Maybe people should start pointing out that rights come with incumbent responsibilities: the right to own a firearm in particular. This is a device which can lead to serious bodily injury or death if misused. And, firearms are misused when they fall into the wrong hands.
I guess I am upset at the crowd who heckled the people protesting at the Virginia Capitol seen in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7g8hbzQzw. even more so the Cops for failing to nail the RKBA crowd for brandishing. Let's face it, the RKBA crowd were carrying weapons to intimidate the protesters. When they couldn't do that, they had to taunt the protesters. Showing how weak the RKBA crowd really is.
It would have been funny as hell if the person with the Colt in his waist band had it pulled out and used against him. The idiot probably wouldn't have known what hit him until his brains went spattering out all over the crowd.
I would have loved to have handed out targets while wearing a SWAT uniform to them and said "put this on, because you are only asking for me to shoot you in an emergency situation."
Who do the RKBA crowd think they are fooling with packing heat will stop a school massacre? Don't they notice how the mass shootings happen in the places where gun laws are lax? Anyway, a police sniper who sees some idiot toting a handgun will give the idiot a .308 Darwin award. too bad the gun toter doesn't have any brains to splatter.
Besides handguns are crap for protection. Ever notice that people who professionally use firearms (e.g., the military) use LONG GUNS?. Yeah, that's 'cause a handgun doesn't have any real effective range to it. My L96A1 has the stupid civilian outgunned every time and I am not close enough to him to ask questions.
I see a civilian with a gun in a situation where he shouldn't be and he is a target.
Bye-Bye, Dumbo!
Now, if the NRA had been doing what they should have been doing and protecting sportsman's interests, rather than criminals and terrorists, we might have some sane gun laws. We might also have some places where we can shoot since development is quickly making open spaces a thing of the past.
So, as the NRA refuses to act responsibly as the body count piles up and the politicians can't say what the Second Amendment means, we see the havoc build.
Fortunately, the RKBA crowd is just a loud and weak minority. They really don't have the power attributed to them, but unfortunately the people who pretend to be leaders in this country don't have the guts to stand up to them.
30 January 2008
29 January 2008
The Solictor General's new clothes
Well, I love to keep pointing out that "the masses are asses" as one of my tutors at uni loved to rub my nose in. On the other hand, the popular belief that the Second Amendment allows for an individual right is a load of dog poop. That is all the Solicitor General's opinion means.
First off, finding an individual right goes against the Supreme Court's own precedent. If Chief Justice Robert's doesn't have his stuff together to say that it's settled law that the Second Amendment applies only to "Well regulated militias" being those set up under Article I, Section 8, then maybe I SHOULD be chief justice. The only people it isn't settled law in are the ignorant or the dishonest, which most of the "Standard Model Scholars" such as Tribe, Volokh, Levinson, et al fall into in my opinion. Come on, folks, you have to say WHAT the law is, not what YOU WANT IT TO BE!
Second off, there have been about 60 cases holding that the Second Amendment relates to Article I, Section 8. This is just a guess so I don't really want the nitpicking wankers to start saying there were 48 or 127.230707609 cases. But, pretty much up until Emerson and Parker, the rulings were that the right belongs to the militia. In fact, U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987) was the controlling case in DC up until Paker v. DC and it held that the Second Amendment only applied to the National Guard. That means that Sandidge was controlling precedent for 20 years!
Third off, even if you think that Heller broke new ground, it didn't really say that guns couldn't be regulated, but the upshot of saying there is an individual right will mean there will be a flood of litigation about what that right means. It seems everybody has forgotten John Walker Lindh, the US Taliban bloke, who used Ashcroft's pronouncement to fight his charges.
He was only exercising his Second Amendment rights there.
Now, I have a client named Mohammad who was caught with a loaded AK-47 near an International Airport. I can use the Second Amendment to argue that he shouldn't be charged. After all, he didn't go hunting intercontinental jumbo jet airliners. At least, not that time. Isn't it his right to carry a loaded AK-47 near the airport? Ditto, the Chaps who wanted to have a sniper challenge at Fort Dix. I mean, they just took videos of themselves, they weren't shooting soldiers.
