Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
Wille, Bluepoet.....I've experienced the same things. I called EVT twice to ask about their spam standards, sent e-mails several times, and have received zero replies. I guess they don't care about the issue. 5 months ago
""...majority rules" is the basic tenet of our government and its constitution."
"Once a majority has expressed its mandate at the ballot box, it is the fair and moral civic duty to uphold and support the implementation of the majority’s wishes."
Let' amend that first quote to make clear that the "majority rules" tenet applies ONLY to legislation and policies which are Constitutional.
And that applies also to the second quote: no citizen is required to support and obey "majority rule" legislation which violates his Constitutional rights. In fact, one could argue that it is the moral duty of every citizen to oppose such legislation and it is particularly incumbent upon those elected to office to be conscientious in doing so because they've taken an oath to honor and protect that very Constitution.
5 months ago
Mike....I seem to agree with your proposals, maybe because you left out ideology and concentrated on practicality????? :-) In any case, I offer one solution to #9: ....a fairer way to fund education in poverty area schools.....and applicable to all other schools in all other areas as well. That would be by determining a dollar amount per student to be spent in a school year and allowing those dollars to be spent in whatever school the parent decides, public school, parochial school or charter school. After all, isn't "choice" the paramount right in all things? And besides, what could be more fair than to spend exactly the same amount for education on every child no matter his circumstances? 5 months ago
Dellett......The fact that the Obama administration refuses to tell the whole true story of what happened in Benghazi, and why, just doesn't make sense. What does (did) Obama have to lose? It just doesn't seem sensible to believe that the sole cause of this obfuscation was fear of losing the election, although probably nearly everything Obama had done up to that point was with the election foremost in his mind.
We do know a few things about the Benghazi deal. The compound wasn't a consulate, nor a State Department mission. It was a CIA private rental where they were doing "something" that hasn't been revealed. We also know that Amb. Stevens met with a Turkish consul earlier in the day of the attack at that compound and it doesn't seem sensible at all that they wouldn't meet in Tripoli where it was safe instead of in Benghazi, already a nest of trouble. Also, nobody has said or found out exactly what the meeting was about. We also know that the CIA operatives at that compound captured a "terrorist" at some unspecified time but turned him over to the LIbyans almost immediately after the attack. Why?
I'm never confident that our government will tell the public the truth about ANYTHING but maybe there is a more logical story about Benghazi, such as this one:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/514005 months ago
Cincinnatus.....I've also sent an e-mail to the Tribune asking for an explanation. If I ever get a reply, I'll post it here for everyone's benefit. 6 months ago
Cincinnatus......I attempted to answer your post from Monday at 4:00 PM but it was labeled "appears to be spam" and never appeared. Same thing happened with my post Monday at 11:29 AM although that one did get through. Don't know why this is happening??? I called the Tribune, left a message via voice-mail with someone who is supposed to be the moderator but no reply yet.
It seems very odd to me that cordial and civil discussion between us should raise spam alerts. Maybe someone can clue me in as to why, because I haven't the slightest notion. 6 months ago
I'm no big fan of John McCain because some of his political stances bother me; see McCain-Feingold, for example. However, I would suggest that anyone who demeans him for ANYTHING he did while a prisoner in Viet Nam try to take even a tenth of the punishment he received and still claim purity of purpose and action. Whether or not he stayed behind when offered repatriation because of fear of his father, my sense is that very few of us would have stayed behind even if we thought our fathers would try to murder us when we got home. McCain can be criticized fairly on things other than his stint in Viet Nam....no need or justification to bash him there. 6 months ago
Cincinnatus.....I may be making an incorrect assumption here concerning your view of the written words of the Constitution but I think your view differs from mine in that you believe we are now able to "interpret" what the words there mean in terms of today's society.....thus, the changes in society and even in word meanings allow for a more "generous" application of Constitutional provisions. I couldn't disagree more, if that truly is what you mean.
I do agree completely with your statements on how and why the Founders reached the conclusions about good government that they did, and why they then incorporated them into the new Constitution, but I am convinced that they intended the words they used to be taken literally for all time. That's why they made provision for altering the Constitution by the amendment process if future events and evolution of society required it, but not by simply expanding the power of government beyond the chains the Constitution had put upon it.
