After taking 8 months off from contributing to this blog, I have quit my job in Harrisburg, moved to Washington DC, began graduate school and almost went insane in the process. However I’ve finally settled down and decided to start writing again, for no other reason than I need a secure outlet to tangibly observe the world… we all need outlets.
And since I was MIA during this once in a lifetime election I wanted to provide some of my more colorful synopsis of Obama V. McCain. Or should I say Obama v. Joe Six Pack, a.k.a. Joe the Plumber, a.k.a. “Real America” a.k.a. Moose Hunter Sally a.k.a. Hockey Mom Hanna a.k.a. Gee Golly Witikers Wonda a.k.a. Sarah Palin. (okay those last few were a bit unfair)
This election had it all and then some; it had everything a political junkie could ask for. It had inconclusive and ever changing poll numbers, larger than life candidates (Biden’s teeth count as an entire candidate) majestic speeches, candidate gaffs that could light up the Apollo, political commercials abound, cheep stunts, flashy wardrobes, pit bulls with and without lipstick, flag pins, terrorist fist jabs, sexism, racism, ageism, hockey momism and every other sort of ism one could imagine, to use a phrase from my generation, it was like…totally awesome.
It all started when Obama picked Biden as VP over “I’d rather watch paint dry” Tim Kaine and “It’s the political equivalent of kissing my sister” Evan Bayh. Republicans had little to cry about, Biden was qualified, a fighter, and had an encyclopedia like knowledge in his understanding of foreign affairs. And of course Hillary supporters bitched and complained because their gal was left blowing in the wind. Obama gave a moving and rousing speech at the DNC where he proclaimed that McCain simply “didn’t get it” to which of course Obama was referring to the number of houses John McCain himself owned.
Then came the RNC, where Joe “Schlieberman” Lieberman went out of his way to bash his one time ally Obama, who campaigned for him just two years earlier and helped the poor schmuck get reelected after loosing in his own freakin’ primary. Then Sarah Palin spoke, displaying her razor sharp talent of reading off of a teleprompter. She made fun of community organizers, roused up the crowd by leading a Drill Baby Drill chant, made a joke about pit bulls and lipstick and mentioned guns and taxes a whole bunch…that was about it.
Then came September, Obama visited Iraq and Europe, gave a big speech in front of more people than you would find at a Beatles concert and was later ridiculed in the infamous Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton “Celebrity” political ad. As if wanting the European community to actually support and be intrigued by the next possible leader of the free world was somehow a bad thing. Obama raises 75 million and McCain gets to enjoy tax payer funded campaign finances, bean soup and Red Roof In’s for the next two months. Obama says that McCain is “losing his Barings” and is “erratic” and is accused of ageism, yet no one cares. McCain put out an ad that accuses Obama of wanting to invite 6 year olds over to his home where he would personally teach them about sex education with cabbage patch dolls and a laser pointer, or something like that. Obama goes to Florida and try's to scare old people into voting for him, saying that McCain would take their social security money and give it to Wal-Street to use for toilet paper; which was partly true.
Then the Market crashes and a lot of people lose a lot of homes and stuff, 700 billion dollars is printed from the Fed and given to the Treasury, Paulsen uses it for insulation or something. McCain “suspends” his campaign to fly to Washington to solve the economic crisis, (as of today the Dow is down 6,000 points, way to fuck that one up John). McCain threatens to not show up for the first debate; he does anyway after realizing in doing so would make him look like a douche bag and senile all at the same time. He gets his ass handed too him as indicated by a slew of post debate polls, and yet somehow Sean Hannity over at Fox Noise continues to insist that Obama is the anti-Christ and will eat your children. Due to Obama’s steadfast and calm demeanor during the bailout weeks, he comes off as looking, you know presidential and consequently solidifies his lead in the polls, jumping over the ever allusive and perceptually important 50% mark.
Then comes October, Sean Hannity and William Crystal have an on screen orgasm because finally the main stream media decides to run stories on William Ayers, Obama’s best friend and gay lover, who happens to be a domestic terrorist, even though these stories have been readily available to the American public for 7 months. McCain does not bring up the Ayers or Wright connection in the second debate because he feels they are “off limits” and “not what the American people care about”, he gets his ass kicked anyway (as decided by post debate independent polls). In the third debate the phrase Joe the Plumber is used something like 25 times and as a consequence this bald headed tax evader from Ohio becomes an instant celebrity (only in America). McCain brings up Ayers because he doesn’t want to get his ass kicked, and yet he still gets his assed kicked.
