“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.”
The opinion of the Supreme Court may be found here:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/16716940.pdf
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the peoples right to "keep and bear arms", or in modern parlance "possess and carry", subject to reasonable restrictions. It found that the District of Columbia's policy that made it unlawful to carry or possess an unlicensed firearm, and it's refusal to then issue licenses, UNREASONABLE.
It found that in the context of the constitution, written in a time and place where the majority owned firearms and carried them not only in the furtherance of their livelihood but in self-defense, that our founding fathers meant what they said... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Certainly the British would have had a much easier time at Lexington and Concord, not to mention Bunker Hill, had the Massachusetts colony implemented the same laws and policies as our modern capitol. After all, was not Lexington and Concord simply the British attempt to seize "unlawful", by their standard, arms?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", is a prefatory clause, not limiting the following clause, but stating a purpose.
The operative clause being: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The court pointing out that in referring to "the people" the constitution refers to it's citizens, not it's army or any other organization. "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" does not imply membership in some sanctioned organization... it being impossible for an individual to assemble without others.
By all means, read the court's opinion... it's a bit lengthy (157 pages in the pdf version) but well worth the read, and one could argue, a civic duty.
What I find most difficult to understand is the dissenting opinion, how taking the constitution into the context of it's times, one could argue that the amendment merely protects the right to be in a militia, is beyond my grasp. Either we've been doing it wrong since day one, given the history of our behavior, or more likely we are ignoring history and context in the attempt to justify our own position in the furtherance of our own agenda.
Interpreting the right as a right to join a (the?) militia would certainly have major implications, would citizens then have the right to join regardless of the current military standards for fitness? What impact would a constitutional right to serve have on the current 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. Although for some reason I get the feeling that that would be perfectly okay with those who want to ban gun ownership.
Well at least our rights are secure for the moment.
~Finntann~
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Up on the roof
George Carlin, renowned comic, died yesterday at the age of 71. It's not that I can't believe he died... it's that I can't believe he was 71.
Best known for the Milwaukee Seven, or the Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV and it's associated Supreme Court case, George Carlin was a case study in the exercise of the Freedom of Speech, and sometimes beyond. While I never really held the same beliefs or politics, one can't argue that the man wasn't funny.
From Ed Sullivan to the Tonight Show, from Saturday Night Live to his HBO specials, George always kept us laughing and like any court jester, he was not only funny, he was astute. Quite often his subjects were cutting edge, forcing us not only to laugh, but to think.
So for the founder of Frisbeetarianism; The belief that when one dies, ones soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck.
Here's to you George, you, and your humor, will be missed.
Best known for the Milwaukee Seven, or the Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV and it's associated Supreme Court case, George Carlin was a case study in the exercise of the Freedom of Speech, and sometimes beyond. While I never really held the same beliefs or politics, one can't argue that the man wasn't funny.
From Ed Sullivan to the Tonight Show, from Saturday Night Live to his HBO specials, George always kept us laughing and like any court jester, he was not only funny, he was astute. Quite often his subjects were cutting edge, forcing us not only to laugh, but to think.
So for the founder of Frisbeetarianism; The belief that when one dies, ones soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck.
Here's to you George, you, and your humor, will be missed.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
It's the price of gas, stupid!
State governors promise to block attempts to tap offshore petroleum reserves.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25252119/
"As Governor of California, I will do everything in my power to fight the federal government on this issue and prevent any new offshore drilling," Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain supporter, said Wednesday. “We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil.”
Unfortunately, attempts to run the California state vehicle fleet on Arnold's dusty supply of posing oil have failed, Arnold could offer no other commercially viable alternative. It's real sweet that the 'governah' of the state with the second highest oil consumption, 656,863,000 barrels a year (while producing only 240,206 barrels) is against drilling, and we wonder why gas is $4 a gallon.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_pet_con-energy-oil-consumption
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_pet_pro-energy-oil-production
Fortunately, I have a solution... we lower the price of gas in the other states to $2 a gallon and raise the price of gas in California to $6 (before state taxes are added in of course, and imposing a $4 surcharge to gas purchases for vehicles with CA tags in other states).
Among the states opposed to drilling is also #7 New Jersey consuming 225,683,000 and not even making the list of 31 top producers and #11 North Carolina consuming 178,544,000 and also not making the production list. You know, if we do this right, we could get the price of gas in the rest of the country back down to about $1.50, maybe lower.
