Seems to me there are two extraordinarily different ways to read this headline:
U.S. Supreme Court upholds federal statute prohibiting child porn solicitation and offers to provide it
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Guns, Again
Just came across a really good, common sense, plain english example that obliterates the arguments of those that say the Heller decision doesn't make sense because it allows regulation of firearms while allowing their possession. This is from a column written by Andrew Langer, President of the Institute for Liberty. Enjoy:
When one puts the 2nd Amendment into the context of the 9th and 10th Amendments, it made the “militias-only” justification for limited the 2nd Amendment’s scope a tenuous and twisted one, facially nonsensical. The founders were clearly saying that one reason for preventing Congress from interfering in the right to keep and bear arms was to ensure the effectiveness of militias. But that was only one of innumerable reasons for doing so. That’s made clear from the 9th and 10th Amendments. You have a right to engage in whatever lawful activity you want with your firearm—from defending yourself, to hunting, to target-shooting, to whatever.
That’s the ultimate limitation, incidentally—the lawfulness of the activity. All just law is created out of the intersection between exercises of individual rights. I have a right to swing my arms around. I do not have a right to hit you with them. You have a right to hold up your arm to block my arm should it be swinging towards you. I do not have a right to prevent you from doing so. Should I hit you, there are laws that you can use to remedy your grievances against me.
The same holds true with firearms. I have a right to own one and to use it. I do not have a right to shoot you with it. I do not have a right to use it in a manner which will endanger you or your property. I do not even have a right to threaten you with it. All of those uses would violate your rights, and therefore laws protecting you from those infringements on your rights are perfectly constitutional.
It's A Real Honor
So have you seen this group that wants to rename San Francisco's Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Plant the George W. Bush Memorial Wastewater Treatment Plant?
That is SO awesome, dude.
Let me tell you, if I were Bush I would be begging to be there at the dedication to give a short speech. It might go something like this...
That is SO awesome, dude.
Let me tell you, if I were Bush I would be begging to be there at the dedication to give a short speech. It might go something like this...
I want to thank everyone here today for this humbling honor, especially those of you that really pushed to make it happen. I cannot begin to tell you what it means to me to know that this plant, this symbol of American technology and environmental protection, will bear my name as it cleans up after San Francisco for years to come! Year after year, George W. Bush here will be continuing to clean up the filth, sewage, and septic contamination that seeps from San Francisco every day of the year.
It brings a joyous smile to my weary face to know that I'll be long retired to my ranch, out of the public eye and enjoying private life, while here in San Francisco, for years and years and years, people will still be remembering me and using my name. Good old George here will just keep on chugging, taking all the raw waste of society flowing here under every street in San Francisco and making it safe for the rest of the world.
This is just such an honor. I hope the George here operates for a hundred years because I will rest easy in my old age knowing that somewhere out there George Bush is still looking out for the world and protecting it from the filth, excrement, and disgusting foulness produced by San Francisco! Flush away, San Francisco! Flush away! George W. Bush is on the case! Thank you!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Democrats And Church Campaigning
Play 'connect the dots' with me!
* Democrats/Liberals are often found screaming about THE INDESTRUCTIBLE WALL OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!! One of the things absolutely verboten is any mention of campaigning in a church.
* The Senate's most liberal member recently gave what is being touted as ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT SPEECH HOPE CHANGE HOPE HOPE CHANGE HOPE!!!! about the responsibility of "black fathers".
* This VERY IMPORTANT HOPE CHANGE CHANGE HOPEY HOPE CHANGEY CHANGE HOPEITUDE SPEECH that was reported all over the news, clearly as part of this Senator's campaign? Delivered in a church.
Need a pencil? Or is this one of those puzzles so easy you can connect the dots mentally? CHANGE THE HOPE AND HOPE THAT THE CHANGE HOPES TO CHANGE HOPE THAT HOPES IT'S CHANGE YOU CAN CHANGE THE HOPE THAT HOPES IT'S CHANGING ALL OF US!
* Democrats/Liberals are often found screaming about THE INDESTRUCTIBLE WALL OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!! One of the things absolutely verboten is any mention of campaigning in a church.
* The Senate's most liberal member recently gave what is being touted as ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT SPEECH HOPE CHANGE HOPE HOPE CHANGE HOPE!!!! about the responsibility of "black fathers".
* This VERY IMPORTANT HOPE CHANGE CHANGE HOPEY HOPE CHANGEY CHANGE HOPEITUDE SPEECH that was reported all over the news, clearly as part of this Senator's campaign? Delivered in a church.
Need a pencil? Or is this one of those puzzles so easy you can connect the dots mentally? CHANGE THE HOPE AND HOPE THAT THE CHANGE HOPES TO CHANGE HOPE THAT HOPES IT'S CHANGE YOU CAN CHANGE THE HOPE THAT HOPES IT'S CHANGING ALL OF US!
Media Bias In The 2008 Election
Today's example - headlines chosen for highlighting on web portals.
Obama?
'Obama vows to never attack anyone's patriotism'
Awwww...ain't he great....pssst! Have you heard that those pathetic conservatives have been calling him 'unpatriotic' non-stop??!!
McCain?
'McCain critics on left and right attack military record'
Yup, everybody hates this POW faker.
Obama?
'Obama vows to never attack anyone's patriotism'
Awwww...ain't he great....pssst! Have you heard that those pathetic conservatives have been calling him 'unpatriotic' non-stop??!!
McCain?
'McCain critics on left and right attack military record'
Yup, everybody hates this POW faker.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
If You Don't Even Bother To Read It
You probably already have, and will again, see people tearing their hair out over Justice Scalia's majority opinion re: the 2nd Amendment. Most of these people have not read the opinion because they outright claim that it says things that it does not say and say that it is missing items that are present.
A prime example are the people that ignorantly claim that the majority and Justice Scalia find the prefatory clause "A well regulated militia..." meaningless and could happily rewrite the 2nd without it.
This is, in a word, bullshit.
Justice Scalia argues strenuously that the prefatory clause is meaningfully tied to the operative clause of the Amendment. He, in fact, argues that leaving off the preface would mean that the 2nd Amendment was included for no reason whatsoever, since, at the time, everybody already had guns for self-defense and hunting and nobody really considered that the government would disarm people over this. The whole reason for the 2nd Amendment was the prevention of tyranny with a militia made up of the people, outside the reach of the army created by Congress. If you just said 'everyone can have guns' it wouldn't have made sense in the 18th century...might as well have put in a few more amendments about people being allowed to grow crops and eat them, allowed to walk on streets, live in a house they built, etc. Instead, to appease those that feared the new government would be no better than British tyranny, they included the 2nd, which forever entitles the people to form a militia...and, of course, to do that they need guns. The first step to squashing a militia is to forbid the people to have guns in the first place. That, I'm afraid to break to some people, is simply logic. The preface is INTRINSIC to the 2nd...not disposable. Anyone that argues that it is disposable to the majority have not read the opinion and can be relatively safely ignored. Instead, what you will find by a thorough reading, is that it is the minority who argue that the preface is the be all and end all and the operative clause (that clearly and unequivocally states the right of the people (not just the men of the right age) to bear arms) is the portion that can be safely thrown away, since, to them, the 2nd Amendment merely says, 'A militia is necessary to secure a free state, so the people can join the government's militia.' This is, of course, nonsensical.
I find it neatly summed here:
Within this discussion you will find another unequivocal statement about the intrinsic purpose of the 2nd Amendment:
Scalia goes on to explain why Miller bolsters the case for the majority, not the minority...making those that have not read his opinion look even worse. Be smarter than your opponent and know these facts before calling out your liberal coworkers and friends, gently point them to the evidence and have them read it and explain how it could mean anything else. It's Ok to laugh.
And I'm not done obliterating the nonsense in our local papers recently on this...more to come. And, yes, the Times Union deserves an 'attaboy' for their measured, rational take on the decision in their editorial the day after the opinion came out.
A prime example are the people that ignorantly claim that the majority and Justice Scalia find the prefatory clause "A well regulated militia..." meaningless and could happily rewrite the 2nd without it.
This is, in a word, bullshit.
Justice Scalia argues strenuously that the prefatory clause is meaningfully tied to the operative clause of the Amendment. He, in fact, argues that leaving off the preface would mean that the 2nd Amendment was included for no reason whatsoever, since, at the time, everybody already had guns for self-defense and hunting and nobody really considered that the government would disarm people over this. The whole reason for the 2nd Amendment was the prevention of tyranny with a militia made up of the people, outside the reach of the army created by Congress. If you just said 'everyone can have guns' it wouldn't have made sense in the 18th century...might as well have put in a few more amendments about people being allowed to grow crops and eat them, allowed to walk on streets, live in a house they built, etc. Instead, to appease those that feared the new government would be no better than British tyranny, they included the 2nd, which forever entitles the people to form a militia...and, of course, to do that they need guns. The first step to squashing a militia is to forbid the people to have guns in the first place. That, I'm afraid to break to some people, is simply logic. The preface is INTRINSIC to the 2nd...not disposable. Anyone that argues that it is disposable to the majority have not read the opinion and can be relatively safely ignored. Instead, what you will find by a thorough reading, is that it is the minority who argue that the preface is the be all and end all and the operative clause (that clearly and unequivocally states the right of the people (not just the men of the right age) to bear arms) is the portion that can be safely thrown away, since, to them, the 2nd Amendment merely says, 'A militia is necessary to secure a free state, so the people can join the government's militia.' This is, of course, nonsensical.
