It becomes abundantly clear that local Alaskan outdoor writer Howard Delo subscribes the notion that “Just because your paranoid doesn’t mean somebody’s not out to get you.” Central to two of Howard’s missives, (“2nd Amendment is very clear,” 3/3/09, and his latest, “I just don’t believe it”, 3/10/09) is the idea that President Obama, the jackbooted ATF and the Democrat controlled Congress is going to kick down his door and haul off all of his guns, presumably to the recycling center, where they’ll be melted down, presumably into the next generation of energy-efficient GM vehicles.
First, for 230 years the 2nd Amendment was not “clear” in a legal sense, until last year’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision that struck down the D.C. handgun ban. In this decision, the majority held that there was indeed an “individual right” to keep and bear arms. But even Justice Scalia (on the majority side) wrote: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” meaning that reasonable restrictions to gun ownership can be applied, and do not constitute an ”infringement” of rights under the 2nd Amendment.
In his Spectrum of March 3rd, Delo says: “Just try passing a law restricting free speech in the print media…” In fact, there are plenty of laws restricting the “free speech” clause of the 1st Amendment. Laws regarding: incitement to riot, so called “fighting words,” libel and slander, national security, obscenity – the list goes on.
For that matter, there are laws restricting the “free exercise” of religion clause of the 1st Amendment. Same thing for the 4th (privacy rights) and the, 5th and 6th (rights of the accused) Amendments. And U.S. Supreme Courts through the years have found all of these legal restrictions constitutional. This is why neither I nor Mr. Delo can own a operational bazooka, or a claymore mine, or a howitzer, at least not without a really expensive license.
On the same day as Delo’s Spectrum, Erik Heiker wrote in to give us the old slippery slope argument that: “Gun restriction is always a precursor to gun confiscation.” I moved from Alaska to Illinois for a couple of years back in the ‘80s. According to long-standing state law, I was legally bound to register my guns with the county sheriff. Two years later I moved back to Alaska, and who’d believe it, but my guns weren’t confiscated at all. In fact, I hear that gun registration that does not lead to confiscation has been going on in Illinois for decades – who’d a thunk it? And that’s in Confiscator-in Chief Obama’s home state.
But back to Howard Delo. In his March 10th “OUTDOORS” column, he claims that Obama will do anything - short of making us choose between our 1st born child and our guns (and/or bibles) – to trash the 2nd Amendment. Yet a cursory investigation at FactCheck.org or other non-partisan websites will disabuse the more thoughtful among us of these idiotic NRA Kool-Aid-induced accusations.
As an Alaskan gun owner, I don’t particularly want restrictions on my 2nd Amendment rights. I don’t hunt, but I want the right to keep a handgun for personal protection, and the protection of my family. Living in Alaska, we view registration as anathema. Were I back in Illinois, I’d do as Illinoisans do and register my guns. It’s part of the beauty of the concept of federalism.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
A comment or two...
From some pithy thinkers of late.
One is a recent reader's comment from Paul Krugman's NYT blog regarding Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party. It reflects my thoughts as well as any author thus far in this early Obama presidency:
"Rush Limbaugh openly states that he hopes for the failure of this presidency and its policies — and clearly states that any honest Republican shares his view. But isn’t wishing that the policies fail the same as wishing that the country fails? If one disagrees with the policy decisions, it’s legitimate to say so. But if the policies work, the intellectually honest thing to do is to reevaluate one’s own belief system. Wishing for their failure though is patently ideological, and ultimately an act of metaphorical suicide bombing. 'I’ll go down with the whole country just to make sure they’re never proven right'".— A. Devero
Another is from Ed Phillips, an old friend and retired real-life economist from Alaska, now from beautiful Kalama, WA. I get the big point but not the finer ones, really:
"There are real reasons to criticize the Obama fiscal policy. It's too bad the conservatives have chosen to retreat to a 1920's pre-Keynesian argument. They have adopted what is know as "The Treasury View".,promoted by the British Treasury in the interwar (WW1/WW2) and held by very few economists otherwise, even then.