In the midst of Sarah Palin refusing to do a single interview for the first 3 weeks, October rolls around and the opium like high that some in the hierarchy of the republican base had once felt, begins to ware off and the realization that Sarah Palin is an idiot and isn’t fit to be vice president of her local PTA begins to set in. She claims that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, she can’t define the Bush doctrine, can’t name a single Supreme Court case that she disagrees with other than Roe v. Wade (which any 4th grader with a speech impediment can name), she can’t name one magazine, newspaper or periodical she reads (probably because she doesn’t) and she claims that the Iraq war was God’s will…and I could go on and on, but I’d rather not re live those horrifying days.
Late October rolls around; Obama widens his lead in VA, PA, CO, NM and begins to make headway in FL, NC, NV, OH and yes MT. Palin says that Obama is “pall’n around with terrorists” and declares that apparently there are some people in this country who are “real” Americans, which by logical reasoning, (although she doesn’t say it) means that there are some of us who are not “real” Americans, which I was eager to find out who, but never did. McCain declares Obama is a socialist even though his hero Teddy Roosevelt was too (progressive tax system). Biden thinks that FDR was president during the great depression and Obama plays basketball whenever he can.
November 4th comes and Obama punches McCain in the face politically speaking, winning in places that Democrats haven’t won since Jefferson (not really) like in Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia and Nebraska’s second district. A landslide victory is declared at 11:02pm by MSNBC in the form of a 360 + to 170+ electoral college victory and the first black man is elected to serve as president of a country that just 40 years prior legally sanctioned segregated schools, busses, restaurants and movie theaters based on skin color alone. Obama gives a rousing speech in Grant Park in Chicago in front of 400,000 screaming Obamaniacs, where he asks American’s to sacrifice, while McCain gives a speech in his mom’s garage asking Americans to do whatever President-elect Obama asks.
And there it was my own little sarcastic yet equally gratifying synopsis of the presidential election, I obviously left out some stuff so I’m open to suggestions as to what I should have added.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Why Obama's not Wrong on Wright
I first must confess that as a liberal, somewhat educated self professed social democrat, I just downright dropped the ball on this one, I missed it. When I saw these tapes emerging on Fox news (a news channel that prides itself on the fair and balance reporting it supposedly conducts on a nightly basis) I thought to myself “okay these words are pretty inflammatory and definitely reprehensible, but it’s one priest right? No harm no foul” These words were said inside the confines of church walls, and me being the staunch supporter of Thomas Jefferson’s separation of church and state, I just didn’t mind that much, as I believe it had little to do with Barack’s position on both domestic and foreign policy. Boy o Boy was I wrong, after witnessing the backlash, reading the polls and talking to a number of my conservative friends, Barack could be in a whole mess of trouble. Here is why I think that is ludicrous.
First point refers to credibility, people will continue to ask, and does Obama feel the same way as Reverend Wright does, regarding the sensitive issues of race and the critical issue of American foreign policy? My thoughts on trust are, unless there is evidence to the contrary it is easier to accept what someone says when they say it, you can’t spot evil on sight so there is no reason to try. I believe Obama when he says, as an educated and confident man he can critically disagree with his Reverend on his issues with American foreign policy and race and yet still have a relationship with him, especially since he was the man who introduced him to Christianity (don’t hardcore nut job Christians, what people to find Jesus? They should be happy that Reverend Wright introduced Obama to their lord and savior?).
Second point: Radical right wing spin doctors will try to paint Barack as anti-American, a presidential contender who won’t contend for America’s best interest, a man who simply does not love his country (using his wife’s “pride” comments and lapel-gate as political fodder I’m sure). But there is an ultimate flaw in this rational, to make that statement with regards to the words of Obama’s pastor is to somehow infer that a person’s patriotism is somehow directly related to that person’s faith. Essentially these people are saying that Obama’s pastor is unpatriotic (words extracted from a fraction of this man’s 30 year career as a minister mind you) therefore Barack is unpatriotic. Sounds nuts to me, what about all of those agnostics or atheists that live among us? Are they any less patriotic than me, a non practicing catholic? Do they value the rights that they have any less? I would contest an unequivocal no.