Isn't that bearing arms? Now, doesn't arms also mean things like rocket launchers and guided missiles? I mean "arms control" isn't about handguns. Maybe, Mr. Mohammad will want to exercise his right to use a stinger on a jet airliner. What would stop him then?
Of course, I am hearing that "sober second thoughts of practicing lawyers" is what took over and is causing the Administration to want to change it's position. Well, I am a criminal defence lawyer and I know what trouble a finding of an "individual right" will cause. It has been settled law, among the truly knowledgeable, that the Second Amendment protects a collective right for nearly 70 years, yet there have been a shitload of cases where people have tried to argue an individual right.
Now, think of how many cases will come about when it the Second Amendment is declared an individual right? The Fort Dix Six have just received the biggest gift they could imagine.
I'd like to think that the Judges on the Supreme Court will have enough sense to see the mess that would be created by declaring an individual right as well. The "Scholars" want to twist dicta to buttress their weak arguments against what is pretty much well settled case law, but they don't mention Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) in their lists of Second Amendment cases. Is it because Justice Douglas said: "There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police" in his analysis of the Second Amendment?
Yep, That's William O. "Wild Bill" Douglas, my hero. Of course, I like him for saving the C&O Canal. He had a neat house as well.
But, the "Scholars" want to make an argument where one doesn't exist which is why they use dicta rather than holdings to buttress their argument. That's because the legal holdings are against them.
And, there is no good policy reason to change the law to find an individual right to own a firearm. Unless, you want to destroy this county by giving guns to criminals and terrorists. Although, that seems to be the objective of the RKBA crowd.
A point here, The Court would have to rethink US v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002) if they find an individual right. Since the holding was in opposition to an individual right. Bean was a felon who was precluded from owning a firearm. He petitioned the ATF to reinstate his "rights", but the ATF didn't have enough money (guess why!). SO, ATF didn't come to a decision. Bean wanted judicial relief, but the law didn't grant it without a decision. The problem here was that the Court was unanimous in its decision that Bean wasn't entitled to relief.
Now, if the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, the court HAD to grant Bean relief.
But, I have been pointing out that US v. Rybar was a case that held the Second Amendment was a collective right. And, Justice Alito was one that panel.
Now, it's ridiculous to say that conservativism means one finds the Second Amendment to be an Individual right, because, Justice McReynolds who wrote US v.Miller has been described as the most reactionary of Justices. Judge Robert Bork has denounced what he calls the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, something he describes as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets." Instead, he has argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.
Nor, does gun ownership mean one supports an individual right.
The problem is that the Government wants to please everyone, which it really shouldn't be doing. The RKBA crowd is not representative of the American people, or even gun owners. I know I don't condone the ability of prohibited people to acquire firearms because of the lack of serious firearms regulation, and I AM a gun owner!
Government should lead, not follow. I mean they aren't called "our leaders" for nothing.
First off, finding an individual right goes against the Supreme Court's own precedent. If Chief Justice Robert's doesn't have his stuff together to say that it's settled law that the Second Amendment applies only to "Well regulated militias" being those set up under Article I, Section 8, then maybe I SHOULD be chief justice. The only people it isn't settled law in are the ignorant or the dishonest, which most of the "Standard Model Scholars" such as Tribe, Volokh, Levinson, et al fall into in my opinion. Come on, folks, you have to say WHAT the law is, not what YOU WANT IT TO BE!
Second off, there have been about 60 cases holding that the Second Amendment relates to Article I, Section 8. This is just a guess so I don't really want the nitpicking wankers to start saying there were 48 or 127.230707609 cases. But, pretty much up until Emerson and Parker, the rulings were that the right belongs to the militia. In fact, U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987) was the controlling case in DC up until Paker v. DC and it held that the Second Amendment only applied to the National Guard. That means that Sandidge was controlling precedent for 20 years!
Third off, even if you think that Heller broke new ground, it didn't really say that guns couldn't be regulated, but the upshot of saying there is an individual right will mean there will be a flood of litigation about what that right means. It seems everybody has forgotten John Walker Lindh, the US Taliban bloke, who used Ashcroft's pronouncement to fight his charges.
