I happened to be reading through the posts at my old blog, nonsense remains nonsense (which I may resurrect at some point), and I came across this post about the 2nd Amendment. Of all the parts of the Constitution, none is perhaps more abused than this amendment, and while, as I stated in the original posts, many may wish for a perfect world where the right to bear arms is not necessary, the truth is that we haven’t reached that point (and may never). However, in reading my original post, I realized that I do have something to add to this particular debate. I do have to admit that this idea is not originally mine (most peoples’ aren’t), but it is an interesting point. Also, it goes to one of the main points in the original article: that context is important whenever we read or hear anything.
The text of the 2nd amendment reads as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Copied from http://www.usconstitution.net)
In my previous article, I discussed the historical context of the amendment and why it is not irrelevant today, but there is also the actual verbal context of the amendment; that is, the words as they are. Anti-gun types often take parts of this out of context; for example, they will state that it says “A well regulated Militia” and then state that, because of this phrase, the amendment does not refer to the individual. I also covered this in the previous article, but there is one more important point to be made with this phrase.
The Founders realized something very important when they wrote this particular amendment. (Just for the record, the Bill of Rights was written and proposed by James Madison.) They state this in the phrase “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” It was understood that for the United States to maintain its freedom (both its territorial freedom and its “actual” freedom, or freedom from foreign interference), an army (in this case referred to as a militia) was necessary. The establishment of any sort of military force however, brings with it the chance that it could be used to oppress the people. Given the wording of the second amendment, then, and keeping in mind the cause-and-effect relationship of the clause, it is because of the “well-regulated militia” that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (emphasis mine). I think that once we look at the context of the original combined with its actual wording that we arrive at the Founder’s intentions as well as the only correct reading. While I understand that many loose constructions believe in playing willy-nilly with the wording of the Constitution, usually that wording is not used to take away freedoms, but to provide additional protections. I myself am more in the middle of the strict v. loose construction debate, and this is actually in large part the line that decides how I think an issue should go: if we are expanding individual freedoms and protections (which, I know, doesn’t always work together, but civil rights is a great example of the good that a more loose interpretation can give), then loose is the way to go, but if we are talking about taking away freedoms (in exactly the way gun-control of the sort in the District of Columbia did) then I vote for strict construction.
]]>In the ongoing issue of Russia attempting to regain its place as a superpower, Russia’s foreign ministry issued a statement stating “will be forced to react, and not only through diplomatic demarches”. It’s pretty clear that among the other possible “reactions” would be some sort of military action, but the fact that Russia has even made this statement shows that a missile defense of some sort is essential in defending those countries that have sought to do away with the influence of Russia.
Russia’s actions in Georgia further emphasize the necessity. Many of us who have been paying attention to Russia since the rise of Vladimir Putin have expected just this sort of thing to happen. We’ve seen hints of it with Russia’s treatment of Ukraine and Estonia, where they have used economic and technological means (respectively) to show their displeasure. While many have questioned the place of NATO in the post-Soviet era, Russia’s current actions have shown its necessity.
]]>I know I’m not alone in my concern over the recent actions of Russia in Georgia. This is really the first time we’ve seen Russia assert itself militarily over one of the former members of the Soviet Union. In the past several years, Russia has thrown its weight around economically (often through cutting its neighbors off from energy like natural gas and oil), and many think that Russia was complicit in the cyberattack on Estonia, but with the United States (Georgia’s chief supporter) embroiled in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia apparently felt free enough to invade a sovereign nation.
The catalyst of the conflict, Georgia’s attempt to retake South Ossetia, has really become less important than the fact that Russia has clearly overstepped its initial claim of protecting the South Ossetians. I can even understand her concern over the South Ossetian people, but I must also point out Russia’s complete hypocrisy in this issue. Russia has been fighting a civil war in Chechnya for the better part of twenty years now, doing essential what Georgia wanted to do: maintain its territorial integrity. The difference here, of course, is that Georgia is leaning to the West, while the South Ossetians maintain ties to Russia.
This is exactly the type of situation that at times make me lament the United States’s current involvement in Iraq; we are unable to respond, and Russia knows that. If Russia thought there was any chance we could respond, she wouldn’t have dared to go as far as she did; Russia may be able to take on a tiny country of four million, but the combined might of NATO could crush the Russian military (which as the article above points out is basically equipped like that of Georgia, with older Soviet weaponry).
