We did this 43 times already.....

So, I watched the inauguration of the 44rth President of the United States today.

I must admit watching the man that everyone has so much hope on completely flub the oath of office was worth the wait. His speech was even better.

He delivered an impressive talk, full of imagery and sweeping words, a course set for "Change" yet it is change that is nebulous at best. He is faced by a list of challenged that seems nigh insurmountable yet as he stood on the Washington Mall I believed on some level he might have a prayer of doing some good.... maybe.

I'm not one of his rabid supporters, I worry that with the image that has been built up around him he is doomed to fail. I can't help but feel as a Libertarian that he could be a great help, or a hindrance to the freedoms of this nation.

A lot remains to be seen.

Though I doubt he will ever read this, good luck Mr. President. You're going to need it.

Cause I Can

This post brought to you be the following Idiocy.

I'm not one for causes. I don't jump on the petitioning bandwagon, and if the Democratic National Committee would stop sending me e-mail I wouldn't mind. Yet there are several organizations I do think have a point, and an aim that I can agree with. First, is Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, their website is located here. It's circa 1995 GeoCities but it works.

Simply put they believe that students should have the right to keep and bear arms on college campuses, specifically concealed handguns. Those allowed to carry would have had to have a concealed carry permit already, and be in a state that already allows concealed carry. Their thought process is simple. Students on campuses without the ability to protect themselves are sheep. Gunmen know this, and advertising a weapons free campus is at least not deterring violence, if at worst, encouraging it. History shows us that schools are not safe from the threat of violence, so why would we not allow our students and teachers the tools to defend themselves?

Second is the Pink Pistols. A group dedicated to fostering gun ownership and firearm self defense for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered population. They seek to inform, and teach a high risk population. A population all too often targeted for acts of violence.

I just figured I would give them both a nod. Take a look if you like, if not, that's fine too.

Prop. 8

Is ridiculous.

I don't think there needs to be much more said on the issue so I won't spend more time addressing the proposition itself and instead I'll discuss a few of the comments I heard and read about Proposition 8.

"Were a Democracy and the majority has spoken"

The "Majority" spoke by 52.2% to 47.8% that's a difference of 4.4%, to put that in perspective of the roughly 12,000 votes cast the "majority" was a majority by roughly 500 votes. Why is this important? The majority spoke, therefore the majority voice should carry right? Well, if the majority voice is all that matters then this country is in for some dark times. Some of our best decisions have been against the incumbent majority! Desegregation comes to mind as a prime example.

I found this.... gem... on Syracuse.com, granted a site whose comment section often descends into the stinking cesspool of the lowest common denominator. But I digress. The comment below was in response to an article asking for the opinion of Syracusains on the passing of Proposition 8. The article was written by Maureen Sieh.

"Maureen;

Congrats on another attention grabber with little actual significance. It strikes me as a bit oblique to ask folks in NY what they think of the actions of voters in California. Why didn't you write a guest editorial in the LA Times and ask the folks in California? But where are my manners, that would make sense.

The sacrament of marriage was codified by the church as a way to legitimize the intergenrational transfer of wealth to heirs. This is where the words legitimate and inheritance spring from.

As gays cannot of their own actions reproduce, referring to their living arrangement a "marriage" is patently absurd. Furthermore as the inheiritance laws have been liberalized to where anybody can leave $$$ to anyone they designate, the entire concept of "gay marriage" has no meaning.

As they comprise by some estimates perhaps 5% of the population, granting homosexuals the same social recognition as a true marriage between a man and a woman simply aids in the illusion that their abberant behavior is somehow normal.

IT AIN'T NORMAL!

Think about this, if the human race was comprised of just homosexuals, it would have died out already. Man + Man = no baby. Woman + woman = no baby. Man + woman = baby.

It's a fairly simple equation Maureen.

Or as Tommy Smothers once said; "If your parents never had any children, chances are you won't either".

I honestly don't know who I feel sorrier for. You with your inane questions, or the paper that blissfully pays your salary."

Let's look at the comment piece by piece.

"Congrats on another attention grabber with little actual significance. It strikes me as a bit oblique to ask folks in NY what they think of the actions of voters in California. Why didn't you write a guest editorial in the LA Times and ask the folks in California? But where are my manners, that would make sense."

The poster begins by berating the author of the article, he, I assume it's a he, feels that the author has no call in asking New Yorkers their opinion on a proposition that occurs on the other side of the nation. This strikes me as simply ridiculous. I do not need to live in a poor community to know we have need for social welfare programs, I do not need to live in a manufacturing town that is watching the manufacturing all pack up for cheaper berths overseas to know we need to stop outsourcing. I do not need to loose my job to know we need unemployment insurance. So why should I need to live in California to know how I feel and how we should handle Proposition 8?

"The sacrament of marriage was codified by the church as a way to legitimize the intergenrational transfer of wealth to heirs. This is where the words legitimate and inheritance spring from."