He was only exercising his Second Amendment rights there.
Now, I have a client named Mohammad who was caught with a loaded AK-47 near an International Airport. I can use the Second Amendment to argue that he shouldn't be charged. After all, he didn't go hunting intercontinental jumbo jet airliners. At least, not that time. Isn't it his right to carry a loaded AK-47 near the airport? Ditto, the Chaps who wanted to have a sniper challenge at Fort Dix. I mean, they just took videos of themselves, they weren't shooting soldiers.
Isn't that bearing arms? Now, doesn't arms also mean things like rocket launchers and guided missiles? I mean "arms control" isn't about handguns. Maybe, Mr. Mohammad will want to exercise his right to use a stinger on a jet airliner. What would stop him then?
Of course, I am hearing that "sober second thoughts of practicing lawyers" is what took over and is causing the Administration to want to change it's position. Well, I am a criminal defence lawyer and I know what trouble a finding of an "individual right" will cause. It has been settled law, among the truly knowledgeable, that the Second Amendment protects a collective right for nearly 70 years, yet there have been a shitload of cases where people have tried to argue an individual right.
Now, think of how many cases will come about when it the Second Amendment is declared an individual right? The Fort Dix Six have just received the biggest gift they could imagine.
I'd like to think that the Judges on the Supreme Court will have enough sense to see the mess that would be created by declaring an individual right as well. The "Scholars" want to twist dicta to buttress their weak arguments against what is pretty much well settled case law, but they don't mention Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) in their lists of Second Amendment cases. Is it because Justice Douglas said: "There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police" in his analysis of the Second Amendment?
Yep, That's William O. "Wild Bill" Douglas, my hero. Of course, I like him for saving the C&O Canal. He had a neat house as well.
But, the "Scholars" want to make an argument where one doesn't exist which is why they use dicta rather than holdings to buttress their argument. That's because the legal holdings are against them.
And, there is no good policy reason to change the law to find an individual right to own a firearm. Unless, you want to destroy this county by giving guns to criminals and terrorists. Although, that seems to be the objective of the RKBA crowd.
A point here, The Court would have to rethink US v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71 (2002) if they find an individual right. Since the holding was in opposition to an individual right. Bean was a felon who was precluded from owning a firearm. He petitioned the ATF to reinstate his "rights", but the ATF didn't have enough money (guess why!). SO, ATF didn't come to a decision. Bean wanted judicial relief, but the law didn't grant it without a decision. The problem here was that the Court was unanimous in its decision that Bean wasn't entitled to relief.
Now, if the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, the court HAD to grant Bean relief.
But, I have been pointing out that US v. Rybar was a case that held the Second Amendment was a collective right. And, Justice Alito was one that panel.
Now, it's ridiculous to say that conservativism means one finds the Second Amendment to be an Individual right, because, Justice McReynolds who wrote US v.Miller has been described as the most reactionary of Justices. Judge Robert Bork has denounced what he calls the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, something he describes as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets." Instead, he has argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.
Nor, does gun ownership mean one supports an individual right.
The problem is that the Government wants to please everyone, which it really shouldn't be doing. The RKBA crowd is not representative of the American people, or even gun owners. I know I don't condone the ability of prohibited people to acquire firearms because of the lack of serious firearms regulation, and I AM a gun owner!
Government should lead, not follow. I mean they aren't called "our leaders" for nothing.
21 January 2008
History is written by the victors
Ever wonder what life would be like if the British had won the war for American Independence or the French the French and Indian Wars? I do. Not sure which would be a better scenario. The first, the US would be an intelligent Canada (no sales tax on stamps, gun control, "socialised" medicine, land planning etc.) and the Second, kind of a larger Belgium with French, English, German, and Dutch being the official languages.
Anyway, I found this badge in my travels:
Sure, it is for the Island of Jersey Militia, but think with all these RKBA people talking about being able to rebel against a tyrannical government. Now, what is to prevent people from deciding that the US war for Independence was illegal and that the current government neglects the welfare of its citizens? I mean there are loads of us who have loyalist ancestors who decided it was better to keep their traps shut than say the rebels were wrong. 50,000 Loyalists left the states for Canada. And, Benedict Arnold, the true patriot, ended up living his days in London (not a bad option). Additionally, as I continuously point out, the REAL reason for the rebellion was an out of control military.