"Our $35 billion economy is driven by tourism and the use of the shore," said New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine. Well Jon... what do you think the impact to tourism is with $4 per gallon gas... think your gonna get a lot of beachgoers when it hits $6? New Jersey constantly suffers beach closures due to raw sewage, garbage, and medical waste washups (Earth News) and they're worried about a little petroleum? Might actually cut down on the E. Coli count. I grew up back east and spent a lot of time at the Jersey shore... you could stick a drilling derrick on the end of the steel pier and I doubt anyone would even notice.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for conservation, energy-alternatives, and other eco-friendly things... but unless you're going to start distributing syntholine at $1 a gallon, shut your pie-hole and get with the program, I'm tired of the "I want to have my cake and eat it too" crowd bending the rest of us over.
Unfortunately our economy and oil are tightly intertwined, those of you dissatisfied with the current state of the economy would be foolish to tolerate this behavior, less oil isn't going to help. Sen McCain proposes adding 45 new nuclear reactors to the 104 we already have (which he claims produces 20% of our electrical needs), you got your math wrong John, that means we don't need 45... we need 416 new nuclear reactors...which would not only go a long way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but would virtually solve our carbon emission problems. The US is 8th in Uranium production and Canada is #1... wouldn't you rather see your energy dollars going to Canada than Saudi Arabia?
Wonder what's wrong with our country? It's not the Iraq war, the price of oil, or gay weddings... it's our schizophrenic government (local, state, and federal) actions and policies. If you think I'm wrong, check out some of the symptoms for schizophrenia:
Impaired perception of reality, disorganized thinking, significant occupational dysfunction...
To paraphrase an aging cliche... It's the price of gas, stupid!
A man, dying of thirst in a desert, will cut a Prebles jumping mouse in half with a shovel while digging for water without a second thought.
No oil = No food for 300 million people... who ought to be on the endangered species list now? Of course that is an extreme example, but really... we ought to get some perspective folks.
My suggestion? Need a vacation spot? Cross California and New Jersey off your lists and go and visit Texas, they at least are helping somewhat in this petroleum predicament.
~Finntann~
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25252119/
"As Governor of California, I will do everything in my power to fight the federal government on this issue and prevent any new offshore drilling," Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a McCain supporter, said Wednesday. “We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil.”
Unfortunately, attempts to run the California state vehicle fleet on Arnold's dusty supply of posing oil have failed, Arnold could offer no other commercially viable alternative. It's real sweet that the 'governah' of the state with the second highest oil consumption, 656,863,000 barrels a year (while producing only 240,206 barrels) is against drilling, and we wonder why gas is $4 a gallon.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_pet_con-energy-oil-consumption
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_pet_pro-energy-oil-production
Fortunately, I have a solution... we lower the price of gas in the other states to $2 a gallon and raise the price of gas in California to $6 (before state taxes are added in of course, and imposing a $4 surcharge to gas purchases for vehicles with CA tags in other states).
Among the states opposed to drilling is also #7 New Jersey consuming 225,683,000 and not even making the list of 31 top producers and #11 North Carolina consuming 178,544,000 and also not making the production list. You know, if we do this right, we could get the price of gas in the rest of the country back down to about $1.50, maybe lower.
"Our $35 billion economy is driven by tourism and the use of the shore," said New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine. Well Jon... what do you think the impact to tourism is with $4 per gallon gas... think your gonna get a lot of beachgoers when it hits $6? New Jersey constantly suffers beach closures due to raw sewage, garbage, and medical waste washups (Earth News) and they're worried about a little petroleum? Might actually cut down on the E. Coli count. I grew up back east and spent a lot of time at the Jersey shore... you could stick a drilling derrick on the end of the steel pier and I doubt anyone would even notice.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for conservation, energy-alternatives, and other eco-friendly things... but unless you're going to start distributing syntholine at $1 a gallon, shut your pie-hole and get with the program, I'm tired of the "I want to have my cake and eat it too" crowd bending the rest of us over.
Unfortunately our economy and oil are tightly intertwined, those of you dissatisfied with the current state of the economy would be foolish to tolerate this behavior, less oil isn't going to help. Sen McCain proposes adding 45 new nuclear reactors to the 104 we already have (which he claims produces 20% of our electrical needs), you got your math wrong John, that means we don't need 45... we need 416 new nuclear reactors...which would not only go a long way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but would virtually solve our carbon emission problems. The US is 8th in Uranium production and Canada is #1... wouldn't you rather see your energy dollars going to Canada than Saudi Arabia?
Wonder what's wrong with our country? It's not the Iraq war, the price of oil, or gay weddings... it's our schizophrenic government (local, state, and federal) actions and policies. If you think I'm wrong, check out some of the symptoms for schizophrenia:
Impaired perception of reality, disorganized thinking, significant occupational dysfunction...
To paraphrase an aging cliche... It's the price of gas, stupid!
A man, dying of thirst in a desert, will cut a Prebles jumping mouse in half with a shovel while digging for water without a second thought.