While the article suggests that the events in Georgia may set back its membership in NATO, I personally would like to see that sped up, as I believe it is in our best interests to defend nations like Georgia from bullies like Russia.
]]>I have been watching the situation with the Democratic Party delegates in Michigan and Florida with a great deal of interest since the situation started, and I have wondered what the outcome would be. The issue highlights some inconsistencies in our overall political process, and the Democratic Party had an interesting dilemma on its hands. You see, the Republican and Democratic parties have an kind of dual status. On the one hand, they are private organizations, involved with but not part of the government. In fact, I would argue that as much as possible our government and its institutions should be party-neutral, and that includes in the primary process. The process that a political party goes through in choosing a candidate should essentially be up to that party; if the government allocates public resources to smooth that process, that’s fine as long as those resources are available to everyone. The interesting thing is, however, that because the primary process is not entirely independent of the government, because it is a formal part of the election process, that means that the public has a stake in it beyond each individual person’s membership in a political party.
This dual-status gives the Democratic party the following dilemma: how to punish the state Democratic parties of Michigan and Florida for going against the rules (rules which they were fully aware of) while still insuring that the people who voted in those primaries still have their votes counted (keeping in mind that most of them had nothing to do with the decisions of the state parties). Were the political parties kept entirely separate from the government, this would be an easy decision: just not seat the Michigan and Florida delegates and be done with it. After all, the rules were put into place to keep the primary process orderly, and the Michigan and Florida Democratic parties flaunted those rules in an attempt to make themselves more important. Now, one could argue that the primary process as a whole needs to be revamped in both parties, but just doing your own thing is not the solution.
As I am neither a Democrat nor a resident of Michigan or Florida, I personally don’t care what they do in this specific situation. However, I find the issue of disenfranchisement to be interesting in this case, precisely because in one sense it’s not really “disenfranchisement.” This is not the same thing as denying someone the vote in a general election; these are independent political parties choosing their official candidates. There’s not even anything stopping a “loser” from still running the general election; well, besides the fact that it would be nearly impossible for them to win. It seems to me that the Democratic voters of Michigan and Florida should be most angry with their own state parties, who were the ones who made this decision knowing what the consequence would be.
In this case, the Democrats probably made the best decision they could have: to seat all the delegates, but only give each one half a vote. This is important because: 1) it avoids talk of disenfranchisement and 2) it still punishes the state parties, thus (hopefully) avoiding a chaotic mess in the next primaries. In the meantime, now that this particular case is over, both the Republicans and the Democrats should look at their primary processes and make sure that something like this doesn’t happen again.
]]>
When I first saw the trailers for Premonition, I actually considered seeing it in the theaters. My wife, Jen, wanted to see it as well. However, the review scores were abysmally low, and that was enough for me to avoid it altogether. Last night, Jen and I were looking at movies to rent, and she decided that she wanted to finally see it. I wasn’t super excited about it, but it’s spring break, and we’ve both got some time to kill, so I figured I’d give it chance.
The funny thing is, Premonition is not as bad as I thought it would be; in fact, for the most part it’s actually pretty good. Sandra Bullock does a good job showing the disorientation and confusion that sets in as she gets pulled from back and forth throughout the week of her husband’s death. The visuals and music work well to set up the atmosphere; there’s nothing revolutionary here (that is, it’s all been done before), but it’s done competently. Also, the movie avoids one of the biggest pitfalls of the genre: over-explaining things.
So, what’s wrong with it? Two words: the end.
I’m going to be honest: I don’t know how I would have ended this movie differently. One of the other problems movies of this genre fall into is not knowing how to effectively end it. You spend so much time building up the tension, but then have to provide the audience with an ending that’s satisfying. Both Jen and I found the ending of Premonition less than satisfying; it basically hits the audience over the head with the moral of the movie. The result is destroys any good will the film built up to that point. The film tries to tie everything up and assure the audience that everything will be all right, and the whole thing just comes off as a Lifetime movie.
]]>
Gary Hicks, who posts on the Star Ship Sofa forums and is also the author of Terra Incognita (first 9 episodes available on Podiobooks.com; link on the sidebar), found this. They currently have four episodes of a Flash Gordon radio serial from 1935. I’ll post more when I’ve had a chance to listen to it.
]]>]]>