Third point: Hypocrisy on the right. I know what you’re thinking, (please read the following with a sarcastic tone) Republicans as hypocrites? That’s just crazy! But it’s true, far right radio talk show hosts, TV. pundits and regular voters will bemoan the hateful and divisive comments preached by Reverend Wright. They will scorch Obama’s character for associating himself with such a controversial man. This is their prerogative, but in order to be taken seriously they need to first look inward at their own party’s demons. The historical context should be known in order to make the correct and rational judgment regarding this regrettable situation, we should not demagogue, we should not treat this critical moment in our history as a way to fire up the bases.
Ronald Regan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 have all bellied up with and coddled profusely for their own political convenience with men who have epitomized divisiveness and hate for 30 years. These men have never been brought up in discussion over the Obama/Wright controversy, not once and yet the words they have spewed over the years in the name of God, the animosity they have felt and fueled over fellow Americans is equally reprehensible and appalling. Let it be known that it was Bush 1 who regularly sought out the spiritual guidance from Reverend Jerry Farwell, a man who was once quoted as saying “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”. He has also in the past equated the ACLU and its supporters to the Nazi party and Hitler’s Third Reich during the 1930’s and 40’s. I don’t know about you, but seeking the guidance of a spiritual advisor who blames a portion of this country’s population (homosexuals) for the mass killings and immeasurable suffering that AIDS have ravaged this country with, seems to me to be grounds for severe character questioning.
Or how about Bush II who regularly met at the White House, with Pat Robertson to discuss religious issues and matters of faith? Here is a man, a professed servant of God who has linked feminism to the cause of abortions, adultery and lesbianism? Or who equated homosexuals to Nazi’s? These are men who have demonized children of God, who have demonized fellow Americans who have cast the blame of death and destruction on gays, feminists and teenage women who face the unthinkable decision of termination. This is the hypocrisy that angers me so; this is the lack of intelligence that stifles my mind, smothering my thoughts to the point of exhaustion. We can denounce Reverend Wright’s comment and try to mischaracterize Obama for carrying on a relationship with this man, we can do that. But we cannot fully do that and call ourselves informed, fair, rational citizens while at the same time refusing to discuss the above mentioned relationships that former conservative presidents have engaged in.
Do I believe that either of Bush 1 or the current President Bush are horrible people because they associate themselves with such disgusting men such as Jerry Farwell or Pat Robertson? No. Do I believe that their relationships drastically affected social and fiscal policy? No. No more than Reverend Wright’s relationship with Obama drastically effect’s his outlook on governments role in our society.
Is this where our country has found itself? In a position where legitimate disagreements on crucial issues force us to disavow ourselves from the root of the original relationship all together? Can we no longer agree on 10 issues but disagree on 1 and still be respected? Must all of our presidential candidates now give nationally syndicated, headline speeches on faith to win trust for a position to be held that has little if any jurisdiction over faith?
I disagree with Michelle Obama…
For the first time in my life, I’m not proud of my country, I’m ashamed of it.
First point refers to credibility, people will continue to ask, and does Obama feel the same way as Reverend Wright does, regarding the sensitive issues of race and the critical issue of American foreign policy? My thoughts on trust are, unless there is evidence to the contrary it is easier to accept what someone says when they say it, you can’t spot evil on sight so there is no reason to try. I believe Obama when he says, as an educated and confident man he can critically disagree with his Reverend on his issues with American foreign policy and race and yet still have a relationship with him, especially since he was the man who introduced him to Christianity (don’t hardcore nut job Christians, what people to find Jesus? They should be happy that Reverend Wright introduced Obama to their lord and savior?).
Second point: Radical right wing spin doctors will try to paint Barack as anti-American, a presidential contender who won’t contend for America’s best interest, a man who simply does not love his country (using his wife’s “pride” comments and lapel-gate as political fodder I’m sure). But there is an ultimate flaw in this rational, to make that statement with regards to the words of Obama’s pastor is to somehow infer that a person’s patriotism is somehow directly related to that person’s faith. Essentially these people are saying that Obama’s pastor is unpatriotic (words extracted from a fraction of this man’s 30 year career as a minister mind you) therefore Barack is unpatriotic. Sounds nuts to me, what about all of those agnostics or atheists that live among us? Are they any less patriotic than me, a non practicing catholic? Do they value the rights that they have any less? I would contest an unequivocal no.
