commentopia

 

 

JULY 26, 2010 -- AUGUST 1, 2010

"LET'S WORK TOGETHER" -- SHIRLEY SHERROD SEIZES THE MOMENT

"We've got to get beyond this [racial division]," she said. "... My message has been, 'Let's work together.' That's what my message has always been." 

Shirley Sherrod, (CNN)

For info, I'm a southern, white, 66 year-old male who has lived through the time when most of the folks I knew called blacks "n_____", and who even then thought that that wasn't right.

When I heard the first news account about this, and heard the excerpt from what Ms. Sherrod said, I thought it wasn't right for her to get fired about telling the truth, especially because she didn't seem racially biased now. I thought she was brave for telling something she didn't have to tell that reflected poorly on her, but helped to show her growth as a person. I'm so happy for her now that reason has prevailed. And, I totally agree with her message: "My message has been, 'Let's work together.'"

Philosophically, I have always believed that we Americans don't necessarily get it right the first time (the lack of specific provisions in the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights for blacks), but sooner or later we do (Amendments 13, 14, and 15; and the National Voting Rights Act of 1965). That's one of the major things that I think makes America great. Three cheers for the Administration for being willing to admit they were wrong

Read the article CNN/Sherrod's steadfast motto: "Let's work together."

<>

This is an incredible story. A story about what real Americans do for each other, despite our differences.

Sherrod reached beyond herself and her comfort zone a quarter century ago to help a family that she thought she had nothing in common with--only to find out how much the same they were. Then, 25-years later, that same family rushed to her aid to protect her from similar disparity and lack of fairness. What happened to Sherrod was wrong, all these people were used as pawns between the NAACP and the right wing media outlets/tea parties.

Guess what though, not only did the truth come out (as it has a tendency to do eventually), but we became aware of this woman's story and the story of this family. And...it's a good one, illustrating for us -- like the "should have been perfect baseball game" and that one heck of a kicked call -- how good people respond in awful circumstances.

We are better for knowing it.

Read the article  CNN/ Former USDA official: Department's reconsideration is 'bittersweet'

<>

As a USDA employee, I find it shameful of the Secretary of Agriculture (really the White House) to oust a longtime Federal employee without allowing her to show mitigating or exonerating evidence--all done in a knee-jerk reaction to save the USDA and the White House from further embarrassment.

Now it's even more of a negative reflection on those two because they're considering a reversal and promising precisely the kind of careful consideration of the merits of the case that they so willfully and foolishly dispensed with just 24 hours earlier. And these are the people running the country at the highest level?

I voted for the man in the White House and I work for the USDA. Call me jaded but I've lost all faith. It's all about CYA (cover your behind). Let's shoot and ask questions later, shall we? And let's not blame Fox or the Breitbart "film editing" job. (Yeah, I'm talking about you, Mr. Jealous of the NAACP, as well as every fool starring in this farce.)

Anybody with some common sense and a bit of a political nose would have smelled a rat with regard to the selective footage but not YOU GUYS! You guys have shown yourselves to be shockingly and reprehensibly gullible and thus undeserving of whatever exalted positions you occupy. Get out of the joint before you stink it up further. Shame on you for playing the victim.

The real victim here is that poor woman who had her life's work sacrificed for political expediency. I hope she has a good lawyer.

Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Firing of USDA official now under review

<>

Couple of quick thoughts:
1. If you watch the entire video, you will see a woman who faced her own prejudice 25 years ago and changed her world view. You will see a woman relating a story to the crowd so that they understand that racism and prejudice are bad.
2. USDA, Fox News, NAACP, were all wrong for jumping the gun on this and not doing due diligence.
3. Any person of any race can go into an NAACP office and seek help or counsel.
4. Calling the NAACP racist is absurd, they condemned her comments when they thought she was espousing racism.

This is a good woman who didn't deserve this.

Read the article CNN/ Former USDA official: Department's reconsideration is 'bittersweet'

 

 

Willie! It's so good to see you here! And so good of you to take the time to tell this story!

