I have spent much of my time arguing with people over the “right to bear arms” clause in the 2nd Amendment. Most of this debate eventually ends up in no-man’s land. Both sides argue ferociously, and usually can never come anywhere close to a reasonable agreement. And so, on June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court settled the dispute. In a landmark 5-4 decision, the justices overturned a District of Columbia ban on handguns and specifically stated that citizens in this country have a right to keep guns in the home for self-protection. Rather than tediously interpret the 2nd Amendment in defiance of their ruling, I will instead point out the rather interesting logic behind the abysmal decision.
Oddly, certain weapons are still prohibited in the home. Scalia wrote, “We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ Wait. Let me get this straight. So it is ok to ban a dangerous weapon from being possessed in the home? Ah, ok. So this leads me to conclude that handguns aren’t dangerous. But this is utter nonsense. Handguns are used to murder thousands of Americans every year. They often aren’t locked and fire in our children’s faces – killing them. They are sold and traded in exchange for drugs often winding up in the wrong hands only to be used for another shooting spree. Handguns are extremely dangerous.
Scalia then goes into a mind-numbing spiel about the grammatical structure of the 2nd Amendment. He argues that its “prefatory and operational” clauses resemble that of state constitutions who similarly uphold gun rights laws. So we are deciding a law on behalf of an entire nation because the similarities between sentence structures? What incredibly sound logic! Maybe our next Supreme Court case will be decided because of a page out of a Dr. Seuss book.
Thankfully, the court gave our governments much needed wiggle room in the midst of this wretched decision. The court stated, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”Cities like Chicago and Philadelphia – where murders using handguns are almost a daily occurrence – can use the wiggle room to counter lawsuits from the N.R.A that attempt to give inner cities even more guns. Philadelphia and Chicago have become virtual shootouts. Kids in the inner cities have joined gangs and used guns to suppress their opposition – frequently killing them. So what’s the N.R.A answer? Give them more guns. It’s their right. In fact, according to one of their spokesmen, it’s their “god-given right.” I always thought Christians believed in turning the other cheek; I didn’t know we were supposed to buy a gun and kill instead.
Ironically, the Supreme Court specifically mentioned that guns are forbidden on their premises at all times. I can completely see their logic. These justices are extremely important people. They make extremely important decisions on behalf of an entire country. It would be entirely inappropriate and dangerous if ordinary folk could walk into their building with a handgun. But what about the rest of us Americans? Why should we have to live in an environment where guns are so readily available for anybody who wishes to acquire one? We don’t have the comforts of medical detectors at our banks, in our schools, and around our streets. We don’t have bodyguards. We aren’t privately escorted to our cars after a long day of work. If guns are going to be around us, they deserve to be around our justices as well.
Before dropping out of the race, John Edwards urged Americans to be patriotic about things other than war. Often overlooked, underreported and underappreciated, Edwards’ mantra runs rings around any political slogan that current presidential candidates are trying to hammer home. In short, he has a point. It is one thing to root for our troops while we watch them get shot at on our television screens. Yet it is entirely different to habitually modify our daily routines. Waving a flag is a semblance of patriotism. Making a sacrifice for your country is patriotism itself.
What “sacrifices” do I speak of? The most important of all is to stay informed. Knowing where the candidates stand on every issue is critical in choosing the right candidate who will steer our country in a positive direction. But to know where they stand, it is important to understand the issues. Read the paper, talk with friends, seek out information at all crossroads when you believe it will make you into a more informed voter. Keep an open mind. Don’t cling to a particular theory because it happens to coincide with your party’s beliefs. Be open to all sides of the story and then make a judgment. Once you have tapped into the information you need – and understand it – you will be a better citizen as a result.
Duh. This is all obvious. So why do I sound like a broken record? Well, I lived through 2004. I lived through the majority of Bush voters not even realizing that the commander-in-chief was against the Kyoto Protocol. I lived through a time when an unpopular president was reelected because of a false general consensus that he waged a war in Iraq to combat terrorism. Knowing details is incredibly important when voting - particularly at a time when the lives of our troops depend on our decisions.
Once you are informed, it would be a good thing to act on what you are reading about. Spread the knowledge to others who are unaware. Do your part in conserving energy by riding the metro every once in a while; turn off your faucets when you don’t need them running; buy a florescent light bulb; use a non-motored lawn mower to cut your weeds. None of these things will save the world, but they most certainly will make a difference as we all do them together.
It doesn’t matter if you are interested in politics. It matters if you care about your country. It matters if you care about your future, your kid’s futures, and their kids’ futures too. Politics should be like taking out the garbage. It can be awfully dirty and unpleasant but at the end of the day it is a responsibility you just have to take care of.
3. John Edwards –If Barack Obama is looking for a candidate that he has chemistry with, John Edwards is his man. The two get along wonderfully, look fresh and young on a ticket, and seemingly agree on the fact that the system in Washington is rigged against the ordinary working class citizen. Edwards’ loss on the ticket in 2004, I would say as a sure bet that he will picked this time around.
