trying to fit the world inside a picture frame

Photos now up at my photo blog.

More to come...

John Adams

In order to get myself psyched up for my favorite holiday, Independence Day, I have been watching the recent HBO miniseries on the life of John Adams. I have absolutely been blown away. The filmmakers have been able to accomplish that which is so rarely accomplished in movies - they make you feel as though you are a fly on the wall to history.

Owing largely to the David McCullough biography on which it is based, "John Adams" portrays the high ideals and significant moments of the founding period, but also portrays the humanity of our Founding Fathers. As time has passed, the Founding Fathers have been deified in the American consciousness. Much of this is deserved, but it often blinds us to their basic humanity. "John Adams" lays bare all the fears, insecurities, vanities, joys, and disappointments of many of our Founding Fathers, which provides an even greater understanding of the men and the monumental task that they were able to accomplish.

So, to borrow from Mr. Adams' final public words:

Independence Forever.

D.C. Gun Ban Ruling - A Victory for the Constitution

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of the 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." - Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority.

In what could be considered one of the most important decisions of the new century, the Supreme Court overturned the long-standing Washington, D.C. gun ban as violative of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Personally, I believe that the Court made the right decision from a Constitutional perspective. The text of the Second Amendment reads: "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." Now, supporters of gun control and the D.C. ban argue that the key part of the Second Amendment is the line referring to a "well regulated Militia," and argue that private citizens should not be allowed to own guns since the United States no longer utilizes independent militias for national defense. This interpretation, I believe, is based on less than a full reading of the text and a lack of understanding of Constitutional history.

First, the text of the Amendment itself is divided into several clauses. I have already addressed the first clause. The second clause of the Amendment seems to be the most important because it contains the actual directive issued to government - that it "shall not" infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you simply focus in on the first part of the Amendment, then, you miss out on the directive, which focuses on the rights of the people as opposed to the rights of the militias.

Second, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that would say that it applies only to militias does not take into account the historical climate at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. At that time in the history of the United States, the military did not exist in its present form. Rather than having a standing military as we do today, the defense of the young nation was still left to the state militias made up of individual citizens who could be called up in the event of an attack.

Finally, I applaud Justice Scalia on the reasoning in his majority opinion. By stating that "it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," he recognizes the proper Constitutional limitations of the judicial branch. Essentially, this opinion says that the Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution and until it is taken out by another Amendment, the Court can do nothing but uphold it as the law of the land. Thus, any law that is contrary to the Second Amendment must be declared unconstitutional.

Are You Kidding Me?!?!

Yesterday, the Obama campaign rolled out a new podium seal that is a "personalization" of the Seal of the President of the United States.

Most of you know I disagree with many of the "reasons" that have been advanced for not voting for Obama, such as the stupid "oh my goodness, his middle name is Hussein!" thing. These kinds of attacks get us nowhere, especially when his dismal voting record (or lack thereof) is enough proof that the man is woefully incapable of leading the country.

However, this "seal" has really gotten me fired up. I understand that his campaign is using it to get voters to psychologically associate him with the office of the presidency and to get us all used to seeing him behind that seal, but I believe that this plan will backfire. If I may borrow one of Obama's favorite words, it shows "audacity." It also reveals an arrogance and disrespect for the country he is campaigning to become the leader of. Also, he's not President yet and, thus, has not yet earned the right to be associated in any way with that seal. It's up to us, the people to determine if he deserves to join the elite fraternity of men who have had that honor.

Beyond that, I have serious issues with the changes in the iconography of the seal. The American Flag crest on the eagle's chest has been replaced with his trademark "O." In the original seal, the Flag is at the center, which in my opinion symbolizes that the nation and its people are at the center of the Office of the President. In Obama's seal, Obama is at the center. Finally, the Obama campaign decided to change the Latin of the seal from "E Pluribus Unum" ("out of many, one") to "Vero Possumus" - a rough translation of his campaign slogan, "Yes, We Can." The phrase, "E Pluribus Unum" was adopted as a national motto for the United States in 1782 and was meant to celebrate that out of 13 separate colonies emerged a single, united nation. Today, the motto can be read to symbolize the idea that the United States is a single people and nation comprised of many different races, nationalities, religions, ancestries, etc. At best, the changing of the iconography represents an ignorance of the great history of the United States. At worst, it represents a complete disrespect for this history and an incredible arrogance on the part of Mr. Obama.

The best thing that Mr. Obama can do is to get rid of the seal and issue an apology to the nation for his desecration of one of its most sacred and enduring symbols.

Email President Bush

Yesterday, President Bush issued a veto threat on the Dodd/Countrywide Mortgage Bailout. Please take a few minutes to send an email to the White House Comment Office and express your support of this veto.

The email address is: comments@whitehouse.gov.

Dodd Is Freaking Out

I'm sitting here at work right now listening to the current debate on the Senate floor about the Dodd-Countrywide Bailout bill we have been fighting against these past few weeks. You can really tell that the public scrutiny is getting to Sen. Dodd, who is currently on the floor yelling about how those who oppose his bill are preventing poor children from having a roof over their heads (isn't funny how the left always use children to shield themselves?).

Unfortunately, for Sen. Dodd, his bill will not provide a roof over the heads of poor children, but would provide a more extravagant roof over the heads of middle and upper class children. The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of those who are facing foreclosure because of the the sub-prime crisis are middle class folks who tried to buy a $700,000 home rather than the $150,000 home they could realistically afford.

Shame on you, Sen. Dodd - I guess the truth doesn't matter when your own self-interests are at stake.

Panda-Watch

Such an interesting city, wouldn't you agree?