Now, Isn't the current military establishment pretty out of control? I mean several trillion for a couple of wars that really don't make sense as far as security goes. Give me a break, Iraq is a failure as is Afghanistan.
So, watch out for the Royal New Jersey Militia!
Anyway, I found this badge in my travels:
Sure, it is for the Island of Jersey Militia, but think with all these RKBA people talking about being able to rebel against a tyrannical government. Now, what is to prevent people from deciding that the US war for Independence was illegal and that the current government neglects the welfare of its citizens? I mean there are loads of us who have loyalist ancestors who decided it was better to keep their traps shut than say the rebels were wrong. 50,000 Loyalists left the states for Canada. And, Benedict Arnold, the true patriot, ended up living his days in London (not a bad option). Additionally, as I continuously point out, the REAL reason for the rebellion was an out of control military.
Now, Isn't the current military establishment pretty out of control? I mean several trillion for a couple of wars that really don't make sense as far as security goes. Give me a break, Iraq is a failure as is Afghanistan.
So, watch out for the Royal New Jersey Militia!
17 January 2008
Exporting Jobs
As a dual citizen, I am a lot upset with how this country cavalierly ships out its jobs to the lowest bidder. I find that I am competing against real foreigners (v. me who is technically citizen due to birth in the motor city). It is very easy for companies to get H1 visas, or just ship off the jobs. And it is my attitude toward this type of behaviour which puts me at odds with both political parties: especially the republicans.
H1 visas are what a company gets if there is no local talent who can do the job. This is why there are loads of Indians in the IT industry. On the other hand, I am sure there are loads of people out there who could be trained to do the job, if the companies were forced to do so. Or, in my case, the companies had to prove there was no local talent.
In 1992, I was living in Brussels and working for a law firm there. My grandfather had a stroke in Autumn 1991. In a way, I felt I needed to be with my mum in the States. Along came a job ad in the ABA Journal for someone with a British Education, trained in European Community law, with experience in that field who could be admitted to the Illinois bar. Five people who knew me contacted me to tell me about this ad. I was to submit my resume to the Illinois Department of Labour.
Anyway, I ended up returning to the States in the hope that I would hear from these people for a job interview (among other reasons). That never happened. Well, not exactly. About a year later, I received an offer from a large law firm to come to Chicago to interview. Prior to that interview, I rode into town with an immigration attorney who told me about Job Cert ads. They are the ads which are supposed to prove there is no local talent for a job. That was probably what the ABA Journal ad was. So, during the interview, I mentioned this ad and the interviewer chuckled and said, "Oh, that was you. we pulled the ad and rewrote it to get our candidate."
Now, in any other country, the firm would have had to at least interview me before hiring a "foreigner". Not so in the US. The firm is allowed to pull the ad and rewrite it to make it more specific so that it can hire its own candidate.
I am one case where this has happened. How many others are there out there? How many US citizens are being denied jobs for illegal aliens (the minimum wage and construction jobs) or visas are being granted just because they can pay a foreigner less money?
Another thing which really has me pissed off are the foreign call centres. IS business really saving money if somebody in Mumbai or Bangalore is taking the phone call, yet they don't really understand the problem? Case in point, I had two phone lines that I cut down to one in September. My DSL should have been moved to the one existing line. Somehow, my phone bill didn't go down. I kept calling with no responsible human being. First line was the voice mail hell, which never got me to a human being. The Second line was the off-shore phone bank.
I am talking to Mohinder, Gupti, Shakti, et al. who don't grasp the concept that someone who has been a customer for 5 years isn't a "new" customer. Why the new customer fee? Requests for a supervisor are met with a long wait on hold. So, I am getting more and more frustrated. I file complaints with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Even then, I don't really get any satisfaction from my phone company. It isn't until my internet is cut off that I realise the extent of my phone company's screw up. Of course, it takes three hours to straighten this out, which probably wouldn't have happened if i hadn't complained to the PUC.
