ENOUGH!!!

[moira finnie]

Why didn't Obama pick Hillary? Is there any obvious answer that our press hasn't given?

Hi Alison,
I'm not sure how this was reported in the British press, but there seem to be several reasons that I see at play:
1.) Hillary Clinton may not have the temperament to play a #2 position to Obama.

2.) During her recent campaign, one of the reasons some were turned off by her was her seeming sense of entitlement to the nomination, as though she felt anointed to be the Democratic candidate.

3.) The enmity that emerged between Obama & Hillary during the primary campaign, which, among other things, included condescension to Obama on occasion and truly poorly worded, mean-spirited comments from her husband, ex-president Bill Clinton, which lost Pres. Clinton and, by extension, Hillary, the respect of much of the Black community in the U.S.

4.) The staffs of both candidates were at times, very rancorous toward one another, and those feelings have not entirely abated to this day.

5.) If you were Obama in your first term as president, and you had Hillary as your very competent, very ambitious, very newsworthy #2, and with her went Bill Clinton, (a heat-seeking magnet for new coverage no matter what he does), wouldn't you feel as though you had more than enough to do to master the toughest job on the planet? And would you want them as a distraction or possible internal negative force within your administration?

Personally, as a New Yorker, I'm sort of hoping that Hillary buckles down and does her job as our Senator. Now that the ailing Teddy Kennedy, I'm sorry to say, will not be able to serve as the Senate's lion for much longer, there's more than enough room for another good Senator to serve the nation by drawing attention to issues that desperately need attention: healthcare, the treatment of veterans, the budget, energy, etc.

[mrsl]

I've gone into Ask, Google, and Wikipedia, in addition to several other outlets like Huffington trying to learn about Ms. Palin. Following are her feelings on family value type things only so far. Note: They are not quotes, but nearly.

* Declared a National Day of Prayer in Alaska

* Fired a State Trooper for threatening the family (Trooper happened to be ex-brother in law who was divorcing her sister.) hmmm, hmmm,

* Health care must be market and business driven (?) (instead of your illness or your doctors opinion?)

* Personal choices are the key to good health - what if you're 5 yrs old?

* More affordable health care via competition/flexibility in government regulation to allow competition

* LIfelong NRA member supports right to bear arms and supports ending D.C.'s ban on hand guns

* Opposes explicit sex education programs ??

* First she was with the Bridge to Nowhere, then changed to against

* First she was with Polar bears being on the endangered species list, now she's against

* She was Praised for keeping her Downs Syndrome child!

That was all. I didn't even try to go on to Iraq or global warming. The lady seems kind of wishy washy to me. And who gets praised for keeping their child?

By the time I finished the above, I was seeing red, as you can see.

When are people going to understand the second Amendment gives STATES the right to have a militia, and it gives the people the right to own arms to support the state militia? It does NOT give people the right to own guns, just because they want to.

I'll read more about her tomorrow when my head clears.

Anne

[silentscreen]

First off, I don't live in Alaska, but I've read some things about her in Alaska. She has an 80% approval rating there. She has been interviewed before, at least once by an American magizine before she was tapped as Veep by McCain. Secondly I don't agree with all her views, but she has them and she's not afraid to express them. She's not part of the Washington establishment that has led our country into the mess it's in, including Bush and two years of a democratic controlled congress. Thirdly, she never said anything about Obama that wasn't true and of public record. You'll get your chance to pick her apart soon, according to this article. My people get all huffed up about politics! All politicans change their minds about certain issues, including McCain and Obama, but I don't see anyone trying to chastise Obama for it. Biden has changed his mind numerous times too. I thought Obama said the surge didn't work and now he says that it has? Why is it that everyone gets all huffed up over her choosing to keep a Down Syndrome baby? It's her baby, and she's not asking anyone to take care of it for her. Before advanced testing, women gave birth to Down Syndrome babies all the time. I've been watching this election all along, and I'm not just imagining a media bias toward Obama, it's there. I don't agree with much of anything that he proposes, except that we should get out of Iraq. I was never in favor of going over there any way. This is just my opinion, but everyone is deserving of one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080907/pl_ ... media_dc_1

[melwalton]

Anne

'AGAIN? When was I ever wrong before?
You're living in the past. Admittedly the Bears had some great teams in the days of Osmanski, McAfee. Nagurski, Mazurki, but them days is long gone as Jimmy Hatlo used to say.You gotta get yourself a qb.
Reminder: The Jints won the last superbowl .... mel

[mrsl]

Silent Screen:

I barely touched on info about her and within just a couple of paragraphs I found so much that I didn't like, she doesn't fit my idea of a good Veep. But, I do think the media was pretty rotten about her pregnant daughter, and my point was, what is worth praising in keeping your own child? Why would the media praise her? That's exactly how it was phrased in Wikipedia, and to me sounds ridiculous. The only problem I have with her having the child at home is, she will be gone for long periods of time and it may not be fair to the child not to have that mothers care, but a nanny or its brothers, sisters, and dad.