This view holds that any increase in government expenditure must come at the expense of private expenditure. Public expenditures financed by taxes or deficits (future taxes) are held to "crowd our" private expenditures. This argument is plausible if the economy is at full employment and/or government borrowing increases interest rates, thereby reducing private investment and consumption. It seems that in periods of recession and/or depression the full employment constraint is not operative and it is possible to increase government expenditures financed by deficits and not crowd out private expenditures. This was recognized before Keynes and public works projects as a means of reducing unemployment was recognized by the economics profession by the early 20th century. A British commission in 1912 or so explicitly advocated such a policy.
In 1932 members of the University of Chicago Economics Faculty including Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, Henry Simons and Paul Douglas( Yes, the Paul Douglas that became a US Senator) sent a letter to Congress advocating public works projects financed by deficit spending and monetary expansion. Sounds very Keynesian.
In fact the efficacy of deficit spending and public works projects was orthodox nostrum before Keynes. His major contribution was to give it a theoretical underpinning. Had the Roosevelt Administration been willing to become Keynesian (follow the advice of Chicago) before WW2 the Great Depression may not have been "Great".'
Fox News "Analysts" claims FDR prolonged the Depression. If he did, it's because he spent too little, tried to balance the budget after 1936, and needed WW II to get us out of the "Great" depression. Here's to Obama not making the same mistake.
One is a recent reader's comment from Paul Krugman's NYT blog regarding Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party. It reflects my thoughts as well as any author thus far in this early Obama presidency:
"Rush Limbaugh openly states that he hopes for the failure of this presidency and its policies — and clearly states that any honest Republican shares his view. But isn’t wishing that the policies fail the same as wishing that the country fails? If one disagrees with the policy decisions, it’s legitimate to say so. But if the policies work, the intellectually honest thing to do is to reevaluate one’s own belief system. Wishing for their failure though is patently ideological, and ultimately an act of metaphorical suicide bombing. 'I’ll go down with the whole country just to make sure they’re never proven right'".— A. Devero
Another is from Ed Phillips, an old friend and retired real-life economist from Alaska, now from beautiful Kalama, WA. I get the big point but not the finer ones, really:
"There are real reasons to criticize the Obama fiscal policy. It's too bad the conservatives have chosen to retreat to a 1920's pre-Keynesian argument. They have adopted what is know as "The Treasury View".,promoted by the British Treasury in the interwar (WW1/WW2) and held by very few economists otherwise, even then.
This view holds that any increase in government expenditure must come at the expense of private expenditure. Public expenditures financed by taxes or deficits (future taxes) are held to "crowd our" private expenditures. This argument is plausible if the economy is at full employment and/or government borrowing increases interest rates, thereby reducing private investment and consumption. It seems that in periods of recession and/or depression the full employment constraint is not operative and it is possible to increase government expenditures financed by deficits and not crowd out private expenditures. This was recognized before Keynes and public works projects as a means of reducing unemployment was recognized by the economics profession by the early 20th century. A British commission in 1912 or so explicitly advocated such a policy.
In 1932 members of the University of Chicago Economics Faculty including Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, Henry Simons and Paul Douglas( Yes, the Paul Douglas that became a US Senator) sent a letter to Congress advocating public works projects financed by deficit spending and monetary expansion. Sounds very Keynesian.
In fact the efficacy of deficit spending and public works projects was orthodox nostrum before Keynes. His major contribution was to give it a theoretical underpinning. Had the Roosevelt Administration been willing to become Keynesian (follow the advice of Chicago) before WW2 the Great Depression may not have been "Great".'
Fox News "Analysts" claims FDR prolonged the Depression. If he did, it's because he spent too little, tried to balance the budget after 1936, and needed WW II to get us out of the "Great" depression. Here's to Obama not making the same mistake.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Just got back....
From the LIONS gun show here in my little corner of "Land-of-the-Northern-Redneck," and boy was it crowded! Full disclosure: I do like guns. But I am not a member of the NRA, who I believe pedals paranoia to angry white guys. I am a gun owner who doesn't like a lot of other gun owners, and doesn't share their monomania about the 2nd Amendment, slippery slopes, torches and pitchforks.