The easy solution, which should have happened was that there was a move order for my DSL from the line that was discontinued to the main phone line. No, what had happened was that they set up a new DSL account and kept the old account alive on a non-existant phone line! I am not sure what language they speak in Mumbai or Bangalore since there are 22 different official languages in India (I think Hindi), but they couldn't grasp English. None of these people could see the problem. In fact, the situation became more and more messed up until I had to speak with people in the US.
How much money is business wasting by having people who don't really speak English field customer service phone calls? Even more salient, how pissed off are the customers to have their time wasted? I mean I would switch my business in a heartbeat if there was an alternative. But there isn't.
The Republicans love to talk about market forces, but that is nice talk. Especially if people are losing their jobs. Additionally, is business really doing any better by going for the cheapest labour it can find if it ends up costing more in the long run in repairs to its eff ups? Wouldn't we be better off if there were more Americans working than looking afield for workers, especially in a recession?
Quite frankly, other countries aren't going to hire an American if they have unemployed people with qualifications. Conversely America shouldn't be hiring people from abroad if there are Americans without jobs.
H1 visas are what a company gets if there is no local talent who can do the job. This is why there are loads of Indians in the IT industry. On the other hand, I am sure there are loads of people out there who could be trained to do the job, if the companies were forced to do so. Or, in my case, the companies had to prove there was no local talent.
In 1992, I was living in Brussels and working for a law firm there. My grandfather had a stroke in Autumn 1991. In a way, I felt I needed to be with my mum in the States. Along came a job ad in the ABA Journal for someone with a British Education, trained in European Community law, with experience in that field who could be admitted to the Illinois bar. Five people who knew me contacted me to tell me about this ad. I was to submit my resume to the Illinois Department of Labour.
Anyway, I ended up returning to the States in the hope that I would hear from these people for a job interview (among other reasons). That never happened. Well, not exactly. About a year later, I received an offer from a large law firm to come to Chicago to interview. Prior to that interview, I rode into town with an immigration attorney who told me about Job Cert ads. They are the ads which are supposed to prove there is no local talent for a job. That was probably what the ABA Journal ad was. So, during the interview, I mentioned this ad and the interviewer chuckled and said, "Oh, that was you. we pulled the ad and rewrote it to get our candidate."
Now, in any other country, the firm would have had to at least interview me before hiring a "foreigner". Not so in the US. The firm is allowed to pull the ad and rewrite it to make it more specific so that it can hire its own candidate.
I am one case where this has happened. How many others are there out there? How many US citizens are being denied jobs for illegal aliens (the minimum wage and construction jobs) or visas are being granted just because they can pay a foreigner less money?
Another thing which really has me pissed off are the foreign call centres. IS business really saving money if somebody in Mumbai or Bangalore is taking the phone call, yet they don't really understand the problem? Case in point, I had two phone lines that I cut down to one in September. My DSL should have been moved to the one existing line. Somehow, my phone bill didn't go down. I kept calling with no responsible human being. First line was the voice mail hell, which never got me to a human being. The Second line was the off-shore phone bank.
I am talking to Mohinder, Gupti, Shakti, et al. who don't grasp the concept that someone who has been a customer for 5 years isn't a "new" customer. Why the new customer fee? Requests for a supervisor are met with a long wait on hold. So, I am getting more and more frustrated. I file complaints with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Even then, I don't really get any satisfaction from my phone company. It isn't until my internet is cut off that I realise the extent of my phone company's screw up. Of course, it takes three hours to straighten this out, which probably wouldn't have happened if i hadn't complained to the PUC.
The easy solution, which should have happened was that there was a move order for my DSL from the line that was discontinued to the main phone line. No, what had happened was that they set up a new DSL account and kept the old account alive on a non-existant phone line! I am not sure what language they speak in Mumbai or Bangalore since there are 22 different official languages in India (I think Hindi), but they couldn't grasp English. None of these people could see the problem. In fact, the situation became more and more messed up until I had to speak with people in the US.
How much money is business wasting by having people who don't really speak English field customer service phone calls? Even more salient, how pissed off are the customers to have their time wasted? I mean I would switch my business in a heartbeat if there was an alternative. But there isn't.