I find it neatly summed here:
Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897), petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee— it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force. That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521–525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.The next ludicrous argument you will hear is that 'we've gotten along fine for 70 years until those damned activist conservatives decided to reverse the precedent we've had all along'. This is also crap, as Justice Scalia shows, beginning on page 47 of the majority opinion. The magical 70 year old "precedent" that the left holds so dear is Miller from 1939. Anyone that continues to argue this has NOT read the opinion and Scalia's comments on Miller. Justice Scalia rather rudely writes, of Miller:
And what is, according to JUSTICE STEVENS, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.” Post, at 2. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that.As Scalia explains, Miller clearly and explicitly states that it is applicable to the TYPE of firearm in question:
Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”This isn't rocket science if you just read it. Miller says that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect any right to bear an arm that is not typical of what is required to preserve a citizen's militia. A sawed off shotgun is not, Miller tells us, to be considered the same as a handgun or hunting rifle. Scalia goes on to explain and demonstrate that, far from the 2nd Amendment-clarifying epitome of legal discourse claimed by a minority, Miller decided nothing more about the 2nd Amendment than that it's protection did not apply to atypical weapons like sawed off shotguns and, presumably, bazookas, fully automatic rifles, etc. It does not pursue any more about the Amendment itself. As Scalia notes, if the case were merely about military vs. nonmilitary (milia vs. individual) ownership, as the minority argues, then why discuss the type of weapon and the fact that it is not covered? It would have sufficed, more than sufficed, to simply state 'these guys aren't in the military and can't have a gun'. Correct?
Within this discussion you will find another unequivocal statement about the intrinsic purpose of the 2nd Amendment:
It assumes from the prologue that the Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307 U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute)...Don't let anyone tell you that the majority finds that the 2nd is NOT about a militia. The only real axis about which this argument spins, when you strip away all else, is if the founders meant the 2nd to refer to a citizen's militia to protect them from the government, or the government's militia...in which case there would be nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights addressing the concerns of those that feared what happened in England and then in the colonies, that the government would become a tyrant and oppress the people.
Scalia goes on to explain why Miller bolsters the case for the majority, not the minority...making those that have not read his opinion look even worse. Be smarter than your opponent and know these facts before calling out your liberal coworkers and friends, gently point them to the evidence and have them read it and explain how it could mean anything else. It's Ok to laugh.
And I'm not done obliterating the nonsense in our local papers recently on this...more to come. And, yes, the Times Union deserves an 'attaboy' for their measured, rational take on the decision in their editorial the day after the opinion came out.
Times Union Violations Of Own Policies
8/21/07 - BOB BLACKMON Troy
"That is good news, if it is true. But is it true, or is it just another in a long series of Bush administration spins, distortions and outright lies?"
Letters that contain accusations...are not acceptable. This an accusation presented without evidence.
"So, the surge is working, is it?"
It certainly is.
=
8/29/07 - BILL JENSEN Voorheesville
"President Bush is right to raise the frightening specter of another Vietnam outcome if we pull out of Iraq. As in Vietnam, the Iraqis might -- God forbid -- eventually settle their issues and end up with a stable form of self-governance of their own choice."
Was that before, or after, the communists slaughtered millions of innocent people? Presumably such a path to a "stable" government is acceptable to Mr. Jensen?
=
8/29/07 - GALEN WILCOX Averill Park
"We lost the Vietnam War because we finally realized the war was unwinnable, and all we were doing there was killing, dying and destroying for nothing."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. Editing for accuracy would require the editing or removal of this statement. Evidence presented since the end of the Vietnam War clearly indicates that the United States was winning this war, acknowledged by the North Vietnamese, who said they were merely trying to hang on long enough for the war to be won for them by the press and protesters in the United States. These are facts on the record. The millions killed by the communists after we fled also probably do not think we were doing "nothing" there.
=
8/30/07 - DAVID SLATTERY Albany
"Apparently, Mr. Tolmie missed the news about Bush's approval of allowing wiretaps on American citizens without first obtaining a warrant."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. True adherence to this policy would require editing this passage to honestly note that wiretapping was only done on international calls with terrorists and suspected terrorists.
=
9/3/07 - JOHN AMIDON Veterans For Peace Tom Paine Chapter Albany
"One thing can be certain considering all of this word's usages: George W. Bush certainly has pimped his war. The "mission accomplished" speech particularly comes to mind with the President standing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. What irony! And certainly no one can argue about the new found wealth his family and friends have found. Yes, truly they have "made a killing."
This commander in chief may have given us the pimp presidency, but America should never have become his whore."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. This letter was clearly not edited for either taste or accuracy given the language and the erroneous reference to the 'mission accomplished' speech. Bear in mind that that speech was partially intended to thank the USS Abraham Lincoln's sailors for the mission they accomplished in the middle east. Paine instead finds it some sort of 'pimping', disparaging the service of our sailors in the process. Clearly unedited for taste.
Letters that contain accusations...are not acceptable. War profiteering accusations are clearly made in this letter, unaccompanied by any evidence (nor is there any in the public domain that I have seen).
=
9/4/07 - WILLIAM M. GAUL Albany (who seems to have a standing offer of a letter published whenever he wishes, even though they nearly always violate policies)
"Who is the president who has been spying on Americans -- to an undisclosed degree -- without any oversight other than that of an attorney general who is busy dismantling the Constitution as I type?"
Letters that contain accusations...are not acceptable. Evidence for this accusation?
"So, I'm wondering, Mr. Tolmie: What satellite are you living on, and is it owned by Rupert Murdoch?"
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy.
Letters that contain accusations...are not acceptable.
This remark is both tasteless and an indirect accusation. It is, of course, printed without edit.
=
9/6/07 - ANITA McKAY Waterford
"Military solutions simply do not work these days"
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. If you want to argue that this is opinion, you can try, however this statement is inaccurate. A military solution removed the Taliban from Afghanistan and removed Saddam from Kuwait and then Baghdad when no other solution succeeded. These are evidence of military solutions that 'worked'.
"since our unprovoked attack on Iraq"
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. This is demonstrably inaccurate. Just ask any of the Representatives and Senators that voted for the AUMF. It should not have been printed.
"As most of us now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction, etc."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. This lie should be easily caught by the Times Union's editors by now and not published in direct violation of their own policies regarding accuracy.
=
9/6/07 - NEZIH PALA, Ph.D. Vice President New York Dialogue Foundation Troy
"In this hideous cartoon, a woman with Islamic attire (with a head scarf) is referred to as "A Muslim fundamentalist" and "radical Islamist." Such a defamation of religiously observant Muslim women is not only a clear violation of the ethics of journalism, but also a crime against very basic human rights and the very fundamentals of our Constitution."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. When last I checked, "our Constitution" guaranteed freedom of speech, including cartoons mocking radical islamists. This letter was not edited for accuracy - Mr. Pala is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts, and the fact is that it is not a crime to exercise free speech in the United States.
=
9/8/07 - RONALD LADOUCEUR Niskayuna
"I am offended that the propagandists at the Pentagon and in the press are willing to classify these deaths as statistically insignificant simply to shore up a story."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. It is not accurate to state that these deaths were relegated to a "statistically insignificant" status, they simply did not list non-combat deaths as combat deaths in order to compare combat deaths. This error in logic and reality should not have been printed if it was to remain within the boundaries of the Times Union's stated policies.
=
9/10/07 - WILLIAM PELTZ Albany
"The latest noises from our Fearless Leader sound too much like the case he made for attacking Iraq. Reports are circulating that there will soon be a massive PR campaign for massive air strikes against more than a thousand Iranian targets."
This was 9 1/2 months ago, William. How's the Nostradamus business?
=
9/11/07 - ED BLOCH Latham
"...one of the basic premises President Bush invoked to justify the original tragic invasion -- namely that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were closely linked to Saddam Hussein's Baathist government."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. Where is the adherence to an accuracy policy, Times Union? Can you point us to where President Bush made this 'basic premise' claim? I can find no such evidence, nor can any liberal detractor in the past 5+ years, try though they may. The Democrats have held hundreds of hearings trying to prove this since last January, completely failing in the process. This is a blatant violation of Times Union policies.
=
9/13/07 - MARY E. RAPPAZZO, M.D. Prime Care Physicians Albany
"The issue of 49 million Americans being uninsured coupled with primary care physicians leaving practice because of the paperwork burden..."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. There are not 49 million uninsured Americans, let alone 49 million Americans unwillingly uninsured. This has been discredited many times over.