2. Hillary Clinton – Let’s face it. Barack Obama needs white, working-class citizens behind him to win the presidency. For years they have been the bread and butter of democratic electoral politics. It is doubtful that Obama will be able to shore up this base without Hillary’s help. It also wouldn’t hurt to have the Clinton machine behind him – even if that means swallowing half of his pride in the process.
1. Jim Webb – Talk about a perfect match for the Vice-Presidency. Obama needs a candidate with foreign policy experience. Jim Webb was the Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Obama needs a candidate who is not a “Washington insider.” Webb has only been in the Senate for over a year. Webb’s potential to swing his state of Virginia in the blue column next fall is the cherry on top of the hot fudge sundae.
As George W. approaches the end of his presidency, scholars, pundits and historians are already debating about the legacy he will leave behind. Oddly, few political gurus have asked themselves what legacy First Lady Laura will leave behind. According to polls, Laura is the most popular First Lady in United States history! Nearly 85% of the American people approve of the job she is doing in the White House. But wait, I watch the news all of the time. I rarely see or hear about a story where Laura Bush is doing something for our country. I have never heard her – in 7 years as First Lady – express an opinion about anything remotely political. There must be a reason for her high approval rating…
Feel free to believe what you want, but I think Americans tend to like Laura Bush largely because she keeps her mouth shut. It is hard to disapprove of somebody who never opens up their mouth to make a statement that you might disagree with. It is hard to disapprove of somebody who is rarely on the news unless being photographed with the President as she waves gregariously at us from the White House lawn. For those of you who are unaware, Laura Bush accidentally ran a stop sign when she was 17. O.K, not a big deal, right? Wrong. She killed somebody. Despite this blatant act of manslaughter no charges were ever filed against her. Many theories circulate the unexplained incident including one that accuses her of deliberately killing the boy who she once purportedly used to date. I personally believe it was an accident, but for those of you who are gung-ho about law and order, that might ruffle your feathers a bit. Moving on to more relevant ideas….
Regardless of your personal opinions regarding Hillary Clinton, you cannot deny that as First Lady, she ferociously pursued an agenda that she felt would benefit her country. She is the only First Lady to date to have her own office in the White House. She routinely conversed with the President and Congressional leaders about pressing issues that faced our country. She spearheaded the task force on health care reform that although ended in failure – it exposed the country to a health care system that was in total crisis. Hillary traveled the world advocating the equality of women in all facets of society. Hillary Clinton was a great First Lady. You may completely disagree with every political belief Hillary Clinton stands for. But Hillary Clinton has beliefs, and she fought for them on behalf of her country because she thought it would make the world a better place. So what if they are not the beliefs you stand for? Effort, intelligence and tenacity are respectable virtues. Our country should be proud of an outspoken woman who accomplishes noble feats. They should be ashamed of silent ones who sit back quietly while the world is in turmoil.
Laura Bush has fought on behalf of her country as well – and she deserves credit for that. She has advocated for children’s literacy issues, women’s freedoms, and helped raise awareness about the deadliness of HIV/AIDS and malaria. But for 8 long, long, long, long years, Laura Bush has not been in the limelight. She has not worked as tenaciously and aggressively against the world’s injustices as Hillary Clinton did. I understand she has no political ambitions. But a First Lady has an enormous amount of potential to use her influence around the world to make change. Why hasn’t she utilized this gift to her full potential? For Christ sake, after Hurricane Katrina hit she could not even pronounce the name correctly. She said “Karina” twice! Say what you will, but a hurricane as infamous and destructive as Katrina should not have to be difficult to remember. I would hope she talked about it, heard about it, or had seen it enough on the news to let it become a member of her vocabulary. Some things make you think….
I am sure Laura Bush is a good person. I am incredibly grateful for what she has done for our country during 8 years of being First Lady. I am bewildered however, when it comes to understanding how somebody could have so much power – so much influence – and rarely use it to benefit the country, and the rest of the world. Laura’s tradeoff is interesting. Popularity for inaction.
Bin Laden reminds me of a big angry truck driver who runs over innocent pedestrians whenever he gets mad at them. He kills thousands of them in cold blood because he doesn't like with the way they walk. He prefers that they walk a different way.
Bush reminds me of a drunk driver behind a Volkswagen Beetle. Although seemingly less menacing in his innocent looking car, he too kills thousands of people. His drunkenness resembles his poor planning of the war which has lead to the deaths of many people. He is on the road because he has a mission as well. He wants to correct the way people walk because it is not the way he believes they should walk.
Both Bin Laden and Bush have made decisions in their lives that have lead to the deaths of thousands of people in the world. Although one of them appears to be more sinister than the other, the consequences of their actions have been remarkably similar, and deserve debate as to which man has truly created more suffering and evil in the world.
Do you think both men are evil? Is one more evil than the other? Let the debating begin.