I have been so impressed with Ms. Sherrod this week! I'd probably make her Ag Secretary if I were in charge for a day! If I had an address, I'd surely send her flowers! She walks the walk. She is a genuine, honest, honorable, thoughtful human being, who worked through her own grief and prejudices to make herself a better and more effective person in her community.

Count THOSE folks on one hand outside the NPO world! They are in such short supply these days. Maybe this was Life's way of casting her into the spotlight for the good of us all. We can hope.

Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Willie Nelson:Shirley Sherrod, a Family Farmer's Friend

<>

How shocking that a young Ms. Sherrod had a negative view of white people after they got away with murdering her father, lynching her relatives, burning crosses in her yard. How dare she be wary of them?

That she overcame these devastations during her youth and became a person who saved this farm despite her initial hesitations is a testament to her character.

Fox News and Andrew Breitbart should be ashamed of themselves for stoking the flames with their lies (but honestly, who thinks they will be?)

Hopefully this whole episode can shine light on the depths to which the right will go to deny racism and push phony reverse racism claims. She was giving a speech to a NAACP audience with the theme that race doesn't matter when someone needs help, and Andrew Breitbart(w/assist from Fox) literally turned her message on its head. And got her fired.

Despicable.

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/THE LEDE - Longer video of speech in question is released by NAACP

<>

I was so incensed by it that I went online last night and became a member of the NAACP. It's easy, and only $30/year. I'm proud to be a new member of an organization that recognized it made a serious mistake and is now apologizing for it...and proud to be counted among those who publicly repudiate and refute (but don't mix up the words!) the notion that the NAACP is racist, that somehow the only vestige of racism left in this country is BLACK racism! That's a slanderous, repulsive lie! But I heard it, AGAIN!, this morning on local talk radio.

Let me tell you: I am directly descended from a line of poor white Georgia farmers, and I can attest that racism is still alive and well in this country. And it's time for Americans to stand up and reject racism. That means, in the year 2010, rejecting this faux, hypocritical, disingenuous "horror" at perceived instances of black distrust of whites. People with Shirley Sherrod's background were ENTITLED to distrust my relatives in the 1980s: to be, in other words "obsessed" about race in a way that I WOULDN'T have been entitled to. That's not racist, it's realistic. But the whole point of Shirley's speech was that she had battled through her initial squeamishness and learned to champion oppressed people of all colors.

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/THE LEDE - Longer video of speech in question is released by NAACP

<>

This woman was recounting a time long ago when it took a white farmer to help diminish her own prejudices, she despite her demons helped this man and his family when nobody else would and the farmer is forever grateful for it 'his words'

So lets forget about left and right and focus on truth and justice and where we as American's want to be. The NAACP, White House, USDA, Roland Martin, Fox news, CNN, all had her burned and banished (strange bedfellows indeed) without anything more than a video snippet. Being such, the real culprit here, is our own eagerness to embarrass the dark and distorted even when the truth is staring us in the face.

Read the article DAILY BEAST/Farmer's wife defends 'racist' worker'

<>

By his own admission, Andrew Breitbart received a couple of clips edited by someone else, from a speech that he did not hear. He had no way of telling how accurately the clips portrayed what a woman that he did not know had actually said, but he posted it on the internet. At best, his actions were flagrantly irresponsible. If he were a journalist, HE should have been fired on the spot; even better, if he were a journalist, perhaps those clips would have never have seen the light of day, because an editor would have insisted that he listen to the whole speech.

Read the article NPR/Conservative blogger pushes for NAACP takedown

<>

Let's not confuse accusations of racism with a serious discussion of race, which none of this week's bluster has really been about.

With all the challenges we face, it would be too bad if even serious citizens and serious organizations like the NAACP succumb to the tantalizing gutter and sensationlism of the talk show world.

When you become a hammer, the whole world begins to look like a nail.

