Thank you for your comments. Let's look at what supposed violence the Court actually did do to the Second 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.

I suggest that the Court merely removed two commas.

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.

Isn't that the most rational interpretation of the Second Amendment given the history of the Revolution?

Posted at June 27, 2008 1:46 PM in response to Second Amendment - Finally a Rational Interpretation

I find Kristol amusing and entertaining. But then my wife points out that I also find Larry, Moe and Curly amusing and entertaining.

Posted at June 25, 2008 12:23 PM in response to Memo To Sulzberger: Fire Kristol, Hire Noonan

I find Kristol amusing and entertaining. But then my wife points out that I also find Larry, Moe and Curly amusing and entertaining.

Posted at June 25, 2008 12:08 PM in response to Memo To Sulzberger: Fire Kristol, Hire Noonan

The theological element of the religious conviction articulated by Dobson and other fundamentalists is obviously weak as you correctly point out.

However, the scary aspect of their religious conviction is their belief that God reveals the divine plan to them. Having received at least a portion of the divine plan, Dobson and other are able to point out the many ways in which God punishes America for the wicked ways of American culture. Their followers accept their conclusions without ever considering why God would choose a fundmentalist as the modern day Moses.

Posted at June 25, 2008 12:04 PM in response to James Dobson, amateur God expert....

I'm glad that someone else finds the"pro life" group so hard to understand. My own belief is that they fundamentally misunderstand Roe v. Wade.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, we would again face the prospect of having state governments enact criminal penalties for abortion. That would be the result "pro lifers" seek to obtain.

However, that would not be the only result. The most powerful principle of Roe v. Wade is that we have a zone of privacy into which government must not intrude. After Roe v. Wade is overturned, state governments would also be free to intrude into, and regulate, the sex lives of ordinary Americans in ways that most thoughtful people don't care to imagine let alone discuss.

The truth is that a government having the power to enact laws banning abortion is a government capable of changing direction and having the power to compel abortion. China has enacted such laws and by all accounts a majority of Chinese citizens support such laws. We do not know what the future will hold for the United States. Is it so difficult to imagine a law compelling abortion when a woman on becomes pregnant?

Civil liberties are the cornerstone of religious freedom and those who are concerned with religious freedom should proceed cautiously whenever "pro lifers" urge them to curtail civil liberties.

Posted at June 24, 2008 2:18 PM in response to Abortion

Mr. and Mrs. Clinton continually whine about the press coverage of their campaign. Well, they have flip-flopped on the excluding Michigan and Florida. They have flip-flopped on Iraq.

I'm sure John Kerry would have loved being treated so gently.

Posted at June 2, 2008 12:05 PM in response to Ickes: "Obama can win in November...he'd make a very good president"

I'm frustrated with the lack of leadership by elected Democrats. Here is my previously publish comment on McCain.

Ron Alley

From: Cafe
Not Worthy of My Vote
April 2, 2008, 4:45PM
John McCain's appearance on the David Letterman show last night brought my concerns about McCain into sharp focus. My admiration for John McCain's service in Vietnam and his personal sacrifices remain as strong as ever. I still think that if I could ever vote for a GOP candidate for President, I could vote for John McCain. He was a thoughtful, funny and a great guest for Letterman. He even made some provocative statements. But in the final analysis McCain is merely an apologist for the GOP, the Bush administration and their failed policies.

McCain's most provocative statements were on the Iraq war and the practice of torturing prisoners. Unfortunately, David Letterman's questions about the Iraq war showed more insight into the reasons underlying the Iraq war than John McCain's responses. We invaded Iraq in the aftermath of 9-11 because we wanted to strike out at an Arab country supportive of terrorist activity. Saddam and Iraq were obvious targets. Saddam was so odious that no Arab country could effectively criticize a war aimed at removing Saddam from power. Letterman's question to McCain clearly stated the basis for the war with Iraq. McCain, Clinton and Kerry all voted to give Bush the discretion to invade and Iraq. Not one of them stopped to consider whether George Bush had shown himself worthy of such unbridled discretion or whether Bush had shown the foresight and judgment needed to install a functioning government to replace Saddam.