Barack Obama supporters remind me of crazy drunk fans at a Cubs playoff game. None of them seem to know what is going on, but they are having a hell of a time being there. Every rally I watch, Obama supporters are screaming and throwing their hands up in the air like they are on a Jokers Jinx roller coaster at six flags. Sadly, many Obama supporters I talk to have no concept of where the candidate stands on nearly every single important issue.
Youth voters mindlessly chant "hope" at Barack Obama rallies. But is the candidate really offering them hope? According to an article entitled, "No Hope, No Change" Jagadeesh Gokhale and John Samples argue the following:
"Barack Obama's policy would impose a 60-percent increase in lifetime Social Security payroll taxes for some young voters. Under Obama's proposal, that number would rise to almost 9 percent, taking these individuals' overall lifetime tax rate from 45 percent to 49 percent. By voting for Obama, a 22-year-old young college graduate earning $40,000 per year today would be opting to surrender an additional 4 percent of his lifetime earnings to the Social Security administration — and may get no benefits in return."
Now let's tackle Obama's other hollow catchphrase, "change." Two major issues facing America today are the Iraq War and health care. Obama has spent 4 years in the senate continually voting to prolong the war. When it comes to health care, Barack Obama was the only top tier candidate in the democratic party to not offer a universal plan for coverage. Since he does not mandate coverage, millions of Americans will not seek coverage until costs are reduced to the point where they can afford it. And even then, where is the incentive?
Barack Obama promises "an end to politics as usual in Washington." Why then is he constantly engaged in mudslinging with the Clinton campaign? If he cannot restrain himself now, what makes people think he will when elected president?
Another problem with Obama's change catchphrase is that few people can name an accomplishment of his that brought the change he proposes. In fact, one of his ardent supporters serving in the Texas State Senate was stumped on national television when asked to come up with an accomplishment that Obama achieved. Here is the awkward moment caught on tape:
Many Obama supporters argue that major legislation he advocated for could not be passed because of a republican majority in the senate for the first two years of his term. Yet is this not his calling? Barack Obama will end politics as usual and forge a compromise between the opposing parties. Evidently, he failed to do so already. Barack Obama is not a change candidate.
I understand Barack Obama is incredibly inspirational and articulate. His rallies are exciting; his calls for change are awing. To me it is just an incredibly brilliant mechanism to distract people from finding out that there is really nothing there.
A new debate in Washington is stimulating mixed opinions among our nation's lawmakers. Sen. Jim Webb (D) of Virginia is aggressively leading an effort to extend educational benefits to our American soldiers.
One would think that George W. Bush and John McCain would be at the forefront of advocates behind the bill. After all, they authorized this war and continue to drain billions of our tax dollars a month to fund it. They spend their careers touting about how brave and heroic our troops are. They try to brand the Republican Party with an emblem of patriotism and honor. Oddly, both men are going to vote against the bill.
I see the Bush legacy the same way I see a bad waiter at a restaurant. When you first meet them they are always incredibly polite because they want something from you. In the waiter's case, he wants your tip. In Bush's case, he wants your vote. Such manners convince you that your needs and desires will be taken care of. Everything is going to go smoothly.
I hope to God that Barack Obama does not choose Hillary Clinton as his vice-president. It's nothing against Hillary. I just think she can only harm our chances to beat John McCain come November.
For one, it is important to understand that Hillary Clinton is the most polarizing politician in the Democratic Party. She is viewed unfavorably by the highest percentage of citizens ever recorded on a candidate. Her association with "old politics" and scandals from the Clinton years will significantly compromise Barack Obama's promise to bring about "change." The only legitimate concern to address is that without Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama may not receive the support of her base.
The following hypothetical was made to challenge those you who vehemently oppose governmental restrictions on handgun sales.
Imagine America is a small community of about 100 people. The laws within the community are American laws. The constitution the community follows is the American constitution. The community consists of about 100 homes along with a local town center where there are shops you can purchase things.
An ancient Chinese proverb reads, "Don't open a shop unless you like to smile." In the summer of 2008, China is opening up a shop to the world. As consumers, we can either buy into this shop, or realize that the products it sells are not worthy and we can simply walk out the door.
The reasons for boycotting the summer olympics in Beijing are as numerous as they are compelling. China continues to finance a genocide in Darfur that has claimed the lives of over 800,000 innocent people. Monks in Tibet are being imprisoned and slaughtered for protesting in favor of religious and political freedom. Citizens are being thrown out of their houses by the thousands without just compensation to make room for venues that are needed in order to host the olympic games. Meanwhile, the media is regulated to further advance the propagandize and perpetuate the evils that are carried out by the Chinese government on a daily basis.
In addition to brutality, China is plagued by rampant irresponsibility and indifference. It recklessly exports dangerous toys. It continues to ignore the severity of climate change as it builds about 1 coal power plant every ten days. In just a few years, China will be the greatest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the entire world.
Hosting the Olympics is an honor. It is a chance to showcase the beauty of your country to the rest of the world. Too bad China won't let cameras in Tiananmen sqaure. And so this discussion has come full circle.