Read the article MCCLATCHY/NAACP ask administration to re-hire Sherrod

854,000 PEOPLE HAVE SECURITY CLEARANCES -- WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON POST INVESTIGATION

How much is too much? Perhaps another way to phrase it is, how safe is safe enough? Good questions. For starters let's assume government has a role protecting citizens from untimely death. Next let's consider the magnitude of the risk and the costs of mitigating that risk. Let's assume with a pre 9/11 level of spending terrorists would successfully execute a 9/11 scale attack every 5 years thus killing on average 600 Americans per year. This works out to 5 times fewer people than die from meat purchased in the supermarket and 100 time less people than die from preventable causes in US hospitals. One must conclude much the money currently spent on counter terrorism could save more lives if spent elsewhere.

This does not address the questions of whether counter terrorism efforts are needlessly wasteful or are even effective.

The fear of terrorism greatly exceeds the risk. Are many so-called conservatives who demand ever increasing big government action to further reduce what is a minimal risk of death any different from those who expect big government to care for them cradle to grave? Our nation currently spends more on "national defense" than the rest of the world, COMBINED. This is during a time of nearly non-existent external threat. What ever happened to "home of the brave"? Why do we expect big government to protect us?

Read the article DAILY BEAST/Top secret America grows out of control

<>

In this field, expansion can be beneficial.The federal government and local law enforcement, especially the NYPD significantly increased its intelligence staff and formed larger counterterroism task forces after 9/11. These have proven effective in not only attack prevention but also in the capture and prosecution of militant extremists, as the swift highly competent response to the Times Square plot demonstrated.

Unnecessary spending should be trimmed, but don't rush to the chopping block with the budget of the most important component of our shared national defense.

Read the article CNN/Cafferty: How effective is U.S. intelligence with 1,300 govt agencies, 2,000 private companies?

<>

Having spent most of my adult life in the intelligence business, I can easily tell you that there is so much redundancy, overlap, and unnecessary activiities in the intelligence business: no one can take the chance of being wrong on a call.

The President is briefed daily on current events by the intelligence community and that briefing is vetted with a fine tooth comb to insure everything he's told is accurate and without any negative "PC" connotations. It is rare for a career intel professional to stick his/her neck out because if you do and you are wrong or slightly off track, then that "error" lives with you and affects your career forever.

In addition, there is considerable competition between the various agencies, NSA, CIA, DIA etc. They are always fighting for funds, so they cannot afford errors of any size or shape.

Read the article CNN/Cafferty: How effective is U.S. intelligence with 1,300 govt agencies, 2,000 private companies?

<>

This is an important topic. I once worked for a major intelligence agency with a clearance. I researched public-domain information at the National Archives, then someone in my office would stamp it "Top Secret" and it would be filed. This was done for Google searches, too, which was often the way the "intelligence analysts" would gather their data.

Stamping something "Top Secret" was a badge of importance: it had nothing to do with national security and everything to do with saying "Hey, I'm important. Keep paying me $100K with full benefits to sit in a cube all day and do nothing."

Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Top Secret America: A hidden world growing beyond control

 

I agree that fear of terrorism greatly exceeds the risk. I don't think 9/11 occurred because militant Islamic terrorists thought we were not capable of retaliation, but they sure showed us the chinks in our national armor. We know that no matter how many FEMA or CIA employees are on the payroll there is no guarantee that the next creative effort on the part of those who want to frighten us out of our security can't or won't happen. It's the nature of terrorism; people willing to give up their lives in a way we would never dream of in America.

I don't expect big government to protect us from that potential; instead I have seen unnecessary government surveillance of the public increase exponentially (examples, cameras on street corners in suburbia, increase in the numbers of local policemen on municipal forces when there is nothing for them to do except lay in wait for speeders) since 9/11. Rather than make me feel safer, it makes me feel like I live in a police state; this is not the America I thought I lived in having grown up in the 50's. It wasn't even this bad when the "Red Scare" was alive and well.