McCain handily blamed Rumsfeld for the failure of the Iraq war during the first four years. Rumsfeld may have been a villain and his strategy for occupying Iraq surely was a failure, but Rumsfeld was not the Commander-in-Chief and Rumsfeld was subject to the oversight of the GOP dominated Senate in which John McCain served. McCain gave no explanation for the failure of the Senate to exercise its oversight authority and he offered no explanation for his support of Bush in 2004. Until John McCain can provide a credible explanation for those failures, he is not worthy of my vote however great my admiration for his personal sacrifice in service to his country remains.

Posted at May 29, 2008 3:54 PM in response to Suspense Builds as Primary Season Ends

The question of whether to impeach Bush and Cheney is one that haunts me as well.

There has never been a better case for impeachment. However, I believe that Pelosi was correct in her decision to take impeachment off the table. I believe there are two clear reasons why Democrats should support her decision.

First, there is a Democratic majority in the House and articles of impeachment probably would be sent to the Senate. But, the Democrats in the Senate have been stymied by a Republican minority on every front. There is no reason to expect that the Senate would convict Bush and Cheney of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Second, Clinton was impeached. If Bush is impeached, the work of Congress will be ground to a halt. We do have troops in Iraq and we must support them even as we reject Bush and Cheney. Important work such as the GI bill would fall by the wayside. The American public, in all likelihood, would blame the Democrats for wasting timd with impeachment proceedings that had no clear chance for success. Further, Democrats would have establish a precedent of tit-for-tat impeachment and the Democratic president elected in 2008 would likely face impeachment articles (even from a House minority) for "surrendering" as a result of withdrawal from Iraq.

My hope is that we will have Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate in 2009 as well as Democratic president. If that happy result comes to pass, my hope is that our President will appoint a truth commission to hold the hearings needed to document the many wrongs of the Bush administration and Congress will enact legislation to prevent future administrations from acting in the elitist and arrogant manner of the current administration.

Posted at May 29, 2008 11:18 AM in response to Creating the Groundswell for Impeachment

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Your suggestions could be a sensible basis for a rational national energy policy.

Up until now, demand for gasoline has proved to be nearly inelastic with respect to price. We finally may be reaching a price level where we will see a noticeable drop in demand if prices increase and hold at prices above $4.00 per gallon.

At this point, I suspect we have lost our opportunity to control prices at the pump (if gas prices at the pump can be contolled at all). The increasing worldwide demand is the primary cause of increasing prices.

Excessive speculation undoubtedly contributes significantly to both crude oil and gas prices. If we can devise money laundering regulation to thwart terrorist and drug dealers, we can devise money laundering regulation to thwart excessive speculation in crude oil and its refined products.

The most effective method of controlling price at the pump is to reduce demand at the pump.

A tax credit for taking gas guzzlers out of service (permanently) would reduce the demand for gasoline.

A progressive excise tax on new vechicles proportional to the vehicles gas consumption (not MPG) would also reduce demand for gas guzzlers.

A tax deduction for commuters using public transportation would have a dramatic impact in those markets in which public transportation is a viable alternative to private vehicles.

Some sacrifice for all will be necessary. We will have to give up the large vehicles we now favor and develop housing dense enough to support public transportation. These are not changes that Americans will welcome. But I believe they are changes we can be persuaded to accept.

Posted at May 27, 2008 4:47 PM in response to A National Energy Policy - When?

Well, that surely was a mouthful.

Mrs. Clinton is the author of her own misery. She consistently tries to have it both ways on every issue. The circus rule has overtaken her.
She no longer has the ability to fool the voters.

Many of us do want to see some major change in national politics. We are hoping to see some serious, substantive debate on topics like health care, rational regulation of corporate interests and a serious effort to bring the overreaching conduct of the Bush-Cheney out into the light of day.

We have some confidence that Obama is likely to try to bring about these changes.

We have ZERO confidence that Hillary Clinton will make any effort to get beyond the toxic political tactics she has used in this campaign.

My favorite is being asked whether Obama is a Muslim. She said something like, "I think he's Christian...at least that what he claims."

Posted at May 22, 2008 4:17 PM in response to New Republic: Did Taking Cues From Lobby Cost Clinton The Nomination?