=
9/15/07 - JACK MAYER Albany
"Most politicians, talk show hosts and average citizens would say "no" to a $20,000 bonus/bribe to fight in Iraq. They would balance the money against the dangers of combat: death, horrendous injury (see the book "Purple Hearts: Back from Iraq" by Nina Berman), high suicide rate, post-traumatic stress syndrome, separation from family, etc. However, 3,814 recruits did take the bonus/bribe."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. It is undoubtedly without taste to call our men and women in the military mercenaries and it is inaccurate to cite a "high suicide rate" when military suicide rates lag those of the general population.
"A draft gives everyone an equal risk of going into combat. We become, therefore, a more active and involved citizenry. Only when all families are affected will we strongly demand that war be the last and only option."
We spent more than a decade trying to disarm Iraq by other means. Our invasion can only be described as "the last and only option" left.
=
9/15/07 - IRMA KOPPEL WEINBERG Delmar
"With 14 percent of New Yorkers unemployed, with 47 million Americans without health insurance, it's time for our government to provide health insurance for all families unable to pay for it themselves."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. Again, it is inaccurate to state that there are 47 million Americans that are "unable to pay for [insurance] themselves." This is off by many millions.
=
To Be Continued
"That is good news, if it is true. But is it true, or is it just another in a long series of Bush administration spins, distortions and outright lies?"
Letters that contain accusations...are not acceptable. This an accusation presented without evidence.
"So, the surge is working, is it?"
It certainly is.
=
8/29/07 - BILL JENSEN Voorheesville
"President Bush is right to raise the frightening specter of another Vietnam outcome if we pull out of Iraq. As in Vietnam, the Iraqis might -- God forbid -- eventually settle their issues and end up with a stable form of self-governance of their own choice."
Was that before, or after, the communists slaughtered millions of innocent people? Presumably such a path to a "stable" government is acceptable to Mr. Jensen?
=
8/29/07 - GALEN WILCOX Averill Park
"We lost the Vietnam War because we finally realized the war was unwinnable, and all we were doing there was killing, dying and destroying for nothing."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. Editing for accuracy would require the editing or removal of this statement. Evidence presented since the end of the Vietnam War clearly indicates that the United States was winning this war, acknowledged by the North Vietnamese, who said they were merely trying to hang on long enough for the war to be won for them by the press and protesters in the United States. These are facts on the record. The millions killed by the communists after we fled also probably do not think we were doing "nothing" there.
=
8/30/07 - DAVID SLATTERY Albany
"Apparently, Mr. Tolmie missed the news about Bush's approval of allowing wiretaps on American citizens without first obtaining a warrant."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. True adherence to this policy would require editing this passage to honestly note that wiretapping was only done on international calls with terrorists and suspected terrorists.
=
9/3/07 - JOHN AMIDON Veterans For Peace Tom Paine Chapter Albany
"One thing can be certain considering all of this word's usages: George W. Bush certainly has pimped his war. The "mission accomplished" speech particularly comes to mind with the President standing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. What irony! And certainly no one can argue about the new found wealth his family and friends have found. Yes, truly they have "made a killing."
This commander in chief may have given us the pimp presidency, but America should never have become his whore."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. This letter was clearly not edited for either taste or accuracy given the language and the erroneous reference to the 'mission accomplished' speech. Bear in mind that that speech was partially intended to thank the USS Abraham Lincoln's sailors for the mission they accomplished in the middle east. Paine instead finds it some sort of 'pimping', disparaging the service of our sailors in the process. Clearly unedited for taste.
Letters that contain accusations...are not acceptable. War profiteering accusations are clearly made in this letter, unaccompanied by any evidence (nor is there any in the public domain that I have seen).
=
9/4/07 - WILLIAM M. GAUL Albany (who seems to have a standing offer of a letter published whenever he wishes, even though they nearly always violate policies)
"Who is the president who has been spying on Americans -- to an undisclosed degree -- without any oversight other than that of an attorney general who is busy dismantling the Constitution as I type?"
Letters that contain accusations...are not acceptable. Evidence for this accusation?
"So, I'm wondering, Mr. Tolmie: What satellite are you living on, and is it owned by Rupert Murdoch?"
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy.
Letters that contain accusations...are not acceptable.
This remark is both tasteless and an indirect accusation. It is, of course, printed without edit.
=
9/6/07 - ANITA McKAY Waterford
"Military solutions simply do not work these days"
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. If you want to argue that this is opinion, you can try, however this statement is inaccurate. A military solution removed the Taliban from Afghanistan and removed Saddam from Kuwait and then Baghdad when no other solution succeeded. These are evidence of military solutions that 'worked'.
"since our unprovoked attack on Iraq"
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. This is demonstrably inaccurate. Just ask any of the Representatives and Senators that voted for the AUMF. It should not have been printed.
"As most of us now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction, etc."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. This lie should be easily caught by the Times Union's editors by now and not published in direct violation of their own policies regarding accuracy.
=
9/6/07 - NEZIH PALA, Ph.D. Vice President New York Dialogue Foundation Troy
"In this hideous cartoon, a woman with Islamic attire (with a head scarf) is referred to as "A Muslim fundamentalist" and "radical Islamist." Such a defamation of religiously observant Muslim women is not only a clear violation of the ethics of journalism, but also a crime against very basic human rights and the very fundamentals of our Constitution."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. When last I checked, "our Constitution" guaranteed freedom of speech, including cartoons mocking radical islamists. This letter was not edited for accuracy - Mr. Pala is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts, and the fact is that it is not a crime to exercise free speech in the United States.
=
9/8/07 - RONALD LADOUCEUR Niskayuna
"I am offended that the propagandists at the Pentagon and in the press are willing to classify these deaths as statistically insignificant simply to shore up a story."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. It is not accurate to state that these deaths were relegated to a "statistically insignificant" status, they simply did not list non-combat deaths as combat deaths in order to compare combat deaths. This error in logic and reality should not have been printed if it was to remain within the boundaries of the Times Union's stated policies.
=
9/10/07 - WILLIAM PELTZ Albany
"The latest noises from our Fearless Leader sound too much like the case he made for attacking Iraq. Reports are circulating that there will soon be a massive PR campaign for massive air strikes against more than a thousand Iranian targets."
This was 9 1/2 months ago, William. How's the Nostradamus business?
=
9/11/07 - ED BLOCH Latham
"...one of the basic premises President Bush invoked to justify the original tragic invasion -- namely that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were closely linked to Saddam Hussein's Baathist government."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. Where is the adherence to an accuracy policy, Times Union? Can you point us to where President Bush made this 'basic premise' claim? I can find no such evidence, nor can any liberal detractor in the past 5+ years, try though they may. The Democrats have held hundreds of hearings trying to prove this since last January, completely failing in the process. This is a blatant violation of Times Union policies.
=
9/13/07 - MARY E. RAPPAZZO, M.D. Prime Care Physicians Albany
"The issue of 49 million Americans being uninsured coupled with primary care physicians leaving practice because of the paperwork burden..."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. There are not 49 million uninsured Americans, let alone 49 million Americans unwillingly uninsured. This has been discredited many times over.
=
9/15/07 - JACK MAYER Albany
"Most politicians, talk show hosts and average citizens would say "no" to a $20,000 bonus/bribe to fight in Iraq. They would balance the money against the dangers of combat: death, horrendous injury (see the book "Purple Hearts: Back from Iraq" by Nina Berman), high suicide rate, post-traumatic stress syndrome, separation from family, etc. However, 3,814 recruits did take the bonus/bribe."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. It is undoubtedly without taste to call our men and women in the military mercenaries and it is inaccurate to cite a "high suicide rate" when military suicide rates lag those of the general population.
"A draft gives everyone an equal risk of going into combat. We become, therefore, a more active and involved citizenry. Only when all families are affected will we strongly demand that war be the last and only option."
We spent more than a decade trying to disarm Iraq by other means. Our invasion can only be described as "the last and only option" left.
=
9/15/07 - IRMA KOPPEL WEINBERG Delmar
"With 14 percent of New Yorkers unemployed, with 47 million Americans without health insurance, it's time for our government to provide health insurance for all families unable to pay for it themselves."
All letters to the Times Union are subject to editing for length, taste and accuracy. Again, it is inaccurate to state that there are 47 million Americans that are "unable to pay for [insurance] themselves." This is off by many millions.
=
To Be Continued
Read 'em And Weep
Another political book review, another Bush bashing book reviewed (Sunday Times Union).
Ho hum.
Ho hum.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Twistin' Twistin' In The Wind
Pop on over to Hot Air where you'll see a side-by-side comparison of Obama in videos from February and then this week.
This week he claims he has "consistently" said that the 2nd Amendment affirms the individual right to bear arms because 'hey, I teach Constitutional law!' and the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. Of course the video from an interview in February has Obama saying that he supports the DC gun ban and that he thinks it is constitutional.
Way to go, slick. Talk to your buddy Algore about this internet thing he invented.
