Firearms Friday: Justice Scalia

A couple of weeks ago we lost a tremendous intellect on the Supreme Court when Antonin Scalia passed away. While there have been many who have criticized his views over the years, including in the firearms community, there is no questioning the passion that he had for the Constitution and for the true intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote it. In fact, there were times when he himself didn’t completely agree with his own decision but reached the conclusion that he did because it was the right decision. As he has been quoted as saying, “If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.”

Surprisingly, one of the more balanced ‘obituaries’ written shortly after his death can be attributed to Mark Sherman at the Associated Press who rightly focused on Scalia’s commitment to textualism. In part, he writes:

Scalia showed a deep commitment to originalism, which he later began calling textualism. Judges had a duty to give the same meaning to the Constitution and laws as they had when they were written. Otherwise, he said disparagingly, judges could decide that "the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean."

A challenge to a Washington, D.C., gun ban gave Scalia the opportunity to display his devotion to textualism. In a 5-4 decision that split the court's conservatives and liberals, Scalia wrote that an examination of English and colonial history made it exceedingly clear that the Second Amendment protected Americans' right to have guns, at the very least in their homes and for self-defense. The dissenters, also claiming fidelity to history, said the amendment was meant to ensure that states could raise militias to confront a too-powerful federal government if necessary.

But Scalia rejected that view. "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," Scalia wrote.

Unfortunately, his passing leaves a gaping hole in the highest court in the land. Not because he sided primarily with one party or another but because he was an originalist. There is too much ‘selective interpretation’ in politics and in the courts today and having someone relying solely on the text is a tremendous grounding asset that has been taken for granted for too long. Additionally, the passion that he freely expressed for our founding document is something that was evident in the eloquence of his majority opinions but especially in his dissenting opinions.

It is a shame that the two things that have been talked about most since his passing is the lack of respect by the President in not attending his funeral (but he took the time to meet with the ‘death to the police’ Black Lives Matter organizers) and the ongoing debate surrounding the nomination of a replacement. Here is a revolutionary idea, why don’t we honor his memory by nominating someone who views our Constitution in the same unbiased way making decisions based on the text rather than the social flavor of the month. No politics, just focusing on the text. I’m not even asking for nine, I just want to see one Justice on the Supreme Court who takes their oath literally.

WHO: Everything Will Kill You!

Yes, this is a real billboard outside of Las Vegas. 

Every couple of years, some university, health organization, lobbying group, or research body releases results stating that something causes cancer. Sometimes those finding are reversed or amended but lately the list seems to just keep getting longer and longer. Today, there were a number of things added to that ‘confirmed’ cancer list when the United Nations World Health Organization released their findings which stated that processed meats cause cancer. The Associated Press summed up the announcement pretty succinctly by stating the following:

The World Health Organization threw its global weight behind years of experts' warnings and declared Monday that processed meats raise the risk of colon and stomach cancer and that red meat is probably harmful, too.

Meat producers are angry, vegetarians are feeling vindicated, and cancer experts are welcoming the most comprehensive pronouncement yet on the relation between our modern meat-eating lifestyles and cancer.

The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, analyzed decades of research and for the first time put processed meats in the same danger category as smoking or asbestos. That doesn't mean salami is as bad as cigarettes, only that there's a confirmed link to cancer. And even then, the risk is small.

Of course, as I originally stated, these are only the most recent additions to a long list of things found in everyday life that will give you cancer. While many of the obvious chemicals and addictive habits are listed, there are also items that we encounter every day that would have a hypochondriac hyperventilating each morning when they open their eyes. Basically, if you are a smoker who eats red meat and works in the automotive, construction, wood working, or tanning industry (or does any of those as a hobby) you should be dead in about 48 hours. Heck, pretty soon they will probably find that laying down while sleeping causes cancer.

And things are only going to get worse as was reported today by Bloomberg Business:

Next year the WHO is likely to make headlines again. In addition to evaluating several industrial chemicals, it is revisiting two beverages that, like meat, are dietary staples for millions: Hot mate, a traditional caffeinated drink popular in Latin America, and—brace yourself—coffee.

So, how can we sum up these findings? What would give a full picture of the hazards found in modern day life? I think it is best put by saying that living will kill you. Sure, you can avoid all the things that the WHO lists and that doctors try to steer you away from but if you do that what kind of life are you going to live. We can’t avoid everything that the “experts” say will cause cancer, the only thing we can do is live. Does that mean that everyone should run out the door and light up? Heck no. But we can’t be afraid to live life and not worry about all the dangers that are, literally, floating around us.