Third point: Hypocrisy on the right. I know what you’re thinking, (please read the following with a sarcastic tone) Republicans as hypocrites? That’s just crazy! But it’s true, far right radio talk show hosts, TV. pundits and regular voters will bemoan the hateful and divisive comments preached by Reverend Wright. They will scorch Obama’s character for associating himself with such a controversial man. This is their prerogative, but in order to be taken seriously they need to first look inward at their own party’s demons. The historical context should be known in order to make the correct and rational judgment regarding this regrettable situation, we should not demagogue, we should not treat this critical moment in our history as a way to fire up the bases.
Ronald Regan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 have all bellied up with and coddled profusely for their own political convenience with men who have epitomized divisiveness and hate for 30 years. These men have never been brought up in discussion over the Obama/Wright controversy, not once and yet the words they have spewed over the years in the name of God, the animosity they have felt and fueled over fellow Americans is equally reprehensible and appalling. Let it be known that it was Bush 1 who regularly sought out the spiritual guidance from Reverend Jerry Farwell, a man who was once quoted as saying “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”. He has also in the past equated the ACLU and its supporters to the Nazi party and Hitler’s Third Reich during the 1930’s and 40’s. I don’t know about you, but seeking the guidance of a spiritual advisor who blames a portion of this country’s population (homosexuals) for the mass killings and immeasurable suffering that AIDS have ravaged this country with, seems to me to be grounds for severe character questioning.
Or how about Bush II who regularly met at the White House, with Pat Robertson to discuss religious issues and matters of faith? Here is a man, a professed servant of God who has linked feminism to the cause of abortions, adultery and lesbianism? Or who equated homosexuals to Nazi’s? These are men who have demonized children of God, who have demonized fellow Americans who have cast the blame of death and destruction on gays, feminists and teenage women who face the unthinkable decision of termination. This is the hypocrisy that angers me so; this is the lack of intelligence that stifles my mind, smothering my thoughts to the point of exhaustion. We can denounce Reverend Wright’s comment and try to mischaracterize Obama for carrying on a relationship with this man, we can do that. But we cannot fully do that and call ourselves informed, fair, rational citizens while at the same time refusing to discuss the above mentioned relationships that former conservative presidents have engaged in.
Do I believe that either of Bush 1 or the current President Bush are horrible people because they associate themselves with such disgusting men such as Jerry Farwell or Pat Robertson? No. Do I believe that their relationships drastically affected social and fiscal policy? No. No more than Reverend Wright’s relationship with Obama drastically effect’s his outlook on governments role in our society.
Is this where our country has found itself? In a position where legitimate disagreements on crucial issues force us to disavow ourselves from the root of the original relationship all together? Can we no longer agree on 10 issues but disagree on 1 and still be respected? Must all of our presidential candidates now give nationally syndicated, headline speeches on faith to win trust for a position to be held that has little if any jurisdiction over faith?
I disagree with Michelle Obama…
For the first time in my life, I’m not proud of my country, I’m ashamed of it.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
HRC: Agent of Scare
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html
Is HRC borrowing an infamous and what in the past has been a successful play from the Republican scare tactic playbook? I’m not quite sure but as indicated in the article above, yesterday HRC was quoted as saying that the next president could be facing on the day of their inauguration a terrorist attack, and with this inevitable attack looming, only Hillary could properly handle the situation. It seems to me that the politics of fear has not subsided from our modern political system and in fact we may have seen the first of what could be a series of scare tactics aimed at distracting the American public long enough to recapture a front runner position.
Is HRC borrowing an infamous and what in the past has been a successful play from the Republican scare tactic playbook? I’m not quite sure but as indicated in the article above, yesterday HRC was quoted as saying that the next president could be facing on the day of their inauguration a terrorist attack, and with this inevitable attack looming, only Hillary could properly handle the situation. It seems to me that the politics of fear has not subsided from our modern political system and in fact we may have seen the first of what could be a series of scare tactics aimed at distracting the American public long enough to recapture a front runner position.
Friday, January 4, 2008
History in the Making
The results are in and Obama has captured the coveted Iowa caucuses. His secular sermons fueled by messages of hope and change and unity have resonated with independent, women and young voters alike. Although it is hard to say with a straight face that Iowan voters properly represent the average American vote (Iowa’s demographic is whiter than a Canadian hockey team) it is not the fact that Iowa’s delegates will be the deciding factor in the electoral equation to come – it wont. What is important is the significance of an Iowa win for a black freshman U.S. Senator with a funny name whose message is redefining contemporary American Politics.