This week he claims he has "consistently" said that the 2nd Amendment affirms the individual right to bear arms because 'hey, I teach Constitutional law!' and the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. Of course the video from an interview in February has Obama saying that he supports the DC gun ban and that he thinks it is constitutional.
Way to go, slick. Talk to your buddy Algore about this internet thing he invented.
Friday, June 27, 2008
What About Those Land Leases?
The next time someone whips out the erroneous 'BIGOIL isn't drilling on the land they ALREADY lease!' argument, keep this in mind:
And finally, Pelosi on Thursday blasted Republicans for blocking a "Use It or Lose It" bill that would force oil companies to start drilling on 68 million acres of leased but undeveloped federal lands. Democrats have accused the oil companies of "warehousing" the leases.Basically the argument goes like this (you see it all the time, at least on FoxNews where they have both sides of a debate on to discuss something, as opposed to other sources that will have on two people that both agree with the host) - the liberal will whine about BIGOIL wanting more places to drill when they're not drilling on the land they already lease. The representative or backer of BIGOIL will point out that the leased land doesn't necessarily contain any viable oil reserves - or any oil AT ALL, since they generally don't know if there is oil there until they get a lease and can test drill it. They want access to the areas that the government has ALREADY tested and KNOWS that there are large reserves of reachable oil. The liberal then ignores this argument and says something about greed and possibly calls the other person a liar and, if they don't work directly for an oil company, will call them a paid shill for BIGOIL (not necessarily in so many words).
Republicans blocked passage of the 'Use it or Lose it' legislation, and Pelosi pounced: "Once again, Republicans voted with President Bush and Big Oil to keep domestic supply lower and prices higher," the house speaker commented.
In fact, Republicans for weeks have been blasting Democrats for refusing to boost the oil supply through expanded domestic drilling.
House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) noted that 19 Democrats joined 176 Republicans in defeating "Use It or Lose It." He called the bill an effort by Democratic leaders to create the impression they're working to reduce the price of gasoline -- while actually making it more difficult for to produce American energy for American consumers.
"Fully aware that their 'Use It or Lose It' bill had been thoroughly discredited by independent geologists, outside experts, and even members of their own caucus, Democratic leaders brought forth this bill anyway today knowing it had no chance of earning passage," Blunt said. "And while they may think that's an appropriate use of floor time before leaving for recess, I don't know that the millions of American families struggling to make ends meet in a world of $140 oil would agree."
Republicans note that "Use It or Lose It" already is the law of the land. If an oil company does not produce oil within the lease term, it must give the lease back to the government, and the company does not recover the billions of dollars it may have invested, the American Petroleum Institute says.
Blunt is backing a bill introduced by Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) that would expedite the permitting and approval process for energy exploration on leased federal lands.
"The Fallin plan would immediately add new energy supply to the pipeline, and trigger an immediate price reduction at the pump," Blunt said. "Unfortunately for the American people, today we wasted valuable floor time on the (Democrats' plan) instead of working together in a serious way to pass (Fallin's plan)."
2008 Campaign Ads
Well, it's about time for the ads to start flying, in fact they already have. You know the drill, the Democrat will run ads of HOPE! and CHANGE! and light sweet nectar of deliverance. The Republicans will trample a path to the gutter and birth foul, twisted, hateful and racist smears from their coordinated nationwide campaign headquarters deep in a bunker 'neath the Rockies like uruk hai born full-formed and covered with filth from the blackened womb below Orthanc.
Or something like that.
I'll try to keep track of the more popular ones so we can keep a tenuous hold on reality.
1. ANTI-OBAMA, produced by North Carolina GOP, ad calls Obama "too extreme" for NC, showing clips of Rev. Wright, McCain and media denounce ad. Verdict: Vicious, but factual (Obama chose to follow Wright for the past 20 years and sit in his church pew).
2. ANTI-MCCAIN, produced by MorOn.org, ad has a mother saying McCain can't make her baby fight in Iraq, media split as some praise and some call foul. Verdict: Slimy, nonsensical, and based upon a verifiable lie (McCain only said it would be OK to stay in Iraq for "100 years" the way we are in Germany and Japan - as a stabilizing force 'not taking casualties').
3. ANTI-MCCAIN, produced by Brave New Films, ad shows a woman at a "McCain Health Clinic" who finds that contraception has been banned, no reaction that I am aware of. Verdict: Slimy and based upon a verifiable lie (McCain voted against requiring insurers to cover birth control, not against banning contraceptives).
4. ANTI-MCCAIN, produced by Synthetic Human Pictures, this popular 'Why I'm Voting Republican' is perhaps the most bigoted collection of hateful ignorance imaginable in this day and age, mildly covered by conservative commentators, ignored otherwise. Verdict: About as filthy as you can get, showing where bigotry truly lies in 2008.
Or something like that.
I'll try to keep track of the more popular ones so we can keep a tenuous hold on reality.
1. ANTI-OBAMA, produced by North Carolina GOP, ad calls Obama "too extreme" for NC, showing clips of Rev. Wright, McCain and media denounce ad. Verdict: Vicious, but factual (Obama chose to follow Wright for the past 20 years and sit in his church pew).
2. ANTI-MCCAIN, produced by MorOn.org, ad has a mother saying McCain can't make her baby fight in Iraq, media split as some praise and some call foul. Verdict: Slimy, nonsensical, and based upon a verifiable lie (McCain only said it would be OK to stay in Iraq for "100 years" the way we are in Germany and Japan - as a stabilizing force 'not taking casualties').
3. ANTI-MCCAIN, produced by Brave New Films, ad shows a woman at a "McCain Health Clinic" who finds that contraception has been banned, no reaction that I am aware of. Verdict: Slimy and based upon a verifiable lie (McCain voted against requiring insurers to cover birth control, not against banning contraceptives).
4. ANTI-MCCAIN, produced by Synthetic Human Pictures, this popular 'Why I'm Voting Republican' is perhaps the most bigoted collection of hateful ignorance imaginable in this day and age, mildly covered by conservative commentators, ignored otherwise. Verdict: About as filthy as you can get, showing where bigotry truly lies in 2008.
Pre-Emptive Smears
How many posts have I already gotten out of Obama's pre-emptive smear tactics? A lot for sure. It gets worse - turns out if you go to his anti-smear website and sign up you will get...well, just read:
Try this exercise. Sign up for Fight the Smears electronic "Action Wire" alerts, and you receive this message from Obama's fundraisers: "Now take the next step and make a donation to help push back on the petty and divisive methods of our opponents."HA! Are you kidding me? If you sign up on Obama's 'anti-smear' website you will be emailed a smear against Republicans. Hope! Change!! Hope Change New Age Messiah!!!
So much for not demonizing the opponents.
"Free Speech Zones" And Other Nonsense
I saw something interesting today - someone speaking about Chicago's gun ban said that yesterday's SCOTUS ruling clearly didn't apply to states or municipalities because it was about a DC case and so it was only about federal law.
Really?
And this idiot's blithering insanity was worth citing in a newspaper?
Does this moron believe that the Constitution does not apply in Chicago? Does this mean Detroit can ban free speech? Boston can do away with trial by jury? San Francisco can order troops to be quartered in private homes (ha!)? Miami can shut down the press if it chooses?
Do any of those things sound reasonable to you? Of course not. You're not an idiot. And you're not a Chicago politician. Did I repeat myself?
The Supreme Court has found that the 2nd Amendment means you are entitled, with reasonable restrictions, to have a firearm for self defense, hunting, professionally, and, consequently, to join a militia for when the government tries to take away your right of trial by jury, freedom of the press, etc.
The 14th Amendment reads, in part: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
My admittedly limited understanding of the deepest depths of Constitutional law tells me that the 14th Amendment bestows the US Constitutional rights unto the citizens of each state...even Illinois...and even Chicago.
This is why, for example, Universities routinely lose in court when they set up 'free speech zones' which are the only places on campus students are allowed free speech (where they're supposed to protest, etc.). Each and every time the judge says 'YOU CAN'T DO THAT'. The 14th Amendment puts the Constitution into effect in all 50 states (a handful more if you support the New Age Messiah for president).
Anyway, these people that think they can keep their bans after DC's was struck down are nuts - you don't see Louisiana telling the Supreme Court to stick Wednesday's ruling in their ear because the ban on cruel and unusual punishment doesn't apply in their state.
Really?
And this idiot's blithering insanity was worth citing in a newspaper?
Does this moron believe that the Constitution does not apply in Chicago? Does this mean Detroit can ban free speech? Boston can do away with trial by jury? San Francisco can order troops to be quartered in private homes (ha!)? Miami can shut down the press if it chooses?
Do any of those things sound reasonable to you? Of course not. You're not an idiot. And you're not a Chicago politician. Did I repeat myself?
The Supreme Court has found that the 2nd Amendment means you are entitled, with reasonable restrictions, to have a firearm for self defense, hunting, professionally, and, consequently, to join a militia for when the government tries to take away your right of trial by jury, freedom of the press, etc.
The 14th Amendment reads, in part: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
My admittedly limited understanding of the deepest depths of Constitutional law tells me that the 14th Amendment bestows the US Constitutional rights unto the citizens of each state...even Illinois...and even Chicago.