No oil = No food for 300 million people... who ought to be on the endangered species list now? Of course that is an extreme example, but really... we ought to get some perspective folks.
My suggestion? Need a vacation spot? Cross California and New Jersey off your lists and go and visit Texas, they at least are helping somewhat in this petroleum predicament.
~Finntann~
Sunday, June 15, 2008
You've got to be kidding....right?
Perhaps you are wondering why I have the flag of Ohio and that of Cuba above, hmm, vaguely similar, no?
I take a short well deserved vacation, and look what happens!
Merits of the case aside, I point you to the photograph by Tony Dejak, AP of Ohio Common Pleas Judge James Burke.
For God's sake... the man has CHE GUEVARA and BARACK OBAMA posters hanging on the wall over his head.
Now the Obama poster is one thing, but then again it is his, (presumably?) private office and not his chambers, in which case it could possibly be construed as a state endorsement of a particular candidate (god...let's hope it's his private office).
But Che? CHE? Depending on your political perspective he is at best an idealistic Marxist-Maoist-Socialist revolutionary, at worst... the butcher of La Cabana.
Let's ignore the latter and simply ask the question:
Merits of the case aside, I point you to the photograph by Tony Dejak, AP of Ohio Common Pleas Judge James Burke.
For God's sake... the man has CHE GUEVARA and BARACK OBAMA posters hanging on the wall over his head.
Now the Obama poster is one thing, but then again it is his, (presumably?) private office and not his chambers, in which case it could possibly be construed as a state endorsement of a particular candidate (god...let's hope it's his private office).
But Che? CHE? Depending on your political perspective he is at best an idealistic Marxist-Maoist-Socialist revolutionary, at worst... the butcher of La Cabana.
Let's ignore the latter and simply ask the question:
What is a poster of a Marxist-Maoist-Socialist revolutionary doing hanging on the wall of an Ohio judge?
Good people of Ohio... please feel free to opine, as I certainly 'don't get it', and one might say am flabbergasted.
Good people of Ohio... please feel free to opine, as I certainly 'don't get it', and one might say am flabbergasted.
Update: A simple google search of Obama and Che Guevara leads to many links to this Fox 26 news story:
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=5700252&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
Which in and of itself would be unremarkable aside from the Cuban flag with an image of Che superimposed upon it hanging upon the wall in an Obama campaign office. Keep in mind that this is not an official campaign HQ office, but one funded by the volunteers.
I wouldn't generally be considered a conspiracy theorist... but these people are beginning to scare me.
How far to the left do we intend to go?
~Finntann~
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Shooting the Quran
President Bush has apologized to Iraq's prime minister for an American sniper's shooting of a Quran and the U.S. military said Sunday that it had disciplined the sniper and removed him from Iraq after he was found to have used Islam's holy book for target practice.
Iraqi police found the bullet-riddled Quran with graffiti inside the cover on a firing range near a police station in Radwaniyah, a former insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. Members of the local U.S.-allied group said the Quran was found with 14 bullet holes in a field after U.S. troops withdrew from a base in the area.
Al-Maliki's office said the Iraqi Cabinet called on Tuesday for the "severest" punishment against the sniper and warned of "grave consequences" if similarly offensive actions were committed in the future.
On Tuesday, Khalaf al-Elyan, a senior Sunni Arab lawmaker, said the sniper must stand trial, preferably in Baghdad.
I wonder what they mean by "severest punishment"? Is this Death? 5, 10, 15, 20 years in jail? This soldiers actions were culturally insensitive, stupid, and wrong... but would we be having this conversation if he were shooting a Bible? A Torah? 40 churches have been bombed by militants in Iraq since June 26th, 2004... where was the global outrage then?
There is no doubt that the soldier in question should be punished, but the question is for what? Use of an unauthorized target on a military range? Violation of general orders regarding culturally insensitive behavior? Certainly not for shooting a book. It's a book, you know, paper, cardboard, maybe some leather or some leatherette, little bit of glue, some ink. It's the message inside that's important...and somehow, I think, the bullets did very little damage to that.
The Al-Arabiya article had a quote from 'Muslim scholars' that is probably the best route. "Everyone is reminded that God protects his book and his revenge is strong," the scholars said.
Sounds like a good idea to me... It's his book, let him handle it.
~Finntann~
Iraqi police found the bullet-riddled Quran with graffiti inside the cover on a firing range near a police station in Radwaniyah, a former insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. Members of the local U.S.-allied group said the Quran was found with 14 bullet holes in a field after U.S. troops withdrew from a base in the area.
Al-Maliki's office said the Iraqi Cabinet called on Tuesday for the "severest" punishment against the sniper and warned of "grave consequences" if similarly offensive actions were committed in the future.