I for one am proud to be living in this moment of history where for the first time in our Countries brief existence a black man is now a viable contender for the president of the United States. Forget that the latest zogby poll placing Barack in the winning column when raced against every prominent republican contender, forget that twice as many democrats came out to vote as did republicans and forget that he pulled in more independent and women votes (an essential for any democrat to win any campaign) than any other candidate – that’s not what is important.
The amazing thing, the unbelievable thing, the important thing is that a minority candidate who takes zero dollars from special interest and national PAC’s went to Iowa (ground zero for Caucasian American) and beat by 9 percentage points the most organized, powerful and intimidating political machine in American politics – the Clintons. From day one it was simply an oversight, an inconvenience that Hillary was going to have to run in the democratic primary, the pundits and the media all but gave the race to Clinton and in mid summer she was full steam ahead running a text book general election campaign.
Things have changed since then, America started to tune in and listen, they woke up and got engaged. The status quo has been challenged and the agents of change and unification have emerged victorious. At a time in American history where white kids still intimidate black kids by hanging nooses from school yard trees, where our justice system at times still sees in color and the idea of a black man leading a white man still conjures up feelings of skepticism isn’t this moment exactly what is needed?
A new day is upon us in American politics, you can capture the ears and souls of the American voters if you speak a message that appeals to the true ideals of every day America. Regaining the trust of the American people after Watergate was the starting point for every single candidate, reassuring the American people that government’s purpose is noble became more daunting post 9/11. But perhaps with this win in Iowa and a boat load of political steam heading into New Hampshire Barack can recapture the American spirit – he has my attention, I think he has yours, lets see what he’s going to do with it.
I for one am proud to be living in this moment of history where for the first time in our Countries brief existence a black man is now a viable contender for the president of the United States. Forget that the latest zogby poll placing Barack in the winning column when raced against every prominent republican contender, forget that twice as many democrats came out to vote as did republicans and forget that he pulled in more independent and women votes (an essential for any democrat to win any campaign) than any other candidate – that’s not what is important.
The amazing thing, the unbelievable thing, the important thing is that a minority candidate who takes zero dollars from special interest and national PAC’s went to Iowa (ground zero for Caucasian American) and beat by 9 percentage points the most organized, powerful and intimidating political machine in American politics – the Clintons. From day one it was simply an oversight, an inconvenience that Hillary was going to have to run in the democratic primary, the pundits and the media all but gave the race to Clinton and in mid summer she was full steam ahead running a text book general election campaign.
Things have changed since then, America started to tune in and listen, they woke up and got engaged. The status quo has been challenged and the agents of change and unification have emerged victorious. At a time in American history where white kids still intimidate black kids by hanging nooses from school yard trees, where our justice system at times still sees in color and the idea of a black man leading a white man still conjures up feelings of skepticism isn’t this moment exactly what is needed?
A new day is upon us in American politics, you can capture the ears and souls of the American voters if you speak a message that appeals to the true ideals of every day America. Regaining the trust of the American people after Watergate was the starting point for every single candidate, reassuring the American people that government’s purpose is noble became more daunting post 9/11. But perhaps with this win in Iowa and a boat load of political steam heading into New Hampshire Barack can recapture the American spirit – he has my attention, I think he has yours, lets see what he’s going to do with it.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Obama's Hope Message, Effecting More Than Voter Turnout
Those too old to remember what it feels like to believe in that which has not yet been achieved, to picture what isn’t yet there, to ponder the unthinkable may find it hard to grasp onto Barack Obama’s message of hope and change. His message, as he travels around the country is infused with youthful and optimistic rhetoric which is then combined with insightful pragmatic positions that speak to the most daunting problems of our time, and it’s no surprise that this refreshing style of politicking and campaigning has sparked a nation wide movement spurred by our countries youth.
We young people have a special ability, a rare commodity that hasn’t yet succumbed to the plight of cynicism – we have the ability, which ironically is fueled by our desire for change, to maintain hopefulness and search out inspiration. We haven’t been lulled into conformity, apathetically living through the discolored motions of our day to day lives. Barack Obama and his encouraging oratory demand the attention of our countries youth – those with the ability to rise above the fray and experiment with optimism are called to be this countries next generation, dared to break up the monotony of status quo.