This is why, for example, Universities routinely lose in court when they set up 'free speech zones' which are the only places on campus students are allowed free speech (where they're supposed to protest, etc.). Each and every time the judge says 'YOU CAN'T DO THAT'. The 14th Amendment puts the Constitution into effect in all 50 states (a handful more if you support the New Age Messiah for president).
Anyway, these people that think they can keep their bans after DC's was struck down are nuts - you don't see Louisiana telling the Supreme Court to stick Wednesday's ruling in their ear because the ban on cruel and unusual punishment doesn't apply in their state.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
District Of Columbia v. Heller (A Non-Technical Look)
Ok, the opinion pdf is 157 freakin' pages. If you'd rather read it straight, you can get it from the Supreme Court's website (once they post it), or here, which is where I got it.
If you don't want to read any more of this overly long post - here's the gist:
For the record, the 5-4 vote was along the usual lines, you know who voted how. The only surprising thing to me was that Roberts had Scalia write the majority opinion. About the only things I can think of are 1) he already had most of this written and was just waiting for a case to break it out; or 2) Roberts wanted it thorough and focused and by someone more senior than himself or Alito, which ruled out Thomas who is usually left to write 8-1 or 9-0 opinions, and Kennedy probably wasn't even considered for this one. But, then again, what the hell do I know, maybe they played tiddlywinks for it and Scalia won.
This is a biggie, #1, front page: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Bam, away goes the tired argument over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to you if you're in the National Guard (and not otherwise a cop or similar). As I've said before, that argument never made sense to me since pretty much the whole point of the 2nd, when it was written, was for people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government - so it would make no sense for the authors to have meant that it only applied to you if you were part of the tyrannical government. I mean, how does that even make sense? You have the right to defend yourself against the people knocking on your door in the middle of the night, but only if you're one of the knockers. Huh?
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Interesting, key, and clever statement by Scalia here, pointedly rejecting pre-emptively attacks against perceived 'originalist' views of the law. 'Dubious' is a great word, like 'I know people look at it, but, c'mon, we're not relying on it. It's important to remember, when people attack 'originalists' on this, that the attackers will often use an argument that 'there were no machine guns or semi-automatic handguns back then so they couldn't have meant the Amendment to cover them!' which is really just a twisted, incorrect originalist type of argument.
#2, also a biggie: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
So here they're saying that, while this ruling unequivacally states that the 2nd is an individual right, they are NOT invalidating all restrictions on gun ownership, in fact they're not even 'getting into' that part of it. Recall that this case was about DC completely forbidding the ownership of an operable gun at home and that is what they tried to rule on here. So, for "gun nuts", this is NOT a ruling for 'all guns all the time for everybody, everywhere' that some (not me) were hoping for. for the "anti-gun nuts", your reasonable restrictions have not been removed, only your quest for 'no guns for anybody, anywhere, anytime', so don't pretend that this ruling is anything that it is not.
Bit of a rude slapdown here in a footnote: JUSTICE STEVENS is of course correct, post, at 10, that the right to assemble cannot be exercised alone, but it is still an individual right, and not one conditioned upon membership in some defined “assembly,” as he contends the right to bear arms is conditioned upon membership in a defined militia. And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.” Ibid. See McDonald v. Smith, 472 U. S. 479, 482–484 (1985) (describing historical origins of right to petition). You're only supposed to complain if the government does you wrong if there's more than one of you? Huh? I guess we'll get to that.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Heh.
There's a rather (painfully) lengthy review of historical sources as to the meaning of stuff like "bear arms", that seems to boil down to why the majority did NOT take any bizarre 18th century meaning for anything - that basically what it says now reads the same as what it meant then, no more, less.
More slapping: In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding....Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. Ha! "Grotesque"!
...Alice In Wonderland references on 15 and 16...
This is straightforward: There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text
and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Underlined items are emphasized in the original.
I think this is a rather weighty argument, personally: That of the nine state
constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right. The fact that the same people, after having just written or just about to write, the Bill of Rights, went home to their individual states and most of them enshrined an individual right to keep a gun for self defense, is a pretty damning argument against any thought that what they meant to say was that you could only have a gun in a militia for military use. I feel those actions have a lot more bearing than digging out a half dozen books from the mid-1800s analyzing speech patterns of the late 18th century. Again, I think what people do says a lot more than what they say.
JUSTICE STEVENS relies on the drafting history of the Second Amendment—the various proposals in the state conventions and the debates in Congress. It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one. But even assuming that this legislative history is relevant, JUSTICE STEVENS flatly misreads the historical record. Cripes. Hit him again, why don't'cha.
Joseph Story published his famous Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833. JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “[t]here is not so much as a whisper” in Story’s explanation of the Second Amendment that favors the individual-rights view. Post, at 34. That is wrong. Whack. Scalia then cites Story doing the very thing that Stevens denies he ever did. Ouch.
It is demonstrably not true that, as JUSTICE STEVENS claims, post, at 41–42, “for most of our history, the invalidity of Second-Amendment-based objections to firearms regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial.”For most of our history the question did not present itself. I have a magic rock that keeps barracudas out of my bathtub. See? No barracudas. It's working!
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Self-explanatory.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Also self-explanatory.
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
The majority opinion is less than half the full bulk of this opinion. And now we move to the dissents.
Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. Before I even go any further - is it really necessary to even investigate or debate whether or not the founders meant to ban the use of guns for HUNTING? I'm pretty sure hunting isn't part of well-regulated militia activities, folks. If they have to ask themselves that, are they being even remotely objective enough to continue? 'Let's see if we can figure out if the founding fathers meant to make it illegal to own a gun for hunting...they probably did, but let's prove it!'
Then you'll read some crap about Miller that the dissenters didn't have the good sense to erase after Scalia eviscerated their falling back on it.
Then there is this: Our discussion in Lewis was brief but significant. Unfortunately for the dissenters, Scalia points out that the "significant" discussion re: the 2nd Amendment in Lewis was in a FOOTNOTE in a case where the 2nd Amendment was not raised nor argued by any party in the case. Indeed, very "significant". Scalia also demolishes this argument by referring to the particulars of Lewis instead of just calling it out to an unsuspecting public and calling it "significant." I'm beginning to see maybe why Scalia was chosen for this one. The dissenters go on to use this FOOTNOTE in a case NOT ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT as PRECEDENT for banning all firearms.
The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. It's good to know that strawman arguments by liberals aren't limited by education or occupation - liberal Supreme Court Justices do it, too. I lost count of how many times Scalia explicitly states that the ruling has nothing to do with the power of the government to "regulate civilian uses of weapons", but instead to take them away and explicitly notes that the government CAN enforce reasonable restrictions on firearms. I'll note for the record that Scalia's majority opinion also does nothing to advance the case for the abolition of the designated hitter rule or the imposition of a game misconduct penalty for fighting in hockey.
He goes on to complain that this ruling is going to completely overturn the law re: the 2nd Amendment, because of course most places ban firearms (guffaw). If...or should I say IF the majority had struck down any and all regulations or limitations on guns, then this argument would hold merit. Except, as I just noted, the majority EXPLICITLY rejects any suggestion that the government cannot regulate firearms at all. Did I mention it was explicit?
blah blah blah pick and choose pieces of state constitutions whereas Scalia notes the relevant portions of those and places them in context. Somehow they find that some states explicitly allowing guns for individual use means that the federal constitution was meant to ban them. Huh?? 'OK, we've got this finished, guns are banned unless you're in a militia - now go home and write a state constitution that allows them and say hi to the wife for me!' There might be a word for this type of argument, but it's probably just 'nuts'.
blah blah right of the people again shows that some regulation is allowable which, hey, did I mention that the majority EXPLICITLY stated that some regulation is allowable, yet??!!
For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert. An individual is not allowed to 'petition' the government for redress? Oh, I see, they think that "to petition" means to sign petitions, like ones against nuclear power plants. Uh-huh. That makes sense.
Instead, the Court limits the Amendment’s protection to the right “to possess and
carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ummm...no. That's just an example of how to read it. You can put that strawman in your cornfield, though, to keep the crows away.
First read this accusation by the minority: Instead, the Court limits the Amendment’s protection to the right “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ante, at 19. No party or amicus urged this interpretation; the Court appears to have fashioned it out of whole cloth.
Now read what the majority actually said and think about who you're going to trust: Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
That's right, the majority made a general point and then explained what they meant. The minority just takes part of what the majority said and pretends it means something else. If a 5 year old does that you reprimand them for lying. Does the minority HONESTLY believe that the majority is saying that we have the right to have guns in case we have a confrontation with a deer and it's dinnertime? Are they HONESTLY saying that they think the majority does not believe that individuals have a right to a gun to hunt with? That it is only for self-defense? Do YOU believe that?