Read the article DAILY BEAST/Top secret America grows out of control

<>

I know lots of people with SCI/Tech clearance. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean Top Secret literally. That's a specific classification and there are dozens of compartmentalized classifications. Sci/Tech is one of the more common ones. If you work for a defense contractor in any number of roles you would need one. Hell if you're a machinist working on tanks you'd need one. Sci/Tech or one of the similar classifications takes anywhere from 6-18 months to acquire. That's why there are so many of them. It's hard and expensive to replace if that resource goes away.

And Top Secret is by no means the highest or even one of highest classifications. There are quite a few higher and along side, of that.

That's really what's at issue here. Not, as GG alludes that it's all part of some planned ultra secret shadow government but that its very structure makes it unmanageable and inefficient.

If you care, you can find a small book called "Secrecy" by D. P. Moynihan and forward by Richard Gid Powers which covers this brilliantly.

Read the article SALON/The real U.S. government

 

JULY 19, 2010 -- JULY 25, 2010

WATCH AND WAIT ON WELL CAP

 

Gosh, we're all so excited that it looks like BP has finally figured out a way to start getting this mess under control.... nearly 90 days later.

I thought they were supposed to have an emergency response plan to get their drilling permit in the first place....

Oh yeah, I forgot.... we don't want government getting in the way of the free enterprise system.

Read the article DAILY BEAST/Well stays capped for a second day

<>

Three words we should remember and future oil extractors take to heart:

"Two valve isolation"

The blowout would very likely have not happened at all if BP had added a second valve in the first place. Their refusal to install a $500000 device will ultimately end up costing them billions of dollars in lost revenue and cleanup costs and an inestimable amount of good will. While redundant valving doesn't guarantee anything, not having it in line is begging for just the kind of catastrophe we saw and are continuing to see.

I spent nearly three decades working in an industry where piping of hazardous materials was major part of the game. We always (but always!) insured double valve isolation and related safety features. In the entire time I've been associated with the company we have had, maybe, one double failure.

Estimates of the volume of oil already leaked range from 184 million gallons (according to Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and Chair of the National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group Marcia McNutt, the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center; June 16, 2010) to an incredible 365 million gallons (according to BP internal documents released to Congress on June 20, 2010). The truth is no one really knows how much oil got spilled but a figure of well over 200 million gallons seems reasonable.

That is an awful lot of oil and those most impacted in the Gulf will feel the effect for decades. We'll recover from this eventually but probably not in my lifetime or that of my kids.

Read the article CNN/Tests at well cap encouraging so far

<>

Give credit to the engineers, scientists and all the technicians who worked so hard to get the leak stopped. Not an easy task to do all this under sea mile deep. All those who did this wonderful task should be rewarded and considered heros. To start it was a blunder and a disaster whatever the reasonmay be. To my surprise not a single media have apprecaited the task of those who completed the task and stopped the leak.

Read the article CNN/Pressure rising in cap at BP's undersea well, a good sign

"THIS IS F@#$%^& BRILLIANT"  -- COURT RULES FCC POLICY VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT

 

 

Curious that we allow the extreme depiction of violence on TV virtually uncensored but television stations and newspapers regularly edit out harmless expletives, even when they are part of the news or contextually relevant to the understanding of a story.

We live in a mollycoddled, puritanical nation in which we allow our government to tell us what we can handle. Meanwhile, our prepubescent kids are down at the corner swearing like sailors. Who are we protecting? Our kids or a false image of our holier-than-thou that hasn’t existed for centuries (if ever)? Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Appeals court strikes down indecency rule

<>

Not a big Bono fan either, but this was the right ruling. There shouldn’t be over-the-top obscenity in open broadcasts, but the current rules are too vague. This is not a big deal – just write some better, consistent rules that don’t stomp on the 1st Amendment and then the process will have worked as it should.

Why this made it all the way to the [Second Circuit Appeals Court] is unimaginable. Are the FCC a bunch of mindless drones that can’t see when guidelines need to at least be clear and consistent? Doesn’t every parent know this? Jeeeesh.

Read the article REUTERS/Court strikes down FCC indecency policy

<>

While my own speech is littered with usage of F bombs, and other slang terms...I do find this decision on the part of the court a kind of a sign o the times. Difference society; different concerns; different technology....different attitudes.