Mel:

I was being facetious right back at you. First you talk about the best political system, and then you talk about the Giants. But I forgot, you weren't around here last season. There are only about 3 of us who are Bear fans, so we really have to fight for our guys.

Anne

[bryce]

Two things:

Our country's placement on Earth's Greatest Nations list is quite subjective. Regardless of whether we are or are not the best, patriotism is one of the most dangerous pitfalls of having pride in one's nation. To regard foreigners' negatives views on America as those borne of jealousy and envy is incredibly dangerous and blinds us to the truth of their actions and words.

On to the second matter, the fact that our founding fathers were wordy (see: LITERATE, well-read) men and let an errant comma through their (non-existent) army of highly paid, highly-trained proof-readers should not affect the sentiment of the 2nd amendment. Constitutionally, we, the people, each and every one of us (with few exceptions such as mental handicap or felony conviction) are guaranteed the right to own firearms. Our right to conceal and carry them can be argued, but our right to own them cannot. Again, I find the incredibly liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, especially in light of the fact that many democratic politicians take very literal interpretations of the rest of the bill of rights, to be particularly distasteful.

Our founding fathers knew that the only way to guarantee our nations continued success was to arm our populace against, guess who?, ourselves - a hard lesson learnt by wise men who saw in history the way in which tyrants consistently disarmed and subdued their populations. Considering Jefferson's position on treason, dueling, tyranny and revolution, anyone arguing against our right to keep and bear arms is either a card-carrying agendist or just plain naive. Again, this is coming from someone who doesn't exercise his 2nd amendment right.

Digging myself a deeper hole,
Bryce

[silentscreen]

Thanks Anne, I understand what you're saying now.

I think the reason for the praise is that she kept her last child even after testing showed that he would have Down Syndrome, while most Mother's terminate when they learn that. It reinforces her pro life stand.

Brenda

[MichiganJ]

Members of the “liberal media” weigh in on Palin and hypocrisy:

[youtube][/youtube]

C’mom Sarah, please talk to us. If you are this afraid of the “Liberal media”, how are you possibly going to handle Washington?


In regards to the 2nd Amendment, it’s interesting that the Founders had no trouble in affirming the rights of free speech/assembly/religion, but didn’t just write the “right to bare arms”, instead putting the caveat “militia” into the mix. Scalia, “originalist” as he is, along with the NRA etal, always dismiss the word as inconsequential. Maybe, but the word is there, which isn’t quite the guarantee as the other, very clearly-defined, rights.

Assuming the right, It is hard to imagine that the founders would have approved of semi-automatics, uzis, tanks, bazookas, and, armor-piercing bullets (which the NRA is against banning), but whatever. If there is a right to own guns, there is also a responsibility, which is apparently very lacking when reading about all of the “accidents’ involving kids/teens/drunken fools, playing with said gun. I wonder how many people have been killed or hurt by “accident” with a gun, as opposed to crimes prevented by those very same guns. Simple restrictions, background checks, etc., should be mandatory, but they are not (you can go to a gun show and buy as many guns as you want, walking them right out to your car, no questions asked. Ammo, too.) It seems to me that there is room for compromise, but the NRA won’t hear of it. How long will it be before High School teachers are armed? (Texas?) And if they are armed, can the students pack heat, too? Not long ago a disturbed person opened fire in his church, as some kind of protest against abortion, killing many members. The argument goes, if members were also packing heat, they could have taken him out, which is likely true. But here’s a question: If you fire your gun, and miss your target and instead hit a bystander, are you guilty of, at the very least, manslaughter?
Obviously this was a disturbed “mentally handicapped” person who had access to a gun. How did he get it? Was it his? If not, is the gun’s owner the least bit culpable?

While I’m not a hunter, I have no problem with hunting and guns, etc. (except for those farms which guarantee you a kill--What kind of nonsense is that?), but people simply packing heat, ala the Wild West, in all walks of life, just seems dangerous.