Legitimate, coming from the Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law. Not marriage, law. While the common use may be in regards to a child born in wedlock, or having full filial rights and obligations by birth the original meaning had more to do with an act in accordance with the law rather then with any idea or marriage.

Inheritance, coming to us from the 14th century and meaning to inherit property. Inherit, coming to us again from the Latin, meaning to receive from an ancestor as a right or title descendible by law at the ancestor's death. Again, no mention of marriage.

Now, let's look at marriage from a Sociological context. In social grouping theory a diad, or two person grouping, is the least stable. Yet monogamous pairings are inherently diads. So, knowing that this grouping is inherently unstable we as a society have tried our best to shore up this inherently weak arrangement. Marriage, the vows, the ceremony etc. is nothing more then a way to bring as many people into the relationship as possible as a support network for an inherently unstable pairing! The act of marriage has no Sociological context for property or reproduction. It is simply a way to help a couple build a support network in the community.

Back to the comment....

"As gays cannot of their own actions reproduce, referring to their living arrangement a "marriage" is patently absurd. Furthermore as the inheiritance laws have been liberalized to where anybody can leave $$$ to anyone they designate, the entire concept of "gay marriage" has no meaning."

Marriage as a living arrangement is only patently absurd if you assume that the only purpose of marriage is to have children. Given the legal ramifications of marriage in many cases having children is not even a thought. Insurance will cover your spouse, not your significant other. Your spouse can make medical decisions for you in the event your incapacitated without a designated health care proxy, your significant other can't. This is just the tip of the iceberg. In this day marriage is a legal institution, religion hardly has a place in marriage anymore. The posters comment on inheritance also makes little to no sense. Inheritance can be designated to any recipient, yet this can be challenged by family unless your beneficiary is your spouse! Legal ties of marriage are incredibly powerful in this society and reproduction, or the ability to reproduce has absolutely nothing to do with it.

"As they comprise by some estimates perhaps 5% of the population, granting homosexuals the same social recognition as a true marriage between a man and a woman simply aids in the illusion that their abberant behavior is somehow normal."

How can behavior that is exhibited in all mammals be aberrant? How does allowing two people, irregardless of gender, the ability to legally marry somehow effect their behavior? This segment is simply a logical fallacy. It just doesn't make sense.

"IT AIN'T NORMAL!"

But, it is. Homosexual behavior has been documented in all mammalian species. If everybody does it, how is it abnormal?

"Think about this, if the human race was comprised of just homosexuals, it would have died out already. Man + Man = no baby. Woman + woman = no baby. Man + woman = baby."

This is true, homosexuals by themselves are unable to reproduce. However, marriage is not about reproduction. Marriage is a legally binding contract with far reaching implications in our modern society. Not allowing two people to marry based simply on their inability to reproduce is ridiculous.

"It's a fairly simple equation Maureen."

Only if we assume your fallacious arguments above are in fact true.

"Or as Tommy Smothers once said; "If your parents never had any children, chances are you won't either"...."

Tommy Smothers also said: "There's nothing more scary than watching ignorance in action."

Article, and comments can be found here.

Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

"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."

This is the 2nd amendment as passed by the House and the Senate. Given the current political climate I've been reading a lot of debate about the place of the second amendment, is it still valid in a modern context? What did the founding fathers truly intend when they drafted the second? What rights does the second guarantee an individual citizen? Etc.

Now, it seems to me that there are two very distinct interpretations of the second amendment.

1) The second let's citizens of the United States keep and bear arms, period. This is an absolute right and should not be infringed.

2) The second let's citizens of the United States keep and bear arms, as part of a militia, and as we no longer require a militia the second is no longer an absolute right and therefore can be regulated by acts of Congress and by local law.

These views hinge on whether you view the first part of the amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." or the second part "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as gospel.

Let's look at the first view point. people in this camp feel that the second line in the amendment is most important. They feel that the right to bear arms should not be regulated, in other words any "Arms" they want they should be able to purchase, keep, carry, etc.

Persons ascribing to the second view point look at the right to bear arms as anything from antiquated to dangerous to a nuisance. often this camp feels that strong gun control is the only way to curtail gun violence and that there are certain classes of weapons that no citizen should own.

I find myself stuck in the middle. I strongly believe that gun control does no good, and the only way to control violence is with violence. I firmly believe that if students could have carried concealed then the school shootings of recent years would be mere footnotes in the paper as opposed to national tragedies. Yet I can see little to no need for a citizen to carry a fully automatic weapon. Yet I also see no need to regulate single shot, or even semi-automatic firearms be they pistols or rifles. I could even see a rigorous screening process enabling a citizen to purchase fully automatic weapons, I just see little need.

So, I find myself torn. I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is an important one and one that should be carefully preserved. I feel that gun control is ridiculous with a proven track record of failure. Yet I find that voicing these same opinions is unpopular at best. I guess all I can say at this time is I'm going to keep watching and hope that the politicians realize the same truths that seem so plain to me.