As for anyone having concerns about kids -- in my hood, trust me -- the kids already know all the slang, and then some!

The movies already account, through a rating system, for these words and actions.

Not really a biggie, except that it shows the mood of the court, and I trust more changes are afoot.

Read the article NPR/FCC indecency rules unconstitutional: Court

<>

Trouble is, in this age of endless hyperbole, few seem to understand the difference between what is truly "offensive" and what is merely in poor taste. Lots of things, I find, are in very poor taste, not too many are genuinely offensive...

Read the article NPR/FCC indecency rules unconstitutional: Court

 

JULY 5, 2010 -- JULY 18, 2010

OAKLAND COP TRIAL VERDICT TRIGGERS VIOLENCE, LOOTING

 

This seemed like the correct verdict to me.

I find it hard to believe this cop INTENDED to just shoot a guy with his gun, point blank in the back. His reaction in the video seems to concur with this. After all, he DID have a tazer on his possession. So why wouldn't he use that first, given the choice?

As far as the riots go...


The ghetto mentality and actions will over shadow any legitimate grievance the black community has.

Disagree with something, so you rob your neighbor's business and burn his car? Yeah, I'm going listen to what you have to say.

Enjoy the free sneakers.

Read the article NPR/Violence in Oakland after verdict in cop's trial

<>

I’m intrigued by the story of the two guys walking around Union Square in suits, hoping for the looting to begin so they could “get free stuff.” One of them said they had to “send a message” about how creed, color, and class affect the justice system.

We hear you loud and clear, Mr. Babber and Mr. Jones. Your profound words about “sending a message” fall flat when you talk about wanting to bust windows and get free stuff. You're not philosophers or political thinkers or the angry voice of the downtrodden.

You’re just garden-variety opportunistic street punks, the kind who are always ready to exploit a tragedy for their own selfish gain and then holler “racism” when you get busted. You have a lot of nerve calling the justice system racist. Guys like you would give any race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality a bad name.

Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/After dark, mobs form, smash windows, loot

<>

I didn't see the video nor followed the legal trial. But maybe a new setup on police belts is required. IF he thought he was reaching for a taser, maybe it was too close to the gun on the belt, and in a rush became confused over shape and placement. BLINK is an interesting book about how these kind of confusions can occur. It even addresses examples of officers making mistakes and why. It comes down to protocols and training. I really feel for this mother who lost her son with a bullet in the back, mistake or not.

Read the article NPR/Violence in Oakland after verdict in cop's trial

From the article:

"It's a clear-cut case of murder," said Scott Larockwell, 32, who joined the growing group at 14th Street and Broadway in downtown Oakland. "He's (Mehserle) a police officer. He should know better. Justice should be served, but it's a baby step and a precedent."

What a dope! The guy made a terrible mistake. Negligence, manslaughter, this is the very definition of what he did. The evidence needs to show guilt of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence only shows that a complete idiot, who should never have been made a cop, couldn't handle himself in his job and made a grave mistake in pulling the wrong weapon.

And a guy died. And that's not right. If in the process of doing your job a person dies, and it's due to you doing your job with complete incompetence, then you're guilty of killing someone. Murder requires forethought or loss of control, but does not include negligence or incompetence.

He's going to prison a felon. 5-14 years is fair.
Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/After dark, mobs form, smash windows, loot

<>

This case to me has always been pretty cut and dry. From when the vid first came out, it seemed like the shooter was surprised when his gun went off, so I knew right away that he thought he had grabbed his taser. Its pretty ridiculous to assert that he had intended to kill the victim, because, why would he do that? Motive? It makes no sense that a cop would shoot somebody in this country for resisting arrest (now Brazil is another story).

As far as all of the social implications of this, they are all there. There's tensions between the black community and police. We get it. We've gotten it for the last 30 years. The next time something like this happens (and it will happen again, no matter what you do to the cops or the communities) we will go through the whole rigamarole again. Sad but true, let's move on.