Then there's the nonsensical arguments about what 'bear arms' means, which sounds good unless you have read the majority opinion where Scalia has already pointed out that the minority's argument is faulty because their sources lend the additional qualifier "against" in the examples. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. I'm not sure how to mock this...it'd be like, I guess, saying 'race' always refers to an athletic competition because you have a bunch of sources that always talk about someone that was in a 'race against' someone else, so clearly 'race' cannot mean ethnicity.
Paraphrasing: '"Bear arms" always means 'carrying a gun for military use' unless specifically detailed otherwise.' Yeah, in the late 18th century when people hunted for meat instead of shopping at Whole Foods for organic ostrich and had a gun to protect them from indians would have thought 'carry a gun' meant 'carry a gun to use militarily'. Of course!
Then, and I don't even know what the hell is going on here, the ancient Stevens goes on to claim that it is the MAJORITY that is thinking unclearly when they say that "bear arms against" changes the meaning of "bear arms", when it is he himself that thinks that "bear arms against" is synonymous with "bear arms"...not the majority. OF COURSE the majority thinks it changes the meaning...Does "bear arms to hunt" mean basically the same thing as "bear arms against King George"? Then he lies some more about what Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. Which is exactly what the majority ruled...with the presumption that if the government takes your gun away you can't form a well-regulated militia. I'm not beginning to realize the true brilliance of Scalia's opinion and tack on this - he completely pulls the minority's rug out from under them by agreeing exactly to almost all of their argument, then explaining why it is not possible to have the right that the minority agrees with (a militia) without the rest (individual gun ownership as regulated by the government). It's a real pain to argue with someone that agrees with you. Most of the dissent is about something the majority AGREES with.
And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment . . .
codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19, is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right. Really? Before there were states? And even in ENGLAND in the 1600s as Scalia explains? REALLY?
blah blah what a militia IS, not what people having guns to join has to do with it...
blah blah blah stuff that never happened but was DISCUSSED at the time including some outright mistakes by Stevens as pointed out by Scalia...
UNBELIEVABLY the minority goes on to explain to the founding fathers that their concern about having guns had nothing to do with protecting oneself against a tyrannical monarch and they drew nothing from English law when writing ours'. Stop laughing at poor Justice Stevens!
I have a special love note to the frightened, preyed-upon inner city working poor from Justice Breyer: "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." Allow me to interpret that for you Albany, DC, Schenectady, etc....YOU MAY NOT DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST CRIMINALS WITH GUNS. Sorry about that, but, you know, a kid might pick up your gun or something or you might, you know, shoot a druggie breaking into your house with a knife or gun in the middle of the night, and we just can't have that.
I'm going to stop here (oh, stop, you didn't even read this far...did you?!) because Scalia seems to have pre-emptively destroyed the remaining arguments.
I'll leave the liberal 4 with one question that they do not answer:
How can I get a gun and join a militia to defend myself against the government if the government is deciding whether or not I can have a gun?
If you don't want to read any more of this overly long post - here's the gist:
Majority: The 2nd Amendment now and always has meant that a militia is necessary to preserve our freedoms, and to have a militia you need people with guns (which they already have for self-defense and hunting) and the government can't take their guns away because then they won't have them to form a militia to defend our freedom if needed. The minority is WRONG and maybe not very bright.Not being a lawyer or nuttin' I'll stick to pulling out some of what strikes me as a 'common man' in all this...stuff that will likely set or change laws and/or thinking on laws in the future. Or maybe I'm just making all this cra* up. Let me just state outright that this ruling should come as absolutely no surprise to pretty much anybody, the vote should not surprise anybody (Kennedy often rules according to what the Constitution says, although not always (see Kelo and his reinterpretation of "public use" as "public benefit"), and about the only thing that changes is that governments cannot completely ban handguns or force you to make them inoperable. Personally, this falls exactly where I expected, but the language re: militias is pleasantly forceful, I was afraid it would have to be toned down to get Kennedy. Expect the crime rate in DC to drop and expect those that attack this opinion to attribute it to anything but this opinion.
Minority: Blah blah cite things incorrectly and say things that are demonstrably untrue as shown in the majority opinion.
For the record, the 5-4 vote was along the usual lines, you know who voted how. The only surprising thing to me was that Roberts had Scalia write the majority opinion. About the only things I can think of are 1) he already had most of this written and was just waiting for a case to break it out; or 2) Roberts wanted it thorough and focused and by someone more senior than himself or Alito, which ruled out Thomas who is usually left to write 8-1 or 9-0 opinions, and Kennedy probably wasn't even considered for this one. But, then again, what the hell do I know, maybe they played tiddlywinks for it and Scalia won.
This is a biggie, #1, front page: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Bam, away goes the tired argument over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to you if you're in the National Guard (and not otherwise a cop or similar). As I've said before, that argument never made sense to me since pretty much the whole point of the 2nd, when it was written, was for people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government - so it would make no sense for the authors to have meant that it only applied to you if you were part of the tyrannical government. I mean, how does that even make sense? You have the right to defend yourself against the people knocking on your door in the middle of the night, but only if you're one of the knockers. Huh?
The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Interesting, key, and clever statement by Scalia here, pointedly rejecting pre-emptively attacks against perceived 'originalist' views of the law. 'Dubious' is a great word, like 'I know people look at it, but, c'mon, we're not relying on it. It's important to remember, when people attack 'originalists' on this, that the attackers will often use an argument that 'there were no machine guns or semi-automatic handguns back then so they couldn't have meant the Amendment to cover them!' which is really just a twisted, incorrect originalist type of argument.
#2, also a biggie: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
So here they're saying that, while this ruling unequivacally states that the 2nd is an individual right, they are NOT invalidating all restrictions on gun ownership, in fact they're not even 'getting into' that part of it. Recall that this case was about DC completely forbidding the ownership of an operable gun at home and that is what they tried to rule on here. So, for "gun nuts", this is NOT a ruling for 'all guns all the time for everybody, everywhere' that some (not me) were hoping for. for the "anti-gun nuts", your reasonable restrictions have not been removed, only your quest for 'no guns for anybody, anywhere, anytime', so don't pretend that this ruling is anything that it is not.
Bit of a rude slapdown here in a footnote: JUSTICE STEVENS is of course correct, post, at 10, that the right to assemble cannot be exercised alone, but it is still an individual right, and not one conditioned upon membership in some defined “assembly,” as he contends the right to bear arms is conditioned upon membership in a defined militia. And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.” Ibid. See McDonald v. Smith, 472 U. S. 479, 482–484 (1985) (describing historical origins of right to petition). You're only supposed to complain if the government does you wrong if there's more than one of you? Huh? I guess we'll get to that.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Heh.
There's a rather (painfully) lengthy review of historical sources as to the meaning of stuff like "bear arms", that seems to boil down to why the majority did NOT take any bizarre 18th century meaning for anything - that basically what it says now reads the same as what it meant then, no more, less.
More slapping: In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding....Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. Ha! "Grotesque"!
...Alice In Wonderland references on 15 and 16...
This is straightforward: There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text
and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Underlined items are emphasized in the original.
I think this is a rather weighty argument, personally: That of the nine state
constitutional protections for the right to bear arms enacted immediately after 1789 at least seven unequivocally protected an individual citizen’s right to self-defense is strong evidence that that is how the founding generation conceived of the right. The fact that the same people, after having just written or just about to write, the Bill of Rights, went home to their individual states and most of them enshrined an individual right to keep a gun for self defense, is a pretty damning argument against any thought that what they meant to say was that you could only have a gun in a militia for military use. I feel those actions have a lot more bearing than digging out a half dozen books from the mid-1800s analyzing speech patterns of the late 18th century. Again, I think what people do says a lot more than what they say.
JUSTICE STEVENS relies on the drafting history of the Second Amendment—the various proposals in the state conventions and the debates in Congress. It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one. But even assuming that this legislative history is relevant, JUSTICE STEVENS flatly misreads the historical record. Cripes. Hit him again, why don't'cha.
Joseph Story published his famous Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833. JUSTICE STEVENS suggests that “[t]here is not so much as a whisper” in Story’s explanation of the Second Amendment that favors the individual-rights view. Post, at 34. That is wrong. Whack. Scalia then cites Story doing the very thing that Stevens denies he ever did. Ouch.
It is demonstrably not true that, as JUSTICE STEVENS claims, post, at 41–42, “for most of our history, the invalidity of Second-Amendment-based objections to firearms regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial.”For most of our history the question did not present itself. I have a magic rock that keeps barracudas out of my bathtub. See? No barracudas. It's working!
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Self-explanatory.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Also self-explanatory.
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
The majority opinion is less than half the full bulk of this opinion. And now we move to the dissents.
Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. Before I even go any further - is it really necessary to even investigate or debate whether or not the founders meant to ban the use of guns for HUNTING? I'm pretty sure hunting isn't part of well-regulated militia activities, folks. If they have to ask themselves that, are they being even remotely objective enough to continue? 'Let's see if we can figure out if the founding fathers meant to make it illegal to own a gun for hunting...they probably did, but let's prove it!'
Then you'll read some crap about Miller that the dissenters didn't have the good sense to erase after Scalia eviscerated their falling back on it.
