Saturday, June 28, 2008

AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT

It's hard to imagine a Supreme Court decision that could have meant more to the gun owners of the United States. For years, in fact, ever since the Bill of Rights became law, there has been an argument over whether the Second Amendment applied to the individual or just to government regulated "militias". This week the U.S. Supreme Court laid that issue to rest, the right to keep and bare arms applies to the individual.
I tend to take a very simple approach to the intent of our Founding Fathers. If they themselves never attempted to enforce a perceived part of the Constitution, then they most likely did not intend for it to be interpreted that way.

This logic applies to several issues within the Constitution. For instance; I do not believe the Founding Fathers intended to have the sort of "Separation of Church and State" embraced by the secular progressives within our political system. My defense of my position is simple; they didn't make any attempt themselves to do away with the basic belief in God that was enshrined in our government. You can make a good argument that they didn't want the sort of theocratic government that they were escaping from over the pond, but the basic belief in a God and his guidance in creating and running this country were never debated.

I apply this same logic to the issue of guns. If they did not intend for the individual to have guns, then why did they make no effort to take them away from the people?

The case at hand for the Supreme Court was a 27 year old law in Washington D.C. banning the ownership of any handguns within it's limits. The question was if that violated the Second Amendment. At the heart of that question was whether or not the individual had the right to own a gun for protection of his family and for hunting and sport.
The justices came down 5 to 4 in favor of the people's right to bare arms.

Justice Scalia wrote for the majority confirming the right of the individual to own firearms, but with this important caveat about the decision, "Nothing in our opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools." Undoubtedly, some will misinterpret this decision as now allowing any guns, any where. The real meaning of the Supreme Court's ruling is that guns can be restricted, but not to the point of denying ownership completely.

Washington D.C. had stepped over the line and used the right to restrict ownership to ban ownership. The Supreme Court made the right decision in my eyes. Maybe now we can focus on enforcing the restrictions that are already in place and stop trying to disarm law abiding gun owners because of the illegal actions of a few.

Since the inception of our great country, guns have been part of our culture. For decades guns were not a problem because people viewed them with a respect that was handed down from father to son in some open field. Our culture has taken a bad turn toward respect in general. We don't give it to our teachers, our military, our parents, or our leaders. Is it any wonder that we have now lost respect for guns and for life? Now that the issue of individual ownership of firearms has been settled, let's use this opportunity to look more seriously at what the real problem in this country is; the mind behind the gun. H.C.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

FELONIOUS FUNK

A lot of noise has been made over the so-called "sanctuary cities" within the U.S.. These cities harbor illegal immigrants and refuse to turn over any illegals to the Feds no matter their history. The argument against these policies is that these people are breaking the law, that some of them have felony records and that we are a nation of law and order. Despite the pleas to stop these policies and form a cohesive national policy, nothing is being done by Congress. After giving this considerable thought, I've come to the conclusion that the reason Congress is slow to react to sanctuary cities is because they live in the biggest sanctuary city of all...Washington D.C..

Felons in the U.S. have a very hard time fitting back into society. If your convicted of even a minor drug law, say, possession of Marijuana, you will soon find that a felony conviction has a lot of serious restrictions attached to it. In most states within the U.S. you can no longer work in a school, become a police officer, hunt or own a gun. The Federal government will not let you join the military, get financial aid, vote, or work in a lot of it's departments. But fear not, there is still one place where felons are welcomed with open arms, Congress.

That's right, you can't work in a school or join the military if you have a felony conviction, but you can run for House Representative or even a Senate seat without worry. Even though you can't even vote for yourself. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find another organization that has more felons in it than Congress.

This has led some Congressional watchdogs to try to make an issue out of the fact that up to twenty former members of Congress are drawing full government pensions despite the fact that they committed their felonies while in office. And these pensions are pretty damn sweet and are handed out to people who are mostly multi-millionaires anyway. Is it too much to ask that people we put in the public trust at least don't commit any felonies while they're in office? Oops, sorry, I forgot who I was talking about. Anyway, this isn't the first time the issue of Congressional pensions for felons has come up. Back in 2003, H.R. 1098 was introduced in Congress and was promptly killed. I guess this kind of resolution just doesn't get much traction. Since then several attempts have been made to reintroduce a bill putting an end to this waste of our money with no success.