Reading the 2nd Amendment in that context tells me that, although we now have a National Guard, it does not fully or legally replace the citizen militia which the Founders deemed so important as a bulwark against oppressive federal government that they included a reference to it in the 2nd Amendment as one of the principle reasons why citizens must have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
As I said before, while I prefer to keep the 2nd Amendment sacrosanct "AS IS" within its true and plain meaning of no infringements, and I would oppose attempts to change it, but I would live lawfully by the consequences if it were changed. Seems to me that is the proper way to go about these things.
Again, thanks for the discussion. Frankly, I wish there were easier ways to do this outside such a forum but I know most people hesitate to extend an invitation to use their e-mail addresses and I don't blame them as I'm reluctant to do that myself! 6 months ago
Cincinnatus.....Well, I see that we put a different weight on some things here. I for one believe that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. My rationale is, what good is it to have definitive rules and procedures if we don't have to live by them? Your comment that infers we should be making "lawful" changes because times and circumstances themselves change is well taken, but that is why the Constitution provides the proper means to make those changes. I don't think it useful or wise to do so if we want to preserve ALL of our rights under the Constitution, don't you?
But you didn't reply to my question about what the 2nd Amendment means, and what the Founders intended it to mean, when they specified that the right to keep and bear arms must have no "infringements" placed upon it. That seems about as plain and simple an instruction as one could ask; after all, it doesn't say the right exists but with whatever exceptions government at any level might want to enact.
I'm afraid that at this stage of our country's history, it is too common and too much accepted that circumventing the plain language of the Constitution is OK if enough people, or enough politicians in office, determine that there is a "need" to do so. That was the force behind the creation of the Social Security System and nowhere in the Constitution or in any debate among the Founders that I've seen was there any notion of allowing Congress to operate outside Article 1 Section 8 simply because of "need" by some group of citizens or by government itself or because the political class found it useful to do so.
But, maybe I'm just too old-fashioned anymore in believing that words have meaning, that being especially true where our governing principles are concerned. Just as I'm prepared to live by the terms of ObamaCare, even though I don't find authority for it in Article 1 Section 8 (despite Chief Justice Roberts!), as a responsible citizen I'll do the same if/when more restrictions or regulations are imposed on firearms.
Thanks for your responses. 6 months ago
Cincinnatus....I was with you all the way on your understanding of why the Founders inserted the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights. But I balk at the notion that Congress or the SC can put limits on that (and other inalienable) right. After all, the Founders said that those first 8 rights don't come from government at all but from a higher power; thus, it stands to reason that government has no power to regulate them. It also stands to reason that government has authority to regulate harmful use of them, and on that I'm sure we do agree. That's why there is no government effort to limit one's physical ability to shout "fire" in a crowded theater; but it may impose a penalty for mis-using one's free speech in a way which impinges upon the rights of others. And that is a legitimate restriction upon THE USE of free speech; ie., punishing those who abuse the use of it. Slander is another limiting factor, for example, but again it is on the improper use of speech, not upon the ability to speak.
If we are to make a legitimate comparison of limiting free speech with limiting the availability of the inert object where arms are involved, we would have to somehow interfere with a person's actual ability to use his voice. Gun control efforts, however, mostly attack the very ability to keep and bear arms, or it imposes restrictions on the physical nature of the object itself and thus is far different when we equate one's voice to the firearm. I have no objection whatever to punishing people who abuse the right to keep and bear arms by using them to endanger or harm others; that's only just, and it also is equivalent to the "shouting fire" example. It seems to me that addressing firearm issues in such a manner fits perfectly with your idea that certain limits on liberty based upon one's acts are in the interest of civic order without circumventing the actual Constitution.
Lastly on this point, I am adamant that the actual wording of the Constitution means what it says, and that current circumstances do not provide legitimate reasons to change, ignore or circumvent them. If that is acceptable, then the Bill of Rights means nothing at all. Gun control advocates may well be right that in today's world it would be better to modify or eliminate the 2nd Amendment (if possible) because too many people abuse the privilege of having arms, but the proper means to accomplish control of or reduction of the firearm violence in society is by honoring the Constitution and using its stated methods to make the required change, not by simply ignoring or working around what exists. Maybe we can agree on that?
Thanks for your thoughts. 6 months ago