the Sunday talk shows every week. The last time I saw him on there he dealt the race card at least 4 times in the course of 10 minutes. If the Dems want to alienate the electorate, screaming "racism!" for the next 5 months would be a good way to do it. I think they should save that for cases of, you know, actual racism. But I don't know if that's in there DNA. I guess it's one of the dangers of building an electoral coalition on identity politics and grievance-mongering.
-I read Barry Goldwater's book The Conscience of a Conservative recently. Having been written in 1960, some parts were dated but the majority of it is just as true today as the day it was written. Many of the principles he talks about have been completely repudiated (to their detriment) by the current Bush-led GOP. For example he says spending cuts need to come before tax cuts. The current plan is tax cuts and increased spending based on the ideas of Laffer, etc.
-I read an article that said the home town of Ernesto Guevara, tee shirt model and executioner for Castro, has built a bronze statue in his honor. Maybe Charles Manson's home town should build a statue in his honor. Okay, maybe that's not fair. Guevara was involved in a lot more deaths than Manson was. "Go ahead and try them tomorrow morning- but execute them NOW!"
-Gore Vidal reminded us this week (again) how a steady diet of ideological extremism can atrophy a person's brain when he suggested that perhaps John McCain wasn't really a POW in Vietnam. This seems odd to me given the fact that the North Vietnamese used him for propaganda videos, took pictures of his capture, and built a monument at the spot where he was pulled out of the lake. The odd part is not that Vidal would say something stupid (he's made a lucrative career out of that), but that he would actually disbelieve the claims of a communist regime. I guess there's a first time for everything.
-The tribute to Tim Russert on Meet the Press was very well done. I wonder who will take over hosting that show. I hope it will not be Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann, both of whom are way too obnoxious for that show.
-Finally, I was talking to my mom last night about her recent trip to Europe. At one point while in Bavaria her tour group went to the site of a mansion that had belonged to Adolf Hitler. I cracked up when she told me that. The thought of my mom touring something associated with Hitler was hilarious, because I can't imagine two people farther apart on the spectrum of human behavior than Hitler and my mom.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
May's Books.
May was a busy reading month for me. Here's the list.
-1776, David McCullough. ( A description of the first full year of the Revolutionary War. I was stuck by the youth of many of the key figures involved: General Nathaniel Greene- age 33, Colonel Henry Knox- age 25. I was also struck by how low the casualty figures of most battles were compared with the Civil War.)
-The Rage and the Pride, Oriana Fallaci. (This critique of Islam and the decline of Europe got her charged with a "hate crime" in France. She was one tough lady.)
-The Force of Reason, Oriana Fallaci. (She wrote this one shortly before she died of cancer and takes on the same subject again.)
-Why We Want to Kill You, Walid Shoebat. (He says he's a former Palestinian terrorist and that all of them want to kill all of us. I'm not sure I buy his story. I also found this book to be a little over the top. He seems to present all Muslims as though they are mindless followers of the most radical elements within their religion. I think a larger number are willing to follow those elements than we would like to admit, but not to the degree he describes.)
-A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn.
-No Name on the Bullet: A Biography of Audie Murphy. (Murphy was the most decorated soldier of WWII, winning every award for valor his country could bestow. The book follows him through his career in Hollywood and details how he was never really able to escape the way the war haunted him. He fought through the entire American campaign in Europe (no troop rotations back in those days), personally killing some 300 people. Some of the things he did couldn't be included in the movie (To Hell and Back: the Audie Murphy Story, starring Audie Murphy as Audie Murphy.) because they would seem to far-fetched for the viewing audience.)
-Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How Holy Rollers and Neo-cons destroyed the GOP. ( Not as good as I'd hoped. It was a very broad overview of the same failures that have been outlined in like 15,000 other books.)
-The Anti-Chomsky Reader, David Horowitz. (Pretty much what the title implies)
-The ProFessors, David Horowitz. (A look at how far out on the lunatic fringe a lot of college professors are)
-America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Mark Steyn. (This was a good book. Steyn is currently on trial in Canada for the book being a "hate crime".)
-A Brief History of Crime, Peter Hitchens. (He details the slow painful death of law and order in Great Britain, and of Great Britain in general.)
-A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, Christopher Hitchens. (One of the few "liberal hawks" who has stuck to his guns for the past 7 years, Hitchens (here and in his writings since) lays out the best case in favor of the war I've come across so far.)
-Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription, William F. Buckley. (Some of the more interesting letters National Review has received over the years, with responses by the always pithy Buckley.)
-The Woven Figure: Conservatism and America's Fabric, George Will. (A collection of his columns from 1994-1997.)
-With a Happy Eye But..., George Will. (A collection of his columns from 1998-2002.)
-South Park Conservatives. (South Park "anti-liberals" might have been a more appropriate title.)
There could have been a few more, but A People's History really slowed me down.
-1776, David McCullough. ( A description of the first full year of the Revolutionary War. I was stuck by the youth of many of the key figures involved: General Nathaniel Greene- age 33, Colonel Henry Knox- age 25. I was also struck by how low the casualty figures of most battles were compared with the Civil War.)
-The Rage and the Pride, Oriana Fallaci. (This critique of Islam and the decline of Europe got her charged with a "hate crime" in France. She was one tough lady.)
-The Force of Reason, Oriana Fallaci. (She wrote this one shortly before she died of cancer and takes on the same subject again.)
-Why We Want to Kill You, Walid Shoebat. (He says he's a former Palestinian terrorist and that all of them want to kill all of us. I'm not sure I buy his story. I also found this book to be a little over the top. He seems to present all Muslims as though they are mindless followers of the most radical elements within their religion. I think a larger number are willing to follow those elements than we would like to admit, but not to the degree he describes.)
-A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn.
-No Name on the Bullet: A Biography of Audie Murphy. (Murphy was the most decorated soldier of WWII, winning every award for valor his country could bestow. The book follows him through his career in Hollywood and details how he was never really able to escape the way the war haunted him. He fought through the entire American campaign in Europe (no troop rotations back in those days), personally killing some 300 people. Some of the things he did couldn't be included in the movie (To Hell and Back: the Audie Murphy Story, starring Audie Murphy as Audie Murphy.) because they would seem to far-fetched for the viewing audience.)
-Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How Holy Rollers and Neo-cons destroyed the GOP. ( Not as good as I'd hoped. It was a very broad overview of the same failures that have been outlined in like 15,000 other books.)
-The Anti-Chomsky Reader, David Horowitz. (Pretty much what the title implies)
-The ProFessors, David Horowitz. (A look at how far out on the lunatic fringe a lot of college professors are)
-America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Mark Steyn. (This was a good book. Steyn is currently on trial in Canada for the book being a "hate crime".)
-A Brief History of Crime, Peter Hitchens. (He details the slow painful death of law and order in Great Britain, and of Great Britain in general.)
-A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, Christopher Hitchens. (One of the few "liberal hawks" who has stuck to his guns for the past 7 years, Hitchens (here and in his writings since) lays out the best case in favor of the war I've come across so far.)
-Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription, William F. Buckley. (Some of the more interesting letters National Review has received over the years, with responses by the always pithy Buckley.)
-The Woven Figure: Conservatism and America's Fabric, George Will. (A collection of his columns from 1994-1997.)
-With a Happy Eye But..., George Will. (A collection of his columns from 1998-2002.)
-South Park Conservatives. (South Park "anti-liberals" might have been a more appropriate title.)
There could have been a few more, but A People's History really slowed me down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)