In this time of fading retirements, harsher and harsher penalties for the average citizens (you can end up on a sexual predator list for "mooning" someone) and all-time low Congressional favorable ratings (and you thought Bush's were bad). I thought it would bring you some comfort to know that our Congressmen and women will be well taken care of. Even if they stole from you, lied to you, or cheated you. I have to go now, someone is going to hit that chair I threw out the window and onto the street. H.C.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

TEXAS SWING?

Texas hasn't voted for a Democrat President since Jimmy Carter was running. In fact, Texas has been a prize in the pockets of Republicans since 1980. With it's 34 electoral votes, Texas is second only to California with it's 55 electoral votes. The fact that Texas is a major player is strongly represented by the fact that Republicans have made sure to have a man from Texas on the ticket in all the elections since 1980, except one. The team of Dole /Kemp, which won Texas but lost the election to incumbent President Bill Clinton. Both G.W and his dad George H.W. Bush make their home in the Lone Star State as well as G.W's V.P Dick Cheney. Texas has served the Republicans well. But, with the right V.P. pick by the Dems, I believe that Texas could turn Democrat and end that streak, and here's why how and why I believe it could happen.

As it stands right now, Realclearpolitics.com polling has John McCain up by a sizable 59% to 36% lead. However, if you look at a mere month ago it was within 5%. Most all of the pundits don't think that Obama has much of a chance at scoring a Texas win, but they're not factoring in the movable Hispanic vote. Texas has the second largest Hispanic population after California. From July 2005 to July 2006 alone the Hispanic population has jumped 350,000 according to the U.S. Census. And it's Hispanic voter roles are growing by the minute. In fact, Hispanics now make up more than 36% of the total Texas population. So what does all this have to do with Barack Obama's chances of scoring Texas in the win column? Two words.

Bill Richardson.
As I've reported before, G.W. Bush and his brain, Karl Rove, targeted Hispanics to help put Bush both in the Texas governor's mansion and then in the White House. By most estimates, Georgie used his fluent Spanish, his Hispanic wife Laura, and his Texas Hispanic constituents to help him snare 41% of the U.S Hispanic vote in 2004. Easily a record for any Republican Presidential candidate. Despite those numbers, Hispanics call themselves Democrat over Republican by a 2 to 1 margin. I don't think anyone could make a good argument that Hispanic voters weren't a huge problem for the Dems in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. And particularly in Texas.

Bill Richardson could change all that for Barack. The Governor of New Mexico (which has the largest percentage of Hispanics of any U.S. state.) is Hispanic and enormously popular with the kind of Latino vote that Barack needs to carry not only Richardson's home state but possibly even Texas.

Remember the Texas polling I sited earlier? Only a small fraction of those people on Obama's side are Hispanic. Barack has shown a real weakness with those voters. In fact Hillary was sweeping the vast majority of all the Hispanics in the Texas Primary. She won with Latino men by 58% to 40% and Latino women 66% to 33%. Now, you could argue that those Hispanics will be on Barack's side come November, but when I see a weakness like that I start to get worried. What if we could slim that 41% that G.W. took in 2004 down to say 30% or even 20%? Bill Richardson could do that for Barack. A 10% move by the Texas Hispanics could put Texas back in play for the Democrats.

Unfortunately, there is a possible fly in the ointment, Kay Baily Hutchinson. The female U.S. Senator from the state of Texas has been suggested as a possible V.P. for McCain and that could turn the tide in favor of the Republicans. She has repeatedly said she would not accept the position if offered, but we've heard that before.

California is an almost certain state for the Dems along with New York, if Barack could add Texas to the mix he would have 120 electoral votes out of the 270 needed. That would almost guarantee an easy win using the same system that beat the Dems in 2000. Sweet revenge. Bill Richardson as a V.P. would almost certainly mean a rise in Hispanic support for Barack and no place on the electoral map would scare Republicans more than a Texas swing state. H.C.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

BO BLUE

I wrote this article in the fall of 2006. It was part of the grieving process for me and I never intended for it to be read by anyone other than my closest friends. Because of the sensitive nature of my job, I've kept my references to the University of Michigan to the bare minimum. My union contract along with the University's Standard Practice Guide forbids me acting as a representative of the U of M in any way. For that reason, I've found it safer to simply not refer to my place of work by name. After reviewing our Conflict of Interest Guide and Standard Practice Guide, I've decided that this piece could only be seen for what it is; admiration for a great man. For that reason I'm going to publish it as I wrote it in my grief. I hope it gives you what knowing Bo gave me, insight into what makes a truly great person and leader.