When the US Supremes decided that there indeed was an individual right to bear arms over the D.C.handgun ban lawsuit), it was hailed by the trigger-happy right as validation for the false belief by many that there were no restrictions on gun ownership. The unintended consequence of the ruling, however, opens all gun ownership in the USA open to "reasonable restriction." Just as there are reasonable restrictions on our 1st Amendment (yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, "fighting words..."), 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights, there are assumed to be reasonable restrictions on Amendment #2. The debate should be about what constitutes "reasonable." At the gun show, President Obama and HR 45 were the big topics of conversation, none of it complimentary, among the 99% white male patrons. So let the debate begin, eh?
Can anyone tell me why a vendor at a gun show thought it was necessary to wear a t-shirt that proclaimed of its wearer:
Christian
Heterosexual
Patriotic
American
?
I would have automatically assumed as much, given the venue.
When the US Supremes decided that there indeed was an individual right to bear arms over the D.C.handgun ban lawsuit), it was hailed by the trigger-happy right as validation for the false belief by many that there were no restrictions on gun ownership. The unintended consequence of the ruling, however, opens all gun ownership in the USA open to "reasonable restriction." Just as there are reasonable restrictions on our 1st Amendment (yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, "fighting words..."), 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights, there are assumed to be reasonable restrictions on Amendment #2. The debate should be about what constitutes "reasonable." At the gun show, President Obama and HR 45 were the big topics of conversation, none of it complimentary, among the 99% white male patrons. So let the debate begin, eh?
Can anyone tell me why a vendor at a gun show thought it was necessary to wear a t-shirt that proclaimed of its wearer:
Christian
Heterosexual
Patriotic
American
?
I would have automatically assumed as much, given the venue.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Good to be back w/odds & ends...
You could go to the US Senate or the CBO website and try to find out, but generally I'm OK w/ the filter of the media version of the stimulus package. I'm too busy earning a living and stuff to consecrate my meager energies to the details of a $1 Trillion bill!
Get over Geithner, anyone who thinks he is unworthy to lead the Treasury Dept. Drowning puppies, selling crack and molesting children makes you unworthy, not tax dodging, which is, after baseball, the great American pastime. Obama rolled Daschle to soon also. All those in favor of universal health care, which I think would be perhaps a great job "stimulus" all by itself, who's going to do a better job than Tom Daschle would have?
I usually turn the channel if Pelosi's on, she w/the-deer-in-the-headlights look. The same look dumb-ass Mitch McConnell has, except he's got the goggles to go with it. Since Bush's "abstinence only" programs have proven a complete failure, I'm all in favor of $$$ for contraception, cause it works, and to rub the Religious Right's nose in it. I don't think it belongs in the "stimulus" plan, however.
I encourage all to go to Andy Borowitz's website and find "Obama Refuses to Answer Questions Regarding the Size of His Package." Hilarious.
Get over Geithner, anyone who thinks he is unworthy to lead the Treasury Dept. Drowning puppies, selling crack and molesting children makes you unworthy, not tax dodging, which is, after baseball, the great American pastime. Obama rolled Daschle to soon also. All those in favor of universal health care, which I think would be perhaps a great job "stimulus" all by itself, who's going to do a better job than Tom Daschle would have?
I usually turn the channel if Pelosi's on, she w/the-deer-in-the-headlights look. The same look dumb-ass Mitch McConnell has, except he's got the goggles to go with it. Since Bush's "abstinence only" programs have proven a complete failure, I'm all in favor of $$$ for contraception, cause it works, and to rub the Religious Right's nose in it. I don't think it belongs in the "stimulus" plan, however.
I encourage all to go to Andy Borowitz's website and find "Obama Refuses to Answer Questions Regarding the Size of His Package." Hilarious.
Monday, January 19, 2009
All of the Excitement...