[jdb1]

Our founding fathers knew that the only way to guarantee our nations continued success was to arm our populace against, guess who?, ourselves - a hard lesson learnt by wise men who saw in history the way in which tyrants consistently disarmed and subdued their populations. Considering Jefferson's position on treason, dueling, tyranny and revolution, anyone arguing against our right to keep and bear arms is either a card-carrying agendist or just plain naive. Again, this is coming from someone who doesn't exercise his 2nd amendment right.

Not quite following you here, Bryce. What do you mean by "ourselves" exactly? I'm reading in the above that either you mean we need to arm ourselves against our fellow citizens, or that we need to arm ourselves against the government, or maybe that the government is arming itself against its populace ......???? Do you have any material from the revered FFs themselves to this effect, like from the Federalist Papers or the writings of Jefferson on the subject? I'm not baiting you, I'm just wondering if I missed something in Am. Hist. 101 all those years ago.

I don't think the "that was then, this is now" defense is so far off the mark. The well-regulated militia has become a paramilitary/military organization under the auspices of much more powerful and effective local governments than were in existence when Jefferson was a pup. The gun was a given element of a private household 200 years ago with good reason - for hunting, for a much more immediate need for defense which might have to be provided by oneself, not by an official entity, etc.

In 21st Century America, the variables have changed. I think for many the touchy spot is that the concept of citizens bearing arms is in the Constitution -- therefore it's a right, and if basic Constitutional rights are taken from us we feel outraged and violated. We were taught to feel that way from our earliest school days. However, not all rules are good rules, and our FFs were prescient enough to build into our guiding rules a mechanism for change -- they knew times would change. They were right about things changing, although they may not necessarily have understood what those changes would be. That may be a bit too much to expect of them, even a happenin' guy like Bejamin Franklin.

[charliechaplinfan]

Thanks Moira for enlightening me about Hillary Clinton, some of which I suspected but didn't know about others. I didn't know Bill had weighed into the debate so controversially.

I've read with interest the discussion about the 2nd amendment. It's obviously a debate that will continue. I really can't see the need for the ordinary member of the public to carry a gun. There are reasons for some private citizens having guns like living in the wilderness etc but altering the law would save some lives.

We aren't blameless here either. Handguns are outlawed here, you have to have a special licence yet in London there has been many 'gangland' killings of young mainly black men, these aren't racially motivated either. Some have been shootings, some stabbings. I believe that if were allowed young men to carry firearms there would be more violent killings and accidental shootings.

Young boys are advised not to carry knives to protect themselves as these can be used as weapons against them.

I suppose every country has it's own inner city troubles to deal with, no lasting solution has been found as yet.

[mrsl]

Moira:

Our FF's were babes in the woods when it came to their imaginations. Our Constitution is a wonderful thing, including the Bill of Rights, but about 3/4's of it should be updated instead of just amendments being added. The whole slavery business should be erased. The segregation of mens' and womens' rights also. Children should be addressed, as should teens and the problem of who is responsible when teens do something wrong. There should be a nationwide age for teens to be tried as adults, and what crimes warrant an adult trial.

Today we are aware enough to realize that 200 years from now (if the earth is still here), we may have cars that fly, and we may have housing settlements on Jupiter, with travel being minutes away. I know that sounds nuts, but does it really? Old Ben Franklin may have believed you, but most of his cronies would have put you in the looney farm if you said such a thing as cars would drive over 75 mph, or we would fly from ocean to ocean (they didn't even know for sure the Pacific ocean was there), or you could walk into a building from 100 degree weather and be cool as a cucumber because of A/C. But we hopefully, are more educated and able to accept wild dreams better than the FF's were.

For anyone interested, Obama is going to be Keith Obermanns guest tonight at 7:00 on I think its CNN.

Anne

[movieman1957]

That would be MSNBC for Olbermann.

The Constitution would only be changed by amendment. That is why you have the amendment creating "Prohibition" and then the separate amendment removing it. Good or bad any change will not erase what has been part of it through history.

Don't forget that a lot of the items you mention would more likely be a state's rights issue. Anything not specifically designated as a federal responsibility reverts to the states.

[bryce]

For a look at what happens when a "constitution" tries to be everything to everyone as opposed to a simplistic guarantor of our most basic rights then look no further than the latest European Union treaty - overlong at 27,000 words and full of the most intentionally vague and obfuscated writing ever. No one, least of all the EU itself, can make heads or tails of what it is that it actually is supposed to do, and it's one of the reason the Irish vetoed it.