Read the articleSAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/Mehserle's letter to the public

COLUMNIST SCOLDS THREE LITTLE GIRLS FOR OPERATING "FREE" LEMONADE STAND

I see that most people who have commented here agree with me--the analogy that T. Savage used in her column is really a stretch. I can just picture her sticking her head out of the window of the car that day, giving these girls a lecture on economics.

How would you like it if someone did that to your kids as they tried to do a nice thing by giving away lemonade? We are a society that focuses so much on doing what's best for ourselves at all times. How refreshing to have kids giving something away--for free. Terry Savage's view is an example of "let's make a buck at all times, at all costs!"

Read the article CHICAGO SUN-TIMES/Terry Savage - "There is no free lemonade"

<>

I would have done the same thing. To those who say the scenario isn't "perfect" (and therefore, Terry should have kept quiet), the whole point is what we are teaching are kids.

Our system is not Capitalism, it's what I call "Democratic Capitalism Based On a Moral Foundation."

Our system has done a great job of charity, all the while having entrepreneurial underpinnings. People think they are opposing, but they are not.

Terry is right for pointing all of this out. Our leaders are so skewed, that we are in very deep messes because of a lack of understanding.

Read the article CHICAGO SUN-TIMES/Terry Savage - "There is no free lemonade"

<>

Sure, it seems a little harsh to come down on innocent children so hard, but she was patently NOT advocating for profiting from materials appropriated. Her whole point was that if the children had understood that the ingredients of the lemonade had cost their parents sweat to acquire, they maybe would have reconsidered giving it away. The essence of her parable is that the nanny government has allowed people to fall into the false belief that benefits have no cost, when in fact every benefit does. Her criticism has no relation to giving things away in full knowledge of the expense (i.e. charity). Her premise is that the children did not understand that there was a cost to the lemonade. Accept the premise or not, it doesn't affect her point. Read the article BOING BOING/Finance columnist explains capitalism to children

<>

I probably wouldn't pay more than 50¢ for lemonade, but if I saw some kids giving it away for free, I'd think "how nice" and put a buck in the tip jar. Now that's a smart business model. If I were the kids' parent, I might think it's totally worth it to me – for the cost of some lemons & sugar, they have something fun to do all day, while I can catch up on my "Oprah" or whatever. Both scenarios are modern capitalism

Read the article BOING BOING/Finance columnist explains capitalism to children

TAKING SIDES ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

I am an AZ resident and it is crazy to think that just securing the borders will be a stop to illegal immigrants.- if they want to get in they will get in. The bottom line is there has to be immigration reform. It is just political grandstanding to run around and say "secure the borders, secure the borders"...

What we need is comprehensive immigration reform and that is what Washington should be working on and what Obama is trying to do. Unfortunately it is more exciting for people to scream about secure the borders rather than the hard work of reform.

Read the article CNN/Arizona governor to Obama: do your job

<>

If your home had a leak wouldn’t you fix that first before trying to repair it? If your house was on fire, wouldn’t you put it out before rebuilding it? Why is it that we can’t just enforce the current laws on the books and see how that works? How hard is it to understand that if you heavily fine companies that break the law they will quit hiring illegals and hire those citizens that are here legally. At the same time, start deporting those who have broken the law AND work on border enforcement. Obama has already given up by claiming sealing borders isn’t possible.

Read the article REUTERS/Obama pushes immigration reform amid weak support

<>

These issues have existed in other administrations, but everyone let past administrations and CONGRESSES wring their hands and kick the can. Fussy about it yes. Proactive, not like now. Folks have been well trained on how to attach anything that doesn't look or smell right, to the current and Clinton administrations. This is not a Bush-bash, good luck trying make that stick. It's an idiot bash. It if fits, wear it. Lies and hyperbole flow from the border as oil into the gulf. Like TARP and oil spills, let's continue to throw those red herrings at Obama and ignore industries that draw and perpetuate illegal havens because they are our friends and neighbors.