Surrounding the imminent inauguration of one Barack Hussein Obama, further aligned by the calendar and perhaps the stars with the birthday of Martin Luther King, is a wonderful thing to behold for both my demographic (we used to say ""my generation") of Boomers who came up in the North. Even more so for my particular life circumstances: Chicago Heights by way of South Chicago, then on to Upstate NY where there were probably three black families in a working class town of 10,000. Old enough to remember MLK's untimely - or perhaps timely, death (if you're going to die for the cause of racial equality, why not 1968?), yet young enough to reasonably expect to see at least Obama's 1st full term. Seems all that ennui from after Barack's election has dissipated at least until the last inaugural ball. And no, we're not dressing up, chilling champagne and pretending while watching TV, the way some people dress up for soap opera weddings, or suit up to watch football games. I'm way too sophisticated for that. Doesn't mean I won't cry a little, if only from the relief of the humiliation of 8 years of #43 and dodging a Sarah-Palin-death-by-meteor-for-America.
I also had to cry a little when I learned that Julian Michels, AKA "my other dad," had quietly left this planet on January 14. Julian, who went by "Mike" among his many friends and fellow scientists in the little town of Norwich NY, or "Hoo-le-Han" among his six (including me) rambunctious children, was a tall man with a necessarily stoic and calm demeanor. In my memory, his only "vices" were the occasional glass of Thunderbird wine, and a predilection for the "Condensed Reader's Digest" versions of contemporary literature. He and Mae (AKA "my other mom," who took her leave of the planet ahead of Julian, probably to get their room ready at the elder hostel-of-whatever-comes-next)also possessed an impressive - and to me - ancient collection of National Geographics. Julian and Mae were kind and generous, especially with meat, mashed potatoes, corn-on-the-cob and iced tea, almost any evening, even if I'd already eaten dinner once at my house. Julian and Mae's son Jeff writes that Julian's departure leaves five smaller families where there was once one. Five families, but six kids - 'cause even after 40-some years, I'm still one of them.
I also had to cry a little when I learned that Julian Michels, AKA "my other dad," had quietly left this planet on January 14. Julian, who went by "Mike" among his many friends and fellow scientists in the little town of Norwich NY, or "Hoo-le-Han" among his six (including me) rambunctious children, was a tall man with a necessarily stoic and calm demeanor. In my memory, his only "vices" were the occasional glass of Thunderbird wine, and a predilection for the "Condensed Reader's Digest" versions of contemporary literature. He and Mae (AKA "my other mom," who took her leave of the planet ahead of Julian, probably to get their room ready at the elder hostel-of-whatever-comes-next)also possessed an impressive - and to me - ancient collection of National Geographics. Julian and Mae were kind and generous, especially with meat, mashed potatoes, corn-on-the-cob and iced tea, almost any evening, even if I'd already eaten dinner once at my house. Julian and Mae's son Jeff writes that Julian's departure leaves five smaller families where there was once one. Five families, but six kids - 'cause even after 40-some years, I'm still one of them.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Hang 'Em High...
Is the movie quoted by Alaska State Representative and ardent Republican, Jay Ramras.
As reported in the Anchorage Daily News, death penalty fan Jay Ramras was fittingly (yet unknowingly) ironical in his statement: "I'm like Clint Eastwood on this issue, 'hang 'em high.'"
It appears that Ramras and like-minded Republican legislators are attempting to bring the death penalty, gone since 1957, back to Alaska.
Notice the perverse brio of Ramras'boast (one wonders if he's also inclined to quote Groucho Marx in DUCK SOUP: "Line them up against the wall and 'pop goes the weasel!'"").
However, Rep. Ramras is evidently knowledgeable about neither Eastwood nor the western film genre. In the 1968 movie, the words "hang 'em high" were spoken not by the character played by Eastwood, but by "Hanging Judge Fenton," played by the recently departed Pat Hingle.
So where’s the irony? Ramras and other death penalty advocates should note that the man hung in the film was played by Clint Eastwood, condemned by an overzealous justice system for a crime he did not commit.
As reported in the Anchorage Daily News, death penalty fan Jay Ramras was fittingly (yet unknowingly) ironical in his statement: "I'm like Clint Eastwood on this issue, 'hang 'em high.'"
It appears that Ramras and like-minded Republican legislators are attempting to bring the death penalty, gone since 1957, back to Alaska.
Notice the perverse brio of Ramras'boast (one wonders if he's also inclined to quote Groucho Marx in DUCK SOUP: "Line them up against the wall and 'pop goes the weasel!'"").