Bo Blue
I don't know much about college football, or any sport for that matter. I'm completely spellbound by people who can rattle off stats or have an intelligent conversation about "brackets" or "double elimination", to me they may as well be talking in tongues. I do however love watching people who love sports. I'm encouraged by their passion and comradery. If only I could inspire people to be so driven toward making this world a better place, all our troubles would be over. I do have one thing going for me that keeps my sports-fan friends from laughing at me nonstop, I know Bo Schembechler.At least I used to know him, Bo died in the fall of 2006.
I met Bo in the course of my job at the University of Michigan as a courier. Part of my job is to deliver sensitive materials for the upper echelon of the "U" and sometimes I had things for Bo to autograph for alumni or personal correspondence. The first time I met Bo he had just gotten a new secretary. She sat at the beginning of a long hall like a guard dog at a big desk. I approached her and told her I had an important "Hand Delivery" for Bo but if she was his secretary, she could sign for it herself. She sneered at me and hissed, "Mr. Schembechler doesn't have a secretary, but his office is just down the hall." and then pointed down a row of doors. I scanned each door's nameplate until I came to Bo's and then knocked lightly. In that gruffy well-known voice he said,"Com' in,"and I slowly opened the door. I told him my business and handed him his envelope and my clipboard to sign while trying to act nonchalant. He glanced up at me kind off squinty-eyed and asked me, "How'd you get passed my secretary?" I asked him if that was the lady at the desk? He replied "Yes" and I told him that she told me he didn't have a secretary. He then grumbled, "Goddamnit, she won't answer to anything other than 'administrative assistant'..... what's this world coming to?" I laughed and said, "I'm not sure, but I don't think it's getting any better."
I don't know why, but he took a shine to me and took to calling me "Tiger". Maybe because he couldn't remember my name, but it didn't matter, he could have called me "Shit bucket". He was, after all, Bo Schembechler, and I knew enough to know he was an icon. Football season would have me making regular pilgrimages to his office with pictures or footballs for him to sign for alumni. He was always friendly, the sort of a guy that wasn't content to just say "Hi". He would shake your hand firmly and smack your shoulder with the other hand. He was a man's man. The kind of guy who was more comfortable not watching his tongue or worrying about niceties.... at least that's how I saw him. He would even sign things for me if I wanted him to, although I only asked him a couple of times. I didn't want him thinking that I was doing it for anyone but my closest personal friends. I never even asked him for one for myself, something I now regret.
My great place in U of M history is that I delivered Bo's retirement papers to the University President. I didn't know it at the time and only after it became common knowledge that Bo was leaving did I find out from the University President's secretary (I mean administrative assistant) that Bo had requested me personally to deliver his paperwork. I now understand why some people are born leaders. The fact that Bo trusted me with something like that when any newspaper would have killed for that story made me swell up with pride. After that I would not let Bo down. I would have stormed through a Gay Parade, pushed over PETA demonstrators, or even risked a confrontation with the dreaded Feminist Gay Nazis for Christ to get Bo's work delivered.
Even after Bo left the University he still kept an office there. Every once in a while I would bump into him and he would always greet me with "Hey there, Tiger." and take the time for small talk. I never once felt that I was beneath him in any way. I always referred to him as "Coach" because to me he was the University's "Coach", a title that couldn't be taken away merely by replacing his position. I know for some of you this column may look like a little name dropping. That 'ol H.C. just wants himself to seem important because he met Bo a few times. It's not that that way at all. It's just that I wanted all of you U of M fans out there to know something about Bo that you didn't know before. You already knew that Bo loved football, that he loved U of M, and that he was a hell of a coach, but what you didn't know that I'm telling you now is that Bo was kind to people he didn't have to be kind to. That he would take the time out of his busy life to make someone else feel important. These are the traits of a true leader. I may not know much about football, but I'm pretty good with people and I know a great leader when I see one..... Bo was that kind of a leader. He made me wish I could play football just so I could be on his team. At the University of Michigan we like to say that the true fans "Bleed Blue". Well I don't know if I qualify as a true U of M fan, but on Friday November 17, 2006 this fan "Cried Blue" not for the coach, but for the man. H.C.