Read the article CNN/Arizona governor to Obama: do your job

<>

To the people who think that Arizona is wrong - try living in one of our border states for a while - your opinion will change! I was a liberal democrat from Massachusetts my whole life, and would have been one of the first people to boycott. That has now changed. I've lived in So. California for the last 10 years and I have seen up close what illegals are doing to our country. It is disgusting! They are destroying it. "The Valley" is someplace you avoid now, not make movies about.

I not only applaud Arizona but think that all of the states as well as the Federal government should embrace and expand this new law and work as hard as they can to find all the illegals - deport them back to Mexico and make them come back in legally (as most of our ancestors did) - pay taxes, take driving lessons, get legitimate drivers licenses and LEARN ENGLISH. If they want to be in America so badly make them become Americans.

Read the article CNN/What's behind Obama's immigration reform push?

 

JUNE 28, 2010 -- JULY 4, 2010

THOUGHTS ON A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

 

My dad has passed away but he had a beautiful collection of signatures of the Signers of the Declaration that people would ask to view around the country.

I had to research and put together background information. A lot of these men were not poor. They had homes, businesses some successful some not so successful, farms, families that they placed on the line. Because of their sacrifices and those who followed, our family can live in freedom. Freedom is not free and in this day and age, we tend to let others take something so precious away while others died even violently to preserve. You do have a duty receiving this gift and that is to vote with an educated mind. This next election and the few to follow will determine the direction of this nation and will be the most important I have seen in a lifetime.

The Signers knew they might lose their very lives but freedom was worth it. Do not let a greedy few take from us what so many have died to allow us to live free. Better to have lived life in freedom and failed than to have lived with fake ceilings and constraints placed by evil greedy men.

Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Jefferson changed 'subjects' to 'citizen s' in declaration

<>

Jefferson's simple edit, with such profound implications, must be one of history's most important revisions.

Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Jefferson changed 'subjects' to 'citizen s' in declaration

<>

America is the dream of the human spirit transformed in to a hope embodied within Democracy's most sacred documents, yet still aspiring to become a reality for all.

The Declaration of Independence is the first breath of Freedom; the Constitution is the Heart which gives life to that breath, and the Bill of Rights is the Soul of what it is to be free.

To the breath, heart, and soul we add the The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as the inner and conflicted mind of Freedom that is still with us to this day.

The Amendments are the chronicle of the pursuit of the dream that roused the creation of our nation and the evolution of its heart and soul. Through them is revealed both the shame and triumphs of a nation. They remind us of the imperfections of the present, and of the possibilities of a future in which all humankind can someday share fulfillment of the Dream.

No dream can hope to be realized without sacrifice and no words more eloquently expresses the sacrifice made in pursuit of the Dream then the Gettysburg Address. We are forever reminded that those who have sacrificed for our nation now and in the past and those who will sacrifice in the future are the embodiment of the dream, the heart, the soul, and the mind of our freedom and democracy to whom we are all indebted.

Taken together - The Declaration of Independence; The Constitution and its Amendments; the Federalist Papers; and the Gettysburg Address are our most sacred documents upon which our nation is built and our faith in its future is founded. They are the most holy scriptures of Democracy and the central beliefs by which we claim the right to call ourselves true Americans. Every other belief we may have is our personal belief but these words represent our shared beliefs as a nation and as Americans.

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Thoughts on a declaration

ELENA KAGAN'S CONFIRMATION HEARING

You don't end up running the nation's top law school by being a fruit-filled airhead. Kagan knows which legal end is up otherwise she would not have been able to teach law and train lawyers. She's no paralegal and the country will not suffer on her account. She may never have been a judge but she has a pretty stellar legal background that most actual judges can not match.

Read the article YAHOO NEWS/Republicans challenge Kagan on military at Harvard

<>

Kagan will likely get confirmed. Let's hope she is an objective arbitor of constitutional law. Whether she interprets the Constitution 'liberally' or 'conservatively' is fine, so long as her decision is well founded in the document itself, or through precedent. I fear however, that she will view the Constitution as a 'living, breathing' tool, meant for 'progressive' interpretation of today's society, and not the legal foundation upon which this democratic-republic was formed!