The Republicans love to talk about market forces, but that is nice talk. Especially if people are losing their jobs. Additionally, is business really doing any better by going for the cheapest labour it can find if it ends up costing more in the long run in repairs to its eff ups? Wouldn't we be better off if there were more Americans working than looking afield for workers, especially in a recession?
Quite frankly, other countries aren't going to hire an American if they have unemployed people with qualifications. Conversely America shouldn't be hiring people from abroad if there are Americans without jobs.
14 January 2008
British Army recruiting material misleading youths.
A week ago there was an article in The Independent and a few other British Papers about how the British Army glamourises war in its recruiting materials. The article states that "The advertising campaigns used by the Ministry of Defence "glamorise warfare, omit vital information and fail to point out the risks and responsibilities associated with a forces career", says the study." That's sort of amusing to me since I remember ads that were pretty realistic as to what I would end up doing once I became commissioned. Although, I do have to admit that this clip from the Beatles' movie help was an influence as well.
It should not come as a surprise to anyone who has watched TV or gone to the movies that the military aids in production, especially if it can be shown in a good light. I wonder how much help the TV program "Soldier, Soldier" had. And I know that the British Army helped in the recent remake (?) of Red Cap with Tamzin Outhwaite. Ms. Outhwaite actually received training at The British Army's Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre in Chilwell, Nottingham.
On the other hand, the military is supposed to be targeting children as young as seven. I would like to point out as well that the UK is the only EU state to recruit people aged 16. Well, I guess that's fair since 16 year olds can have sex and legally drink in the UK. I mean you can serve in the military and vote in the States, but can't drink. How fair is that?
Needless to say, I am kind of amused by this news, especially the quote from one Article that the hardest thing one recruit had to do was "learn how to ride a horse". Must have been joining the horse guards (or a cavalry unit). In case you didn't know there are two segments of the British Army that requires and additional 6 months of training before a recruit is selected: the paras and the guards. Seriously, the guards have to learn how to polish all that metalwork and the other ceremonial trappings.
Oh, well, I always said the military was like the Boy Scouts except they give you guns. Actually that statement really is not too far off since Baden-Powell designed scouting to indoctrinate young men into the military life style.
So, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that the military is glamourised. Especially now that the Iraq war is as unpopular as it is and it is hard for any military to find people crazy enough to want to be soldiers.
It should not come as a surprise to anyone who has watched TV or gone to the movies that the military aids in production, especially if it can be shown in a good light. I wonder how much help the TV program "Soldier, Soldier" had. And I know that the British Army helped in the recent remake (?) of Red Cap with Tamzin Outhwaite. Ms. Outhwaite actually received training at The British Army's Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre in Chilwell, Nottingham.
On the other hand, the military is supposed to be targeting children as young as seven. I would like to point out as well that the UK is the only EU state to recruit people aged 16. Well, I guess that's fair since 16 year olds can have sex and legally drink in the UK. I mean you can serve in the military and vote in the States, but can't drink. How fair is that?
Needless to say, I am kind of amused by this news, especially the quote from one Article that the hardest thing one recruit had to do was "learn how to ride a horse". Must have been joining the horse guards (or a cavalry unit). In case you didn't know there are two segments of the British Army that requires and additional 6 months of training before a recruit is selected: the paras and the guards. Seriously, the guards have to learn how to polish all that metalwork and the other ceremonial trappings.
Oh, well, I always said the military was like the Boy Scouts except they give you guns. Actually that statement really is not too far off since Baden-Powell designed scouting to indoctrinate young men into the military life style.
So, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that the military is glamourised. Especially now that the Iraq war is as unpopular as it is and it is hard for any military to find people crazy enough to want to be soldiers.
13 January 2008
Time shifting the News
I am thoroughly sick of hearing about the US election, especially since I think the candidates will be Huckaby v either Obama or Clinton. I do have to admit to enjoying Bill, but he had humour value. In some ways, Wes Clark reminds me of Bill Clinton, except he can keep his dick in his pants.
Anyway, I enjoy the internet, especially now that most of the short wave broadcasts have been abandoned by reputable broadcasting networks. The internet allows one to connect to other viewpoints. Although, sometimes it can be like wading through a sewer emptying out the Augean Stables (e.g., researching the Second Amendment).