Obama recently gave a speech in Iowa where he identified the possibility of change through the gumption and organization of small groups of people. He spoke of how those who choose to act can eventually with hard work and determination fight and effect positive change in the uneven and evolving fight between the powerless and the powerful. He spoke of how we can all in fact change the world. To some that may not mean a lot but to an optimistic youth those words can change lives, and inspire great things. This message may be the ticket for what Obama needs to get him into the White House, but recently I’ve been thinking that this could also be the start of a much larger movement.
This movement of change and hopefulness inspiring young people to get involved in the governmental process could take off in ways that transcend the ballot box. November 2008 will be marked off in the history books as being the year where the young people (18-27) decide the election, where the youth make their voices heard, and if Barack wins the nomination it could cement this countries youth in obligation for service, commitment and philanthropy sparked not by mandate or statute, but by our countries most jaded generation. As in 1961 when President Kennedy initiated the countries first broad based, multinational volunteer program (the Peace core) and asked all of to ask ourselves what we could do for our country, perhaps an Obama presidency would mark the beginning of the end for my generation’s apathy and “why me” mentality and instead begin to foster an urgency of engagement an a “why not me” attitude”.
Iown townhall meeting - December, 2007
"One voice can change a room, and if it can change a room it can change a town, and if it can change a town it can change a state, and if it can change a state it can change a nation and if it can change a nation it can change the world, your choice can change the world, your choice can change American."
We young people have a special ability, a rare commodity that hasn’t yet succumbed to the plight of cynicism – we have the ability, which ironically is fueled by our desire for change, to maintain hopefulness and search out inspiration. We haven’t been lulled into conformity, apathetically living through the discolored motions of our day to day lives. Barack Obama and his encouraging oratory demand the attention of our countries youth – those with the ability to rise above the fray and experiment with optimism are called to be this countries next generation, dared to break up the monotony of status quo.
Obama recently gave a speech in Iowa where he identified the possibility of change through the gumption and organization of small groups of people. He spoke of how those who choose to act can eventually with hard work and determination fight and effect positive change in the uneven and evolving fight between the powerless and the powerful. He spoke of how we can all in fact change the world. To some that may not mean a lot but to an optimistic youth those words can change lives, and inspire great things. This message may be the ticket for what Obama needs to get him into the White House, but recently I’ve been thinking that this could also be the start of a much larger movement.
This movement of change and hopefulness inspiring young people to get involved in the governmental process could take off in ways that transcend the ballot box. November 2008 will be marked off in the history books as being the year where the young people (18-27) decide the election, where the youth make their voices heard, and if Barack wins the nomination it could cement this countries youth in obligation for service, commitment and philanthropy sparked not by mandate or statute, but by our countries most jaded generation. As in 1961 when President Kennedy initiated the countries first broad based, multinational volunteer program (the Peace core) and asked all of to ask ourselves what we could do for our country, perhaps an Obama presidency would mark the beginning of the end for my generation’s apathy and “why me” mentality and instead begin to foster an urgency of engagement an a “why not me” attitude”.
Iown townhall meeting - December, 2007
"One voice can change a room, and if it can change a room it can change a town, and if it can change a town it can change a state, and if it can change a state it can change a nation and if it can change a nation it can change the world, your choice can change the world, your choice can change American."
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Right to Bear Arms - Not an Absolute
Recently Governor Ed Rendell did an unprecedented thing, he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee in Harrisburg and gave a direct testimony in advocacy for several important pieces of gun legislation; one gun per month law, mandatory reporting of stolen firearms, increased background checking and a number of others. Unfortunately to the Governor’s dismay all but one were shot down (no pun intended) without debate and in front of a democratically held committee.
The bills were tabled because regardless of political affiliations democrat or republican the NRA has more control over the General Assembly than any other lobbying entity in the state. Whenever a legislator from Philly introduces a bill to stifle violent crimes in their gun laden city or whenever a common sense Governor advocates for realistic gun regulation that would quell illegal gun trafficking, the NRA swoops in with its skewed, distorted message of fear and intimidation – “there out to take your guns away” they cry, “this will infringe on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms” they howl. And before you know it the debate is over and any legislator who dared to stand up for logic and safety are strong armed and silenced, fearful of loosing their job amidst certain political retribution.
The fact of the matter is that these gun regulations and others like it don’t infringe upon one’s right to keep and bear arms nor would these bills take away one single gun. The truth is we regulate the second amendment all the time; a law is currently on the books in over 20 states that allow only one gun to be purchased per person, per month. That means that a two person household sill has the capacity to purchase 24 firearms in a 1 year period, no court in the country has decided on that law being unconstitutional; as infringing on a person’s right to bear arms.