However, Rep. Ramras is evidently knowledgeable about neither Eastwood nor the western film genre. In the 1968 movie, the words "hang 'em high" were spoken not by the character played by Eastwood, but by "Hanging Judge Fenton," played by the recently departed Pat Hingle.
So where’s the irony? Ramras and other death penalty advocates should note that the man hung in the film was played by Clint Eastwood, condemned by an overzealous justice system for a crime he did not commit.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Anyone here remember...
Trooper-gate? You know, where Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was accused of using her office to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Troopers? And when that never happened, she had the commish of public safety cashiered? And the state's legislative ethics committee found that Sarah had violated the law, yet a hand-picked (by Sarah) state personnel board found her not guilty of any ethical or legal infractions? Well, get ready for parts II and III.
First, we have a state drug investigator and the troopers union alleging political meddling (see today's www.adn.com for details)in the belated arrest of Sherry Johnston. Sherry Johnston is the mother of Levi Johnston, who's sire to the baby of Bristol Palin, who is Sarah Palin's daughter...got that? It seems that the state's drug enforcement unit had enough on Levi's mom to arrest her for trafficking in OxyContin (Rush Limbaugh's favorite) back in October, but they were told in so many ways not to make the bust until after the November presidential election. This is according to AST Drug Investigator Kyle Young, who was involved in the case, and the Alaska Public Safety Employees Union. If allegations prove true, Governor Palin's once seraphic rep will suffer again.
Then comes this nugget from Alaska Daily News opinion writer and local right-wing radio host Dan Fagan, further accusing Sarah (or surrogates) of setting up her erstwhile son-in-law (the aforementioned Levi Johnston) with an electrician's apprenticeship up on Alaska's North Slope. On its face, it might not seem that egregious a thing, save for the fact that Levi is not qualified (no high school diploma, no GED), and he shot to the head of a 100-person waiting list, and no one, including the people who are in charge of the apprenticeship program, can explain why. As a former Illinoisan, I'm reminded of Richard K. Daley's Chicago, no?
Fagan goes on to postulate that Governor Palin's numbers have been suffering steadily since going under the bright lights of national political scrutiny, and that these revelations do not help her. Polls, Fagan says, indicated that should Sarah challenge U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski in 2010, Sarah would lose big. He even claims Sarah's chances for a 2nd term as governor are only 3 in 10.
If nothing else, all this makes for an interesting next couple of years here in the "Greatland."
First, we have a state drug investigator and the troopers union alleging political meddling (see today's www.adn.com for details)in the belated arrest of Sherry Johnston. Sherry Johnston is the mother of Levi Johnston, who's sire to the baby of Bristol Palin, who is Sarah Palin's daughter...got that? It seems that the state's drug enforcement unit had enough on Levi's mom to arrest her for trafficking in OxyContin (Rush Limbaugh's favorite) back in October, but they were told in so many ways not to make the bust until after the November presidential election. This is according to AST Drug Investigator Kyle Young, who was involved in the case, and the Alaska Public Safety Employees Union. If allegations prove true, Governor Palin's once seraphic rep will suffer again.
Then comes this nugget from Alaska Daily News opinion writer and local right-wing radio host Dan Fagan, further accusing Sarah (or surrogates) of setting up her erstwhile son-in-law (the aforementioned Levi Johnston) with an electrician's apprenticeship up on Alaska's North Slope. On its face, it might not seem that egregious a thing, save for the fact that Levi is not qualified (no high school diploma, no GED), and he shot to the head of a 100-person waiting list, and no one, including the people who are in charge of the apprenticeship program, can explain why. As a former Illinoisan, I'm reminded of Richard K. Daley's Chicago, no?
Fagan goes on to postulate that Governor Palin's numbers have been suffering steadily since going under the bright lights of national political scrutiny, and that these revelations do not help her. Polls, Fagan says, indicated that should Sarah challenge U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski in 2010, Sarah would lose big. He even claims Sarah's chances for a 2nd term as governor are only 3 in 10.
If nothing else, all this makes for an interesting next couple of years here in the "Greatland."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