Then there is this: Our discussion in Lewis was brief but significant. Unfortunately for the dissenters, Scalia points out that the "significant" discussion re: the 2nd Amendment in Lewis was in a FOOTNOTE in a case where the 2nd Amendment was not raised nor argued by any party in the case. Indeed, very "significant". Scalia also demolishes this argument by referring to the particulars of Lewis instead of just calling it out to an unsuspecting public and calling it "significant." I'm beginning to see maybe why Scalia was chosen for this one. The dissenters go on to use this FOOTNOTE in a case NOT ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT as PRECEDENT for banning all firearms.
The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. It's good to know that strawman arguments by liberals aren't limited by education or occupation - liberal Supreme Court Justices do it, too. I lost count of how many times Scalia explicitly states that the ruling has nothing to do with the power of the government to "regulate civilian uses of weapons", but instead to take them away and explicitly notes that the government CAN enforce reasonable restrictions on firearms. I'll note for the record that Scalia's majority opinion also does nothing to advance the case for the abolition of the designated hitter rule or the imposition of a game misconduct penalty for fighting in hockey.
He goes on to complain that this ruling is going to completely overturn the law re: the 2nd Amendment, because of course most places ban firearms (guffaw). If...or should I say IF the majority had struck down any and all regulations or limitations on guns, then this argument would hold merit. Except, as I just noted, the majority EXPLICITLY rejects any suggestion that the government cannot regulate firearms at all. Did I mention it was explicit?
blah blah blah pick and choose pieces of state constitutions whereas Scalia notes the relevant portions of those and places them in context. Somehow they find that some states explicitly allowing guns for individual use means that the federal constitution was meant to ban them. Huh?? 'OK, we've got this finished, guns are banned unless you're in a militia - now go home and write a state constitution that allows them and say hi to the wife for me!' There might be a word for this type of argument, but it's probably just 'nuts'.
blah blah right of the people again shows that some regulation is allowable which, hey, did I mention that the majority EXPLICITLY stated that some regulation is allowable, yet??!!
For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert. An individual is not allowed to 'petition' the government for redress? Oh, I see, they think that "to petition" means to sign petitions, like ones against nuclear power plants. Uh-huh. That makes sense.
Instead, the Court limits the Amendment’s protection to the right “to possess and
carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ummm...no. That's just an example of how to read it. You can put that strawman in your cornfield, though, to keep the crows away.
First read this accusation by the minority: Instead, the Court limits the Amendment’s protection to the right “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ante, at 19. No party or amicus urged this interpretation; the Court appears to have fashioned it out of whole cloth.
Now read what the majority actually said and think about who you're going to trust: Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
That's right, the majority made a general point and then explained what they meant. The minority just takes part of what the majority said and pretends it means something else. If a 5 year old does that you reprimand them for lying. Does the minority HONESTLY believe that the majority is saying that we have the right to have guns in case we have a confrontation with a deer and it's dinnertime? Are they HONESTLY saying that they think the majority does not believe that individuals have a right to a gun to hunt with? That it is only for self-defense? Do YOU believe that?
Then there's the nonsensical arguments about what 'bear arms' means, which sounds good unless you have read the majority opinion where Scalia has already pointed out that the minority's argument is faulty because their sources lend the additional qualifier "against" in the examples. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. I'm not sure how to mock this...it'd be like, I guess, saying 'race' always refers to an athletic competition because you have a bunch of sources that always talk about someone that was in a 'race against' someone else, so clearly 'race' cannot mean ethnicity.
Paraphrasing: '"Bear arms" always means 'carrying a gun for military use' unless specifically detailed otherwise.' Yeah, in the late 18th century when people hunted for meat instead of shopping at Whole Foods for organic ostrich and had a gun to protect them from indians would have thought 'carry a gun' meant 'carry a gun to use militarily'. Of course!
Then, and I don't even know what the hell is going on here, the ancient Stevens goes on to claim that it is the MAJORITY that is thinking unclearly when they say that "bear arms against" changes the meaning of "bear arms", when it is he himself that thinks that "bear arms against" is synonymous with "bear arms"...not the majority. OF COURSE the majority thinks it changes the meaning...Does "bear arms to hunt" mean basically the same thing as "bear arms against King George"? Then he lies some more about what Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. Which is exactly what the majority ruled...with the presumption that if the government takes your gun away you can't form a well-regulated militia. I'm not beginning to realize the true brilliance of Scalia's opinion and tack on this - he completely pulls the minority's rug out from under them by agreeing exactly to almost all of their argument, then explaining why it is not possible to have the right that the minority agrees with (a militia) without the rest (individual gun ownership as regulated by the government). It's a real pain to argue with someone that agrees with you. Most of the dissent is about something the majority AGREES with.
And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment . . .
codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19, is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right. Really? Before there were states? And even in ENGLAND in the 1600s as Scalia explains? REALLY?
blah blah what a militia IS, not what people having guns to join has to do with it...
blah blah blah stuff that never happened but was DISCUSSED at the time including some outright mistakes by Stevens as pointed out by Scalia...
UNBELIEVABLY the minority goes on to explain to the founding fathers that their concern about having guns had nothing to do with protecting oneself against a tyrannical monarch and they drew nothing from English law when writing ours'. Stop laughing at poor Justice Stevens!
I have a special love note to the frightened, preyed-upon inner city working poor from Justice Breyer: "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." Allow me to interpret that for you Albany, DC, Schenectady, etc....YOU MAY NOT DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST CRIMINALS WITH GUNS. Sorry about that, but, you know, a kid might pick up your gun or something or you might, you know, shoot a druggie breaking into your house with a knife or gun in the middle of the night, and we just can't have that.
I'm going to stop here (oh, stop, you didn't even read this far...did you?!) because Scalia seems to have pre-emptively destroyed the remaining arguments.
I'll leave the liberal 4 with one question that they do not answer:
How can I get a gun and join a militia to defend myself against the government if the government is deciding whether or not I can have a gun?
Obama Courting Lobbyists
Darn that pesky pattern! We gotta use public financing to limit the special interests! I'm going to make the Republican candidate promise to stick to public financing with me! Ooops. Seems Obama loves the green too much and broke his promise to stick to public financing.
Of course he's also so very VERY against the same old same old in Washington, lobbyists, favors, insiders. None of that for Mr. HOPE AND CHANGE!
Ooops.
Gosh, he's so about the CHANGE! Don't you feel the HOPE?
And this will make the paper....when exactly? Oh, yeah. Never.
Of course he's also so very VERY against the same old same old in Washington, lobbyists, favors, insiders. None of that for Mr. HOPE AND CHANGE!
Ooops.
As he gives up public funding for his campaign, Sen. Barack Obama is reaching out to new sources, including Washington insiders whose influence he has vowed to end.Yes, you parsed that correctly. Obama has sent a fundraising letter to lobbyists asking them to give him money so that he can end the "undue influence of special interests".
Obama is now using lists of contributors to Democratic congressional chairmen, primarily lobbyists of both parties. One recipient of a letter signed by Obama is a Republican lobbyist who has contributed to senior Democratic Reps. John Dingell of Michigan and Charlie Rangel of New York, not out of ideological affinity but to keep their doors open.
"Together, we change the way business is done in Washington," said the Obama letter. "We can end the undue influence of special interests."
Gosh, he's so about the CHANGE! Don't you feel the HOPE?
And this will make the paper....when exactly? Oh, yeah. Never.
I Just SAID That!
Wow, I feel ripped off. The Washington Post has taken what I've been saying about the economy and consumer sentiment and spending plastered it on the front page with someone else's name on it! They even used my conclusion!
I'm kidding, of course.
All the Washington Post did on the 18th was run a front page story saying what conservatives have been saying for a year now. (tipoff via Diane West) Still, most of this will sound like one of my posts and won't be new to you:
Why We're Gloomier Than The Economy
I'm kidding, of course.
All the Washington Post did on the 18th was run a front page story saying what conservatives have been saying for a year now. (tipoff via Diane West) Still, most of this will sound like one of my posts and won't be new to you:
Why We're Gloomier Than The Economy
Ask Americans how the economy is doing, and their answer is stark: It is not just bad, it is run-for-the-hills terrible. Consumer confidence is at its lowest level in almost 30 years. Only 12 percent of Americans think the economy is in good shape. On the Internet, comparisons to the Great Depression are widespread.I would, of course, quibble with his "plane crash" analogy. The market moves on a daily basis. Sometimes up, sometimes down. The media only comments on the down. Planes don't crash every other day. This is essentially akin to moral relativism - saying that we have to report the bad news about the Dow dropping 100 points (even though it rose 150 yesterday but didn't report it) is the same as reporting on a plane crash. It would be an acceptable analogy if he had pointed out that the media does cover great plane landings, like when a plane lands on a highway or is landed by a passenger...but it doesn't give the time to big days in the economy that it gives to bad. That's a fact, Jack, not what "some analysts" say. It's what the analysts that actually pile up the stacks of evidence and make objective comparisons of the data say. His conclusions about 2001 and 1990 are also false. Neither was an election year and, especially going back to 1990 or earlier, the media was not quite so hyperbiased on a day in, day out basis, mostly because, apart from newspapers, there was no day in, day out daily blabfests, etc. on TV. So I would strongly refute his claim that the media made the type of deal out of poor economic news that they have been making the past couple of years (aka this Presidential election campaign that started about 3 years ago for Hillary and Obama).