Leave it to the UN to try and shift our focus away from the real world and the things that are truly important to living a full and meaningful life. Our focus should be avoiding the drunk driver heading straight at us rather than on the person driving next to us smoking a cigarette. There are other things in this world that require our attention, our focus, and our energy. This applies to both the dangers and the beauty that surrounds us. The one inevitability in life is death so enjoy the time that you have and live!

Israel Under Fire (From More Than Rockets)

So, while under rocket attack from Hamas, Israel negotiated a cease fire. But, honestly, let’s call this what it really is… giving in to the mounting international pressure (especially from the anti-Israel UN) so that you can have a few days of silence before Hamas launches more rockets, you retaliate, and Israel is deemed the aggressor. Basically, a giant Middle Eastern circle jerk.

What happened to the hard line that Bibi seemed so proud to be walking? What happened to the putting an end to this conflict once and for all? Where did the common sense go?

Honestly, we shouldn’t be surprised. This is basically what has happened every time ever since Israeli politicians began giving up land fought for and earned by the blood of their fellow Israelis. This is a dangerous trend that seems to have no end and that, at best, Israel comes out of the conflict a little worse off in the eyes of the media and the gullible public. Of course, this brings up another interesting story that was making the media rounds today.

A former AP correspondent, Motti Friedman, published a story in Tablet magazine about the failings of the main stream media in reporting the war in Israel and reporting on Israel in general. This is a tremendous read and one that should be noted as one of the few, if not the only, honest account of the world media and their treatment of the Jewish state. Unfortunately, this kind of reporting is not new as Freidman writes:

“The lasting importance of this summer’s war, I believe, doesn’t lie in the war itself. It lies instead in the way the war has been described and responded to abroad, and the way this has laid bare the resurgence of an old, twisted pattern of thought and its migration from the margins to the mainstream of Western discourse—namely, a hostile obsession with Jews. The key to understanding this resurgence is not to be found among jihadi webmasters, basement conspiracy theorists, or radical activists. It is instead to be found first among the educated and respectable people who populate the international news industry; decent people, many of them, and some of them my former colleagues.”

While reporters face tremendous danger, death threats, and, as we have seen recently, death, there is still little criticism surrounding those who are making these threats, posing these dangers, and taking innocent lives. Not only has it prevented reporting of the facts from actually occurring, it has prevented the truth from being told on more than one occasion. This is best explained when Freidman writes:

“There has been much discussion recently of Hamas attempts to intimidate reporters. Any veteran of the press corps here knows the intimidation is real, and I saw it in action myself as an editor on the AP news desk. During the 2008-2009 Gaza fighting I personally erased a key detail—that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and being counted as civilians in the death toll—because of a threat to our reporter in Gaza. (The policy was then, and remains, not to inform readers that the story is censored unless the censorship is Israeli. Earlier this month, the AP’s Jerusalem news editor reported and submitted a story on Hamas intimidation; the story was shunted into deep freeze by his superiors and has not been published.)”

This is particularly startling when taken into account the means by which Hamas is reported. Actually, it’s more about how much is not written and how focused the media wolves are on every aspect of Israeli politics, culture, etc. It is not about wanting to better understand, it is all about finding the minute failings (this is a term applied by the outsider) in individuals and groups and applying them to Israel as a whole. This is not reporting, this is find a way to paint a picture, frame a story, box a topic that fits the views of the reporter and the media outlet. As Freidman explains:

“Israeli actions are analyzed and criticized, and every flaw in Israeli society is aggressively reported. In one seven-week period, from Nov. 8 to Dec. 16, 2011, I decided to count the stories coming out of our bureau on the various moral failings of Israeli society—proposed legislation meant to suppress the media, the rising influence of Orthodox Jews, unauthorized settlement outposts, gender segregation, and so forth. I counted 27 separate articles, an average of a story every two days. In a very conservative estimate, this seven-week tally was higher than the total number of significantly critical stories about Palestinian government and society, including the totalitarian Islamists of Hamas, that our bureau had published in the preceding three years.”

For those of us who have been paying attention to the media, listening to what is actually being said, and talking to those living in Israel we have been aware of this massacre of the truth perpetuated by the media. I am grateful for the honesty that has been so succinctly reported in this piece and I hold out hope that, one day, actual reporting will return to the Middle East and Israel in particular. Maybe we can have a few honest voices on the ground when this current ceasefire is shattered by the sound of rocket fire.

The Castration Of America

I grew up in a house with pets. I always remember having a dog and a couple of cats running around from room to room, up the stairs and down, and off into the corner of the living room not stopping until the fat cat meowed for mercy. I have a lot of great memories of my childhood pets and I still like pets. However there are limits that when exceeded I cease to understand the people that coddle their animals.