The Constitution works because of its simplicity. It is our failing - not that of the writers - that we can't properly interpret it. It was also written to be a living document, changing with the times and the desires of the people, but it was also intended to only be altered when all other actions of the legislature have failed or they see the amendment as necessary and near-permanent - exactly what the 18th amendment isn't.

The problem with merely updating - or, rewriting, as that is what you are proposing - the constitution is that then you are playing revisionist. You are erasing the ills of many and the progress we have made since we've chosen to address those ills. You'd also be inserting a whole mess of nonsense that doesn't belong in the constitution. All it should be is a document which forms the basis of our government and the few rights which truly are fundamental. Everything else can be dealt with by legislatures and the normal way in which our government functions - as dysfunctional as it is - and therefore, like normal laws, can be subject to the majority's whimsy - as wrong as it almost always is. That is the true beauty of our constitution, and is where our very human flaws almost always fail to uphold the original intentions of the writers.

Regarding the Federalist Papers yes, it specifically does address this topic, and is most often ignored by those who wish to see the 2nd amendment repealed. With all due respect to Kevin, and I'm sure he knows I mean no offense, the pedantic debate over militia and its inclusion and intent is a big load of malarkey. The Federalist Papers #46, James Madison, is very specific about the Founding Fathers intent when they included militia, and it even goes on to specifically address how much more powerful the average American citizen is - and thus the entire American nation is - simply because they possess a right which, at the time, no other country in the world granted: the right to bear arms, as one or as a whole, to stand up to the Federal army and repel them, and to guarantee the continued success of their state and nation. How or why this is so often ignored I'm not sure. It also gives a very rare and much needed glimpse into the writing styles of three very important men and helps us to interpret the constitution better. It is a must read.

You ask what I mean by "ourselves" and it is exactly what it says. America's greatest threat, in fact any nation's greatest threat, comes not from a foreign enemy, but from within. As I said earlier, it was a hard lesson learnt, but learnt it was, and the founding fathers knew, having rebelled against tyrannical England long before and unlike any other nation, that their well-armed populace was key to having won the war against a better-armed-and-trained army. Jefferson insisted that an armed revolution take place every twenty years; this could have simply been exaggeration for exaggeration's sake, but he had the foresight to predict that mortal men couldn't live up to the expectations of those who guided our fledgling nation from colony to world power. Whether it was every twenty or two hundred years, he knew that a revolution has to take place, lest a country be bogged down in bureaucracy and corruption, as we are today.

As to your second paragraph, Judith, I think you unintentionally hit upon exactly why the 2nd amendment exists. Our well-regulated militia is now a paramilitary organization, unstoppable even by numerous world powers combined, and the well-regulated militias of today - the national guard - is merely an out-cropping of this, loyal to the federal government first, the states second, and the people not at all. You need look no further than Kent State for proof of this. Still, perhaps the only thing that gives corrupt politicians pause - perhaps the only reason martial law is declared so rarely in the United States, and rarer still successfully enforced - is our armed populace by way of the 2nd amendment. What governor or president wants to march troops into Los Angeles or Chicago and fight the gangs? As if that wasn't bad enough, who would be insane enough to march on Texas?

To jump around once more, I'd like to address Kevin's second paragraph, which is full of many great thoughts with which I agree. The founding fathers most definitely would have approved of such weapons, but they would have been smart enough to require much of the same legislation we have today - legislation which the NRA, vile as they are, is very supportive of, because they know they're fighting a losing battle. I agree that simple restrictions and background checks should be mandatory - and in many cases, are. The same firearm laws which apply to every other private sale apply to gun shows, as well, and I'm tired of reading about that supposed loophole. The NRA are, again, perfectly willing to compromise, but it is anti-gun activists who aren't willing to work with them. The NRA have backed off of their formerly insane politics quite a bit, because, again, they know they're fighting a losing battle and they want to salvage what little they can out of the fight. I think they are insane, bigoted racists, but they want the same thing the activists do, better gun control and regulation, but they're not willing to succumb to the seemingly arbitrary obsessions of many folks who are anti-everyweaponever.