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Kagan shifts on disclosure of legal views at hearings

<>

The main problem with her is her total lack of judicial experience. The supreme court is a lifetime appointment which would provide time enough to train her but the country would suffer while she is learning which end is up. Who would you want to operate on you, the doctor who has preformed the operation many times before or the OR nurse who has seen the operation many times before?

Read the article YAHOO NEWS/Republicans challenge Kagan on military at Harvard

<>

As distasteful as I find all the political posturing surrounding Kagan's nomination, it really is beginning to seem like the Democrats should move on. Kagan's main claim to fame is a political accomplishment: In an era of rampant affirmative action, she got herself appointed as a Dean at Harvard. Although I know some pretty brilliant Deans, brilliance is not a requirement for the job, and shouldn't be assumed to go along with it. Kagan is undoubtedly very bright and shrewd, but her publication record is very thin, and her judicial record non-existent.

Political skill, Kagan's only demonstrated strength, is largely irrelevant on the Supreme Court. Let's move on, and find a better candidate.

Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Kagan shifts on disclosure of legal views at hearings

SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GUN OWNERS' RIGHTS

 

I live in Chicago and see how helpful Mayor Daley's gun laws have been. This weekend, for example, we had 26 people shot - 3 dead thusfar. This is not as scientific as the facts you laid out but certainly shows what a city looks like when law-biding citizens are not allowed to utilize their constitutional freedoms to defend themselves.

The constitution says you can't limit this freedom but Mayor Daley is a Democrat which makes him (in his mind) above the constitution.

There is a misconception out there that the 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own a gun(s). It does not. The constitution guaranteed that right. The bill of rights (which includes the second amendment) simply re-affirms the God given rights that our framers considered most important. The only thing our founders valued more than the right to protect yourself and family with a firearm was the freedom of speech. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Supreme Court rules in favor of gun rights

<>

While I agree something has to be done to help limit the access gang members and criminals have to handguns, this gun ban has done nothing except prove that law abiding citizens will honor the law and gangs and criminals will not.

The shootings in Chicago have been on the rise all summer and I expect them to get worse. Out of all of the shootings, only one was done by a law abiding citizen protecting his home. EVERY SINGLE OTHER SHOOTING HAS BEEN GANG OR CRIME RELATED!!!!

How about instead of trying to limit the means in which a law abiding citizen has to defend their own home, the city of Chicago actually does something about the gangs that are continually gaining control of this city with their ILLEGALLY PURCHASED NO WAY IN HECK I AM GOING TO REGISTER IT HANDGUNS. If the city, police, and everyone single judge would crack down on gangs and gang activity it would be the best solution to the entire problem.

Read the article CHICAGO TRIBUNE/Daley: Chicago will revise gun law after Supreme Court ban

<>

During the Revolutionary War, we should never forget that arms were borne, against a government, then the British Government, that did not enact or keep laws consistent with what the people in this country wanted. Taxation without representation was only the latest wrong. Arms were not borne for the colonists to protect themselves against burglars, gang bangers, or drug addicts... they were borne to protect against a government that was not of the people, by the people and for the people. The ultimate vote. It may be a good thing that we now have trouble seeing that view because our coign of vantage has been so changed by the protections our government now provides. The Court wisely has read what the law, the Constitution, does say. If one does not agree, then change the Constitution, not the Court that has read it.

Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Supreme Court rules in favor of gun rights

<>

I happened to meet a fine family from England recently here on vacation and the discussion turned to gun control. The father loves America but thinks it's a violent country and there would be less crime with gun control. I had to remind him there would not have been an America if ordinary citizens did not have muskets to defeat the tyrannical British who dared to tax us without representation! Sort of like what's happening now. I do however, wish there were more controls on the bigger assault weapons. Scary to think if society broke down for any number of reasons and we'd be in "Road Warrior" anarchy.

Read the article FOX NEWS FORUM/Court's gun decision an important in for Americans who want to defend themselves

 

back to home page

read more comments from THE INDEX

© 2009-2010 Commentopia