NPR has become inundated with repetitive news (Iraq and the Elections). So, I am listening to the BBC news and Radio Nederland for non-US news. It's nice to get a variety of stories. For example, this story about an 88 year old pensioner who is doing ballet! It was fun listening to this man talk about his wanting to do ballet.
In the old days, NPR had a lot more variety, but I am not sure why they have cut down on the variety of their stories. I mean, it really was all things considered. Now its seems to be only Elections and Iraq considered. And they are considered until you are sick of it all.
So, I am finding that I am listening less and less to NPR and more to internet radio.
Maybe, NPR will return to its roots and start providing more diverse coverage.
Anyway, I enjoy the internet, especially now that most of the short wave broadcasts have been abandoned by reputable broadcasting networks. The internet allows one to connect to other viewpoints. Although, sometimes it can be like wading through a sewer emptying out the Augean Stables (e.g., researching the Second Amendment).
NPR has become inundated with repetitive news (Iraq and the Elections). So, I am listening to the BBC news and Radio Nederland for non-US news. It's nice to get a variety of stories. For example, this story about an 88 year old pensioner who is doing ballet! It was fun listening to this man talk about his wanting to do ballet.
In the old days, NPR had a lot more variety, but I am not sure why they have cut down on the variety of their stories. I mean, it really was all things considered. Now its seems to be only Elections and Iraq considered. And they are considered until you are sick of it all.
So, I am finding that I am listening less and less to NPR and more to internet radio.
Maybe, NPR will return to its roots and start providing more diverse coverage.
12 January 2008
Perpetual elections
It seems as if the US presidential election has been going on since the end of the last election in 2004. Barely has it officially started and it has been going on far too long.
This whole thing reminds me of the African Politician, I think it was Jomo Kenyatta, talking about the one party versus multiple party systems who said soemthing along the lines of: "Does having one party make us less of a democracy than a two party system? Do two parties make you twice the democracy we are?"
That seems particularly appropriate in regard to the US elections. The whole thing goes on far too long, has far too few real leaders, and isn't really "democratic" anyway. The last one must seem pretty amusing given my comments on democracy. On the other hand, if a nation is going to go around boasting about how it is run by the people, the people should be allowed to properly participate. Instead, quite a few people are disenfranchised.
How? well, the whole process is really run by the parties, which are really Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. I see no real difference between the parties in practise with the exception of the fact that the "Republicans" tend to favour plutocracy over monarchy. Additionally, they come up with the most divisive and useless issues: "Gun Rights", "Pro-life" (yet support capital punishment), and religion. This pushes me closer to being a democrat than a republican, even though in English terms I come closer to being a Liberal-Democrat or Conservative!
The funny thing is that Richard Nixon would seem pretty liberal as well by today's standards for his promotion of such things as the Clean Air and Water Acts!
I would vote for Oliver Cromwell, who was a republican in the sense that the current republican party seems to be, if I wanted a theocracy.
Sorry for the digression, but in quite a few states independents are barred from voting in the primary election. One must declare party affiliation to vote here in Pennsylvania. Sort of like in Northern Ireland: Are you a republican independent or democratic independent? The whole primary system isn't really run to be fair for all the citizens, it is run to be fair to the parties.
In the 2004 election, I supported General Wes Clark. Yet due to the primary system, he was no longer a candidate when the Pennsylvania primary was run. In fact, it seemed as if the election had pretty much been decided for John Kerry. Now, I am hearing that the Democrats are refusing to seat the Michigan delegation since the State party decided to push its primary forward. Very democratic of them.
As I like to point out, one of the reasons for the American revolution was this desire to be run locally, not by a faceless and distant government. Yet, this is what really ends up happening in US politics. Originally, the candidates were chosen in smoke filled rooms, now we have this pretense that there is democratic input. On the other hand, it is the parties which prolong the primary process until we are numb that really controls the choice of candidates.
So, the people with the largest war chests actually go on to the finish and the voters are screwed as far as choices go. In fact, I hardly hear any substantive discussion of the issues in lieu of sound bites. The real winners are the people behind the scenes who collect all the money which is spent on this process. Indeed fortunes are made on this process; so why make it shorter?