Again bills like this get passed all the time without constitutional scrutiny, it’s called the balance test, a court will look at how much a bill infringes on a person’s particular right and balance that against the state’s own interest in the existence and implementation of that law. Only permitting a household to bear 24 firearms within a 12 month period could be grounds for constitutional scrutiny but it’s logical to legislate that this law does not infringe on a person’s right to bear (or to acquire) firearms it only regulates the amount within a specific time frame to which that person can bear those arms. And that law justifiability lends to the further safety of the state.
It is the courts job to look at a specific law and measure it’s prohibition as practical and acting in the best interest of our society within the scope of that societies’ evolution – that’s my guess anyhow. Look, we regulate our constitution all the time, case in point the 1st amendment; we all know the classic example of yelling “fire in a crowded theater that is in fact not on fire, you can’t do it. Just like you can’t convene a peaceful Iraq war protest standing in the middle of the PA turnpike. We regulate those amendments because it’s not 1776 and because we realize that for the bettering of the state we must be willing to redefine our actions and personal rights to fit the scope of our society.
My point is two fold; one, certain gun regulations are not 2nd amendment infringements aimed at destroying the integrity and sacredness of the amendment they are there to protect the state and its citizens and two, we need to stop being beholden to the gun lobby, stop being afraid of them, stop letting them turn an honest debate into a demagoguery. Lets tone down the drastic rhetoric and be honest, these types of gun regulations do work and they don’t prohibit anyone from keeping or bearing arms, let’s stop speaking to the illogical, impatience of man’s inner instinct and rather breakthrough to the rational, unnatural side of compromise and statesmanship
The bills were tabled because regardless of political affiliations democrat or republican the NRA has more control over the General Assembly than any other lobbying entity in the state. Whenever a legislator from Philly introduces a bill to stifle violent crimes in their gun laden city or whenever a common sense Governor advocates for realistic gun regulation that would quell illegal gun trafficking, the NRA swoops in with its skewed, distorted message of fear and intimidation – “there out to take your guns away” they cry, “this will infringe on your constitutional right to keep and bear arms” they howl. And before you know it the debate is over and any legislator who dared to stand up for logic and safety are strong armed and silenced, fearful of loosing their job amidst certain political retribution.
The fact of the matter is that these gun regulations and others like it don’t infringe upon one’s right to keep and bear arms nor would these bills take away one single gun. The truth is we regulate the second amendment all the time; a law is currently on the books in over 20 states that allow only one gun to be purchased per person, per month. That means that a two person household sill has the capacity to purchase 24 firearms in a 1 year period, no court in the country has decided on that law being unconstitutional; as infringing on a person’s right to bear arms.
Again bills like this get passed all the time without constitutional scrutiny, it’s called the balance test, a court will look at how much a bill infringes on a person’s particular right and balance that against the state’s own interest in the existence and implementation of that law. Only permitting a household to bear 24 firearms within a 12 month period could be grounds for constitutional scrutiny but it’s logical to legislate that this law does not infringe on a person’s right to bear (or to acquire) firearms it only regulates the amount within a specific time frame to which that person can bear those arms. And that law justifiability lends to the further safety of the state.
It is the courts job to look at a specific law and measure it’s prohibition as practical and acting in the best interest of our society within the scope of that societies’ evolution – that’s my guess anyhow. Look, we regulate our constitution all the time, case in point the 1st amendment; we all know the classic example of yelling “fire in a crowded theater that is in fact not on fire, you can’t do it. Just like you can’t convene a peaceful Iraq war protest standing in the middle of the PA turnpike. We regulate those amendments because it’s not 1776 and because we realize that for the bettering of the state we must be willing to redefine our actions and personal rights to fit the scope of our society.
My point is two fold; one, certain gun regulations are not 2nd amendment infringements aimed at destroying the integrity and sacredness of the amendment they are there to protect the state and its citizens and two, we need to stop being beholden to the gun lobby, stop being afraid of them, stop letting them turn an honest debate into a demagoguery. Lets tone down the drastic rhetoric and be honest, these types of gun regulations do work and they don’t prohibit anyone from keeping or bearing arms, let’s stop speaking to the illogical, impatience of man’s inner instinct and rather breakthrough to the rational, unnatural side of compromise and statesmanship
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
What does it mean to be an American Citizen?