But the reality is different. According to most broad measures of how the economy is doing, it's not all that grim.
Soft? You betcha. In recession? Quite possibly. And a crisis in the financial markets has rattled nerves for months now. But so far, the economy is holding up better than it did during the last two recessions in 1990 and 2001. Employers haven't shed as many jobs, the unemployment rate is still relatively low, and gross domestic product has kept rising. Things are nowhere near as bad as they were in the Great Depression, or even during the severe recession of 1982-83. The last time consumers were this miserable, in May 1980, the jobless rate was 7.5 percent and inflation was 14.4 percent. Now those numbers are 5.5 percent and 4.2 percent respectively...
"We're saying that we feel a lot worse than we did at the depths of the last recession, when we had had 2 or 3 million job losses, that we feel worse than we did after 9/11," said William Cheney, chief economist of John Hancock Financial Services. "At some level, that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense."
But through the prism of daily experience, it may.
The run-up in gasoline and food prices, for example, appears to affect people's perception of how they're doing more than a similar price rise in other goods.
Eric J. Johnson, who studies behavioral economics at Columbia Business School, offers this example: Someone who has to pay an extra $25 to fill up his car is reminded of that cost once a week -- or more often if you count the times he is driving down the road and sees the $4 per gallon price in giant numbers on a sign. Technically, he is no worse off than if his rent had increased by $100 a month. But it feels a lot worse...
Some analysts attribute Americans' negative views on the economy to media coverage, which tends to play bad news more prominently than good news. There is ample research proving that, say, a drop in the stock market or rise in the unemployment rate gets more extensive news coverage than a move in the reverse direction. (In other news, newspapers tend to cover plane crashes more extensively than a safe landings).
But that has been true during past downturns. There is no obvious reason that it would be more pronounced now than in 2001 or 1990, when consumer confidence did not drop as much as it has recently.
The biggest reason for people's gloom might be because of what they're used to. In the 1980s and '90s, memories of the double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation from the 1970s were still fresh.
"People expected very little out of the economy," said Richard Curtin, who has administered the University of Michigan's survey of consumer sentiment for 35 years. "Compared to what their frame of reference was, the performance of the economy was absolutely tremendous."
But now, coming off two decades of prosperity and low inflation, Americans have come to treat low unemployment and inflation as givens. We have gotten so used to things being good, in other words, that even when conditions become somewhat bad, it feels terrible.
Supreme Court Rules You Can Own A Gun
In an opinion that I can't find online just yet, the Supreme Court has ruled in the DC case that states (and I guess DC) cannot complete prohibit the owning of handguns for self-defense, which they apparently is (duh) enshrined right there in Amendment 2 of the Constitution.
4 Justices (I'm sure you can name them) dissented, saying that you're not allowed to defend yourself from criminals with a gun.
Once I get the opinion I may post some more about this with some text from the opinion and/or dissent.
In typical fashion, when confronted with something fairly straightforward that doesn't involve warm fuzzies or feelings, Kennedy has ruled correctly.
4 Justices (I'm sure you can name them) dissented, saying that you're not allowed to defend yourself from criminals with a gun.
Once I get the opinion I may post some more about this with some text from the opinion and/or dissent.
In typical fashion, when confronted with something fairly straightforward that doesn't involve warm fuzzies or feelings, Kennedy has ruled correctly.
Liberals Can't Look Past Race
You know it's true. I know it's true. They know it's true. So why bring it up? Because they keep denying it, and as long as they keep denying it, keep claiming that it is conservatives that give a rat's rear about race instead of themselves, you need to keep pointing out their hypocrisy because the media sure as hell won't do it.
The New Age Messiah has already ordered his operatives to be on superhyperultra alert for any hint of racism against him...meanwhile, the media liberals pushing for him are out there showing off their bigotry and not being called on it:
Lap it up, my friends. You might as well get used to this kind of smearing bigotry from liberals in the media for next few months. If anyone, Karl Rove in this instance, makes a comment about the New Age Messiah's elitism, you can count on a vicious counterattack from the liberals in the media thrusting a racial aspect into it where none exists.
R for race comes first in the liberal alphabet, make no mistake.
I sent the following to Time:
The New Age Messiah has already ordered his operatives to be on superhyperultra alert for any hint of racism against him...meanwhile, the media liberals pushing for him are out there showing off their bigotry and not being called on it:
Joe Klein (Time Magazine): Well, I just think that the image is kind of hilarious when you think about it: Barack Obama at a country club sipping a martini. It's kind of a parody of the Republican view of the world. Everybody belongs to -- since when [do] we start letting people like Barack Obama into Republican country clubs?Allow me to translate the words of this bigot: Republicans are a bunch of rich, elitist, country club racists (except when they're inbreeding, gun-toting, gap-toothed, shack-living, barefooted, Jesus freaks).
Lap it up, my friends. You might as well get used to this kind of smearing bigotry from liberals in the media for next few months. If anyone, Karl Rove in this instance, makes a comment about the New Age Messiah's elitism, you can count on a vicious counterattack from the liberals in the media thrusting a racial aspect into it where none exists.
R for race comes first in the liberal alphabet, make no mistake.
I sent the following to Time:
The year is 2008 and a man of mixed race is expected to be one of our major party candidates for president. Isn't it about time for Time to put aside the hateful bigotry of Joe Klein?
"Well, I just think that the image is kind of hilarious when you think about it: Barack Obama at a country club sipping a martini. It's kind of a parody of the Republican view of the world. Everybody belongs to -- since when [do] we start letting people like Barack Obama into Republican country clubs?"
Yes, Republicans are all a bunch of racists. ha ha. Seems to me that Klein is the bigoted one, prejudging Republicans by the letter on their voter registration. Democrats like him are the ones that throw Oreos at people like Michael Steele and call Condi Rice an "Aunt Jemima".
Way to associate yourself with a bigot. Good job. Liberals like those writing for Time sure are doing a GREAT job moving us past race in America.
Today Is June 26
This is June 26.
There are only 181 shopping days left until Christmas.
Today was (hopefully) the first story in the Times Union about how 'retailers are expecting a gloomy holiday season'.
When, exactly, weren't retailers expecting a gloomy holiday season, according to newspapers? Let me guess...when Clinton was President?
For crying out loud...
There are only 181 shopping days left until Christmas.
Today was (hopefully) the first story in the Times Union about how 'retailers are expecting a gloomy holiday season'.
When, exactly, weren't retailers expecting a gloomy holiday season, according to newspapers? Let me guess...when Clinton was President?
For crying out loud...
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Obama's Bus Of Doom
Sometimes if you want something done...well, marginally...you have to do it yourself.
That in mind, I give you my attempt at Obama's bus. (Click to enlarge)
That in mind, I give you my attempt at Obama's bus. (Click to enlarge)
Why Is Gas Still Going Up?
You are probably asking why the price of crude/gas is still going up even with the MASS DEVASTATION AND DESPAIR! that these high prices are supposedly causing Americans (if the press it to be believed) (stop laughing).
It's simple.
Investors don't believe you or the press. They think people will keep driving. The most recent oil inventory report came out today. Even with gas over $4/gal investors predicted that inventories would drop by over a million barrels.
Instead, consumers voted at the pump by driving less. Inventories rose by over 800,000 barrels.
In all the swing was nearly 2 million barrels from what was expected.
Oil is down over 3% so far on the news.
Why is oil still going up with gas over $4/gal? Because, gripe though they may, people are still feeding the car.
Maybe we're starting to see a crack in that facade, though.
It's simple.
Investors don't believe you or the press. They think people will keep driving. The most recent oil inventory report came out today. Even with gas over $4/gal investors predicted that inventories would drop by over a million barrels.
Instead, consumers voted at the pump by driving less. Inventories rose by over 800,000 barrels.
In all the swing was nearly 2 million barrels from what was expected.
Oil is down over 3% so far on the news.
Why is oil still going up with gas over $4/gal? Because, gripe though they may, people are still feeding the car.
Maybe we're starting to see a crack in that facade, though.
Unreal
Sit down, swallow whatever's in your mouth, and grasp your chair firmly or you might have difficulties after reading the raw, unvarnished truth about the Supreme Court from the mouth of THE AP and its writer, Mark Sherman.
Sherman had the illiberal gall to actually state:
First the Times Union admits that Bush didn't lie, now this? What's the world coming to?
Sherman had the illiberal gall to actually state:
"The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.Can you even believe it? He actually admitted, right there in print, that Kennedy and the rest of the Court majority is liberal while the rest are 'more conservative'.
First the Times Union admits that Bush didn't lie, now this? What's the world coming to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)