On Tuesday, Khalaf al-Elyan, a senior Sunni Arab lawmaker, said the sniper must stand trial, preferably in Baghdad.
I wonder what they mean by "severest punishment"? Is this Death? 5, 10, 15, 20 years in jail? This soldiers actions were culturally insensitive, stupid, and wrong... but would we be having this conversation if he were shooting a Bible? A Torah? 40 churches have been bombed by militants in Iraq since June 26th, 2004... where was the global outrage then?
There is no doubt that the soldier in question should be punished, but the question is for what? Use of an unauthorized target on a military range? Violation of general orders regarding culturally insensitive behavior? Certainly not for shooting a book. It's a book, you know, paper, cardboard, maybe some leather or some leatherette, little bit of glue, some ink. It's the message inside that's important...and somehow, I think, the bullets did very little damage to that.
The Al-Arabiya article had a quote from 'Muslim scholars' that is probably the best route. "Everyone is reminded that God protects his book and his revenge is strong," the scholars said.
Sounds like a good idea to me... It's his book, let him handle it.
~Finntann~
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
By George I Think He's Got It
A must read from Senator Joe Lieberman in the Wall Street Journal on the ails of the Democratic Party.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
What ever happened to the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy?
What ever happened to the party whose philosophy was:
"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Harry Truman
"pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom." John F Kennedy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121132806884008847.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
What ever happened to the Democratic Party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy?
What ever happened to the party whose philosophy was:
"it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Harry Truman
"pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom." John F Kennedy
Monday, May 19, 2008
The End of Democracy?
Here is an interesting thought to ponder, right now Barack Obama has 1610 pledged delegates and Hilary Clinton has 1443 and the DNC requires 2025 delegates for a candidate to win the nomination. Left on the table are the following states, 5/20 Kentucky (51) and Oregon (52), 6/01 Puerto Rico (55), 6/03 South Dakota (15) and Montana (16). Which according to my calculations means there are only 189 voter delegates left, it's not going to happen, but giving all the delegates to either of the candidates results in: Obama 1799 or Clinton 1632, both short of the 2025 required to win the nomination.
What does this all mean? What it means is that the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States will be determined by some combination of the 795 super-delegates created by the party. That means that the Democratic nominee will be chosen by 19 Distinguished Party Leaders, 31 Democratic Governors, 48 Members of the Senate, 223 Members of the House, 398 Democratic National Committee members, and the 76 unpledged add-ons (usually party state chairs, etc).
The problem in this entire scenario is that the super-delegates, created by the party, are unpledged... meaning they may vote their conscience and do not have to follow the will of the people. The problem is that the people get 3253 and the party gets 795, that works out to approximately a 75/25 percent split, so 795 people get 25 percent of the say in who the next presidential party candidate is. Not exactly what I think our founding fathers intended when they established this Federal Republic of ours.
What is the worst case scenario here? Obama gets the popular vote and Clinton gets the nomination (Don't think it can't happen... the Clinton's have a lot of friends in the DNC, and simply because an unpledged delgate declares for a candidate doesn't mean they have to vote for them come convention time). As of right now Obama has 303 and Clinton has 278 'pledged' super-delegates. All this comes down to is a very interesting convention this August in Denver.
It means, that no matter what, the Democratic nominee is going to be the result of back-door political politics, decided not by the people but by party officials.
Only time shall tell where we go from there.
~Finntann~
What does this all mean? What it means is that the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States will be determined by some combination of the 795 super-delegates created by the party. That means that the Democratic nominee will be chosen by 19 Distinguished Party Leaders, 31 Democratic Governors, 48 Members of the Senate, 223 Members of the House, 398 Democratic National Committee members, and the 76 unpledged add-ons (usually party state chairs, etc).
The problem in this entire scenario is that the super-delegates, created by the party, are unpledged... meaning they may vote their conscience and do not have to follow the will of the people. The problem is that the people get 3253 and the party gets 795, that works out to approximately a 75/25 percent split, so 795 people get 25 percent of the say in who the next presidential party candidate is. Not exactly what I think our founding fathers intended when they established this Federal Republic of ours.
What is the worst case scenario here? Obama gets the popular vote and Clinton gets the nomination (Don't think it can't happen... the Clinton's have a lot of friends in the DNC, and simply because an unpledged delgate declares for a candidate doesn't mean they have to vote for them come convention time). As of right now Obama has 303 and Clinton has 278 'pledged' super-delegates. All this comes down to is a very interesting convention this August in Denver.
It means, that no matter what, the Democratic nominee is going to be the result of back-door political politics, decided not by the people but by party officials.
Only time shall tell where we go from there.
~Finntann~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