In reality, it is the special interests who really run government in the United States, not the people.
The final insult is the electoral college, which can take a popularly elected Person (e.g., Al Gore) and give the crown to someone who didn't win, and in Gore's Opponent's case, shouldn't have won. So, it is very amusing to hear George Bush rant on about democracy when he was never really democratically elected!
So, to get back to the Kenyatta quote, having one party or two parties doesn't make a government "democratic" if the underlying system isn't really democratic. In fact, it is a sham to claim to be democratic if the real result is to thwart the will of the people. Ultimately, this is not beneficial in the long run.
People are denied leadership by this process. The US stagnates with a lack of serious gun regulation and health care, the economy run for the benefit of the very rich, not for the people. Or as Dubious (Bush) said, "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."
This whole thing reminds me of the African Politician, I think it was Jomo Kenyatta, talking about the one party versus multiple party systems who said soemthing along the lines of: "Does having one party make us less of a democracy than a two party system? Do two parties make you twice the democracy we are?"
That seems particularly appropriate in regard to the US elections. The whole thing goes on far too long, has far too few real leaders, and isn't really "democratic" anyway. The last one must seem pretty amusing given my comments on democracy. On the other hand, if a nation is going to go around boasting about how it is run by the people, the people should be allowed to properly participate. Instead, quite a few people are disenfranchised.
How? well, the whole process is really run by the parties, which are really Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber. I see no real difference between the parties in practise with the exception of the fact that the "Republicans" tend to favour plutocracy over monarchy. Additionally, they come up with the most divisive and useless issues: "Gun Rights", "Pro-life" (yet support capital punishment), and religion. This pushes me closer to being a democrat than a republican, even though in English terms I come closer to being a Liberal-Democrat or Conservative!
The funny thing is that Richard Nixon would seem pretty liberal as well by today's standards for his promotion of such things as the Clean Air and Water Acts!
I would vote for Oliver Cromwell, who was a republican in the sense that the current republican party seems to be, if I wanted a theocracy.
Sorry for the digression, but in quite a few states independents are barred from voting in the primary election. One must declare party affiliation to vote here in Pennsylvania. Sort of like in Northern Ireland: Are you a republican independent or democratic independent? The whole primary system isn't really run to be fair for all the citizens, it is run to be fair to the parties.
In the 2004 election, I supported General Wes Clark. Yet due to the primary system, he was no longer a candidate when the Pennsylvania primary was run. In fact, it seemed as if the election had pretty much been decided for John Kerry. Now, I am hearing that the Democrats are refusing to seat the Michigan delegation since the State party decided to push its primary forward. Very democratic of them.
As I like to point out, one of the reasons for the American revolution was this desire to be run locally, not by a faceless and distant government. Yet, this is what really ends up happening in US politics. Originally, the candidates were chosen in smoke filled rooms, now we have this pretense that there is democratic input. On the other hand, it is the parties which prolong the primary process until we are numb that really controls the choice of candidates.
So, the people with the largest war chests actually go on to the finish and the voters are screwed as far as choices go. In fact, I hardly hear any substantive discussion of the issues in lieu of sound bites. The real winners are the people behind the scenes who collect all the money which is spent on this process. Indeed fortunes are made on this process; so why make it shorter?
In reality, it is the special interests who really run government in the United States, not the people.
The final insult is the electoral college, which can take a popularly elected Person (e.g., Al Gore) and give the crown to someone who didn't win, and in Gore's Opponent's case, shouldn't have won. So, it is very amusing to hear George Bush rant on about democracy when he was never really democratically elected!
So, to get back to the Kenyatta quote, having one party or two parties doesn't make a government "democratic" if the underlying system isn't really democratic. In fact, it is a sham to claim to be democratic if the real result is to thwart the will of the people. Ultimately, this is not beneficial in the long run.
People are denied leadership by this process. The US stagnates with a lack of serious gun regulation and health care, the economy run for the benefit of the very rich, not for the people. Or as Dubious (Bush) said, "This is an impressive crowd of the haves and have mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