To answer your questions: High school teachers will never be armed, high school teachers will never be allowed to carry firearms onto school property. I would resent that question if it weren't for the incredibly poor choice of that media-hungry school district the Times reported on recently. I am sure that if the rule is ever challenged in court it will be struck down, but it was a total publicity move and nothing else. Can students pack heat? No, you can't purchase a handgun until you are 21, rifles/shotguns at 18. Regardless, I think you're address conceal and carry, not the right to bear arms, and I feel I've all ready addressed that. Anyway. If you fire your gun and miss and kill someone? Yes, you're guilty of manslaughter, just like you would be if you accidentally ran someone over because you're not a good driver or weren't paying attention. As to mentally handicapped or disturbed people obtaining weapons, that is all ready addressed by most states' gun laws and is generally genuine human failure. If a person who has a gun that shouldn't then someone should be held responsible if that person commits a crime with the gun - whether it be the person who sold them the firearm or the friend who lent it to them.

Again, I think conceal and carry is up for debate. I can see the points made on both sides of the fence, but generally agree that 1) it should be difficult, but not impossible to possess a firearm and a conceal and carry, 2) firearm bans don't lower the number of crimes committed, they just lower the number of crimes committed with firearms. There's a world of difference there, and a lot of headway can be made if both sides would simply let go of their extreme opinions and agree to work together for the betterment of us all. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening, because...

We, as a nation, are unable to tolerate loss. We can't just pack up our things, accept the fact that we can legislate to our hearts desires and still bad stuff will happen, and move on with our lives. It seems to be nearly impossible for some people, such as MADD. You could ban every single object in this country which could inflict some pain upon someone and there would still be crime, murder, rape and theft. We need to accept that. The sooner we do then the sooner we can begin working on real solutions, not half-baked crap designed to pander to the polarized masses.

I am sure it is very evident, but I take a literalist approach to the constitution, especially our bill of rights, especially the first six of out of those sacred ten. I am willing to work within the fairly ambiguous boundaries laid out by those amendments, but I am not willing to ever cross them and I don't think anyone should be willing to, either, as then we'd be selling ourselves short of the most basic rights granted to any populace by any government. Two of the most brilliant men who influenced the constitution - Jefferson and Hamilton - had completely different opinions on how laws should be written, adopted, enforced and altered, yet both, especially later on in life, were fervent defenders of the constitution, acquiesced to its alteration only in extreme circumstances (for Jefferson it was slavery), and possessed fairly narrow (literal) interpretations of it.

Their greatest failing, that which was shared by all of the founding fathers, was having far too strong a faith in the goodness of man. Their greatest strength, again shared by all of the founding fathers, was possessing the foresight to know better than to trust in faith. It's why they armed us, you know, so that in the very brief moments of clarity future generations might possess, we could take back that which is ours.

Bryce

PS. As an afterthought, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." This, to me, sums up what Franklin would think of many of our current talking points, from the 2nd amendment to the Patriot Act. He was a brilliant man. One of the smartest of them all and a fierce defender of liberty and independence, more than anybody, I'd wager.

[melwalton]

Congrats , Anne. Surprised me... .... mel

Who is Sarah Palin?

[mrsl]

Mel:

What are the congrats for???

Please tell me you're being facetious again about Sarah Palin!

If any of you watched MSNBC tonight (thanks movieman) and saw Obama, tell me, am I too cautious? Can a polititian (especially a man), (ha-ha), be really so fair? Keith gave him 2 or 3 opportunities to rip into both McCain and Palin, but in both cases he ignored the rotten, lying comments, and just said, 'let's vote on the important issues instead of personal issues'). I've been hoping for an honest, fair minded candidate, and it looks like we finally have one, but I'm afraid to believe what I see and hear. I'm so brainwashed from the past few years, I don't trust myself to see the truth any longer. I've always felt Obama was a real guy, but I guess I need a couple of bricks to fall on my head to accept it as fact.

Bryce:

You brought a lot to the table about the Constitution and I thank you for that. Just as I am on the fence about abortion, I am certain no citizen should have mobile guns. One in the home to protect against break-ins is one thing, but to carry one to and from work, is a no-no. The 2nd Amendment is very clear, and does NOT leave anything to individual interpretation. It says "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Those three words (in blue) should be amended. They are the words that people take as giving permission to wear arms, or at least carry them. If these words were amended, people would face a hefty fine, such as those who do not have auto insurance, or wear seat belts. The average person cannot afford a fine of $150.00 or more if caught carrying a gun. As for drug dealers or other criminals who may be shot by the police during crimes being committed, personally, I feel fare well to rubbish. Eventually, it will cut down on our costs for trials, and the overflow of prisons.

I may sound harsh, but we have to take harsh steps to clean up our cities, and towns.

Anne