With the immigration debate simmering down (minus Lou Dobbs nightly rants) as the real campaign season heats up I decided it would be fun to take the current U.S. naturalization test as administered through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, just to see according to the U.S. government whether or not I belong in this country. Without bragging if I were an immigrant from Mexico or Eastern Europe taking the test today with my current understanding of U.S. History and Government I would safely pass and assure my place in the U.S. as a full fledged American citizen. But how would you do? Below are some of the trickier questions, see if you would have the understanding and knowhow to be accepted into the most prestigious, exclusive club in world history.
1. Who Elects the President?
2. How Many Amendments comprise our constitution?
3. Name the 3 branches of government?
4. How many representatives are in Congress?
5. What is the Bill of Rights?
6. Who becomes president if the president and vice-president die?
7. Who has power to declare war?
8. What is the introduction of the Constitution called?
How did you do? Check below to see if you’re in or if you’re out.
My point is this, what does it really mean to be an American citizen? I think our congress and our country often losses site amidst political backlash and tempestuous ideology. Does it mean having a broad, basic and inconsequential understanding of our countries history? Does it mean knowing how many stripes there are on our flag and what those stripes stand for? Is it knowing the three branches of government and answering only simplistic questions pertaining to the purpose of those branches? Are aggregated questions like these a fair and accurate barometer in determining American citizenship?
My bet is that there are more than a generous handful of American citizens who would answer more than an embarrassing number of these questions incorrectly if forced to.
Or does being a member of this country mean paying your taxes, working hard and contributing to the evolution of our economy and culture? Does it mean raising a family the best way you know how, with the resources you have? Does it mean pursuing an education in the quest for self-improvement, or living the true American dream? I think it means all of these things, citizenship shouldn’t be boiled down to simply knowing the answers to questions such as, who is the current president and how many justices sit on the supreme court, to say nothing of the fact of knowing what the supreme court does, no more than the study of Hisotry should be boiled down merely to dates and names.
We have laws in this country I know, and the resolute adherence to the rule of law is what makes this country the strongest democracy in the world but lets not call those here illegally names while Johnny Q sitting in Mr. Smith’s history class can’t name the 13 original colonies.
Check the answers below with your answers and see how you did, are you an American citizen?
Answers:
1. the electoral college
2. 27
3. judicial, executive, legislative
4. 435
5. first 10 amendments to the constitution
6. Nancy Pelosi (scary) – speaker of the house
7. Congress
8. the Preamble
1. Who Elects the President?
2. How Many Amendments comprise our constitution?
3. Name the 3 branches of government?
4. How many representatives are in Congress?
5. What is the Bill of Rights?
6. Who becomes president if the president and vice-president die?
7. Who has power to declare war?
8. What is the introduction of the Constitution called?
How did you do? Check below to see if you’re in or if you’re out.
My point is this, what does it really mean to be an American citizen? I think our congress and our country often losses site amidst political backlash and tempestuous ideology. Does it mean having a broad, basic and inconsequential understanding of our countries history? Does it mean knowing how many stripes there are on our flag and what those stripes stand for? Is it knowing the three branches of government and answering only simplistic questions pertaining to the purpose of those branches? Are aggregated questions like these a fair and accurate barometer in determining American citizenship?
My bet is that there are more than a generous handful of American citizens who would answer more than an embarrassing number of these questions incorrectly if forced to.
Or does being a member of this country mean paying your taxes, working hard and contributing to the evolution of our economy and culture? Does it mean raising a family the best way you know how, with the resources you have? Does it mean pursuing an education in the quest for self-improvement, or living the true American dream? I think it means all of these things, citizenship shouldn’t be boiled down to simply knowing the answers to questions such as, who is the current president and how many justices sit on the supreme court, to say nothing of the fact of knowing what the supreme court does, no more than the study of Hisotry should be boiled down merely to dates and names.
We have laws in this country I know, and the resolute adherence to the rule of law is what makes this country the strongest democracy in the world but lets not call those here illegally names while Johnny Q sitting in Mr. Smith’s history class can’t name the 13 original colonies.
Check the answers below with your answers and see how you did, are you an American citizen?
Answers:
1. the electoral college
2. 27
3. judicial, executive, legislative
4. 435
5. first 10 amendments to the constitution
6. Nancy Pelosi (scary) – speaker of the house
7. Congress
8. the Preamble
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)