Now, this whole post was sparked by a story I read about an Oregon couple that called 911 when their cat chased them into a bedroom. Here is the series of events as recorded by the Associated Press (and the 911 recording which is included in the Good Morning America clip):

Palmer says the animal attacked his 7-month-old child after the baby pulled its tail. The child suffered a few scratches on the forehead.

On the 911 call, Palmer tells the dispatcher he kicked the cat "in the rear" to protect his child. Palmer says the animal then "just went off over the edge" — leading Palmer and his girlfriend to barricade themselves, their baby and the family dog in the bedroom for safety.

The cat can be heard screeching in the background of the call as Palmer says in a panicked voice: "He's charging us. He's at our bedroom door." Palmer also tells the dispatcher the cat has been violent in the past.

But here is the real “I s**t you not” aspect of this whole thing, now they are going to hire a therapist for the cat. It wasn’t bad enough that you don’t have the sack to take care of the problem yourself and had to call 911 but now, instead of getting rid of the animal that attacked your child, you are going to pay a therapist to threat the cat for its aggression. I am certain that a therapist is needed in that house and it is definitely not for the cat.

This might be worse than the people who spends thousands and thousands of dollars to extend an animal’s life a few weeks or those that insist on cooking for their pet when they can’t even cook for themselves. This raises the WTF bar in the pet category to a height that I don’t think will be surpassed for a very long time. While this may be acceptable to the fur loving PETA people living in a bubby floating about ten thousand miles to the left of Obama.

This is not normal people. If you sink that much of your financial security into a pet, you have too much money. When you find yourself spending a half our cooking a balanced meal for your cat while you hammer down a Big Mac please see a therapist. If you think spending thousands upon thousands of dollars on your dog so that it will have an additional miserable month of life is normal please do not get another pet. The only thing worse than seeing a pet die is seeing the look in their eyes like they want to die.

But if you need to call 911 because your cat is charging you and hissing at you, you need to grow a set and stop relying on authorities to take care of all your problems for you. Your problems are much deeper than the threat a 22 pound animal poses. Your problem is that ‘you have no marble’ and have no idea what it is like to be self-reliant. You have a serious issue and should probably consider the fact that your actions (or lack thereof) are occupying the time of people who are employed to help others in need not serve the needs of the nutless.

Remember, Bob Barker told you have your pet spayed or neutered. He didn’t tell you to get neutered. Listen a little closer next time and we might not have these kinds of problems.

Irony And Hypocrisy: Besties 4 Ever

Over the past few years we have seen a sharp increase in the number of protests and rallies throughout the country. While most have come in the form of large groups of people getting together to show their support or disdain for one topic or another. Personally, I haven’t been a part of these gatherings but fully support the reasons behind some of these assemblies. Others, I am simple left wondering if they really give a crap or fully understand what they are saying and what their actions say about their point of view.

A prime example of the questionable practices of some of these groups occurred this past Saturday in Raleigh, North Carolina when a group of individuals decided to hold a rally in opposition to the ‘Republican Agenda’ in the state. One of many points of contention was the passage into law this past year that a photo identification is required for someone to vote in person. I know, such a radical law. How do you expect the dead to vote if they have to actually show up at the polling place with a photo ID.

This is not the first time that such opposition has been seen. In fact, this is a constant topic of debate across the country. What was interesting in this instance was that there was a certain requirement in place at this rally in order for people to be part of the heard protesting this voting requirement. Enter irony and hypocrisy skipping into the conversation hand in hand (they are besties at this point).

As was reported by the Associated Press, “Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, said Saturday the NAACP was being hypocritical for directing marchers on a document to bring photo identification when it opposes a photo ID requirement for voting. Lewis helped shepherd a voter ID law through the legislature.” Yes, you read that correctly, a photo ID was required to protest the voter ID law. Interestingly enough, actually not really interesting more common practice at this point, this little tidbit wasn’t mentioned by any of the more left leaning publications beyond the AP.

Maybe it would make sense to simply have ‘Moral Marches’ on election day and everyone would be happy except, of course, for those who wouldn’t be able to participate in either. I wonder who they would protest against. Would they bother getting a photo ID in order to protest the fact that they didn’t have a photo ID? Why don’t those people without photo identification simply hold up signs at a presidential rally? Oh wait, those require a photo ID to get into as well.

In an age when identity theft is rampant it only makes sense to require people to have photo identification when they go to vote. We are not voting for the next American Idol, we are voting for the people who are supposed to represent us from school boards and other local elected officials to congressman, senators, and the president. Requiring photo identification ensures that you vote for who you want to represent you. One person, one photo ID, one vote. This is the basic equation that everyone, regardless of party, should stand behind.