New Rule #18: There are some things so peculiarly American in nature that we as a country seem sometimes to define ourselves by them.  Not all of these are as great as, say The Marshall Plan, or The Broadway Stage; in fact some are downright embarrassing. It's much more fun to discuss the latter, so here goes.......  

          Only in America:
          Is there such a glut of non staple, sugar laden, fat loaded  food available that we actually use the word "fun" in conjunction with ingesting it  - a bodily process necessary for survival.  We have "Fun Sized" candy bars (you know the ones that  kids get for Halloween because the full sized ones are too expensive these days) and numerous fast food and dine in restaurants use "fun" in either their advertising, their logo, or their name, or all three.  It almost makes me wonder  if Og and Zog, upon spying a baby mammoth, said,  " uuuh ! fun sized!" Do Indian street urchins view food in terms of "fun" - most assuredly not, many never view enough!  The inner city kid, eating Mac and cheese for the fourth night in a row probably doesn't either. A "Fun Sized"  Snickers would push a Rwandan refugee child into sugar shock.  We are, by numerous accounts,  a nation with diabetes and obesity epidemics. Sound like "fun"? I didn't think so either.
             Only in America:

          Would a man like Texas Governor Rick Perry have a career conveying any responsibility, let alone a Governorship.  We survived one semi-literate ("I'm not a reader", "Is our children learning?") only to be bitch slapped with the specter of another, dumber. more retrograde one. Apparently Evolution is not only in trouble in Texas' schools, but actually, like a time warp, runs slower.  "W" just wasn't sure about evolution, but ol' Rick rejects it. He also apparently believes, all data to the contrary notwithstanding that the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf was not due to the malfeasance of BP and its subcontractors, as every subsequent  investigation has shown , but rather  “From time to time there are going to be things that occur that are acts of God that cannot be prevented.”   Apparently in Texas  God hates sea life, like he hates school children in Connecticut.  Apparently, Rick is challenged in geography also, since he believes there is a nation of.... ah hell, let him explain it: "No greater example of it than this administration sending millions of dollars into the solar industry, and we lost that money. I want to say it was over $500 million that went to the country  Solyndra."  

I could go on, but let's just finish with a few of the most egregious Rick Perry dumb assed statements: "I trust those independent school districts to make those decisions better than eight unelected and, frankly, unaccountable judges." –Rick Perry, getting the number of Supreme Court justices wrong (there are nine) This also means he would have trusted Southern school districts to remain segregated, by the way. "George W. Bush did a incredible job in the presidency, defending us from freedom." –Rick Perry in 2010 ( I think there may be some truth there, but not like Perry means!)  "Those of you that will be 21 by November the 12th, I ask for your support and your vote." —Rick Perry, getting both election day and the voting age wrong. I wonder how many Texans showed up late?

            Only in America:

          Can more persons can identify Snooki than Jonas Salk. We are a nation of  sellibrity (my new word, for the older readers) whores. We tend to idolize the inconsequential and ignore the true heroes of our Society.  Most Americans can't identify either Christiaan Barnard or Norman   Shumway. They can list the nicknames of the entire Honey Boo Boo mentally challenged family, but the men who pioneered heart transplants are a cipher. Dr. Charles R. Drew  remains relatively unknown to most Americans, while Paris Hilton, with no perceptible positive attributes is easily recognized. Dr. Drew, an African American  first separated blood into its components and developed the process of central blood banking. Most people can identify Donald Trump (and the wombat which lives on his head)  on sight,  yet the name of Norman Borlaug  draws blank stares. Trump, to date has done nothing to benefit society and remains one of the most pathetically self centered humans on the planet . Norman Borlaug, an American agronomist,  is responsible for an agricultural revolution that saved billions of people from starvation by developing  high-yield, disease-resistant wheat. Throughout the 20th century, Borlaug introduced this method of wheat production to Mexico, Pakistan and India, doubling food production and decreasing the rates of starvation in these countries. This came to be known as the Green Revolution.   Many Americans know all the stars of  whichever brand of phony (they all are)  "rasslin'"  show they watch, yet would have little comprehension of the heroism or significance of the late Sen. Dan Inouye. It makes your head hurt.

          This next is not only in America, but the attitude is pervasive here in certain circles. We are jealously protective of the civil rights of  our citizens as we should be, but we sometimes are willing to throw many to the wolves to protect an imagined right to privacy of a single individual. I would agree that, in the vast majority of cases, both Dr./patient  and Priest /penitent  discussions are and of a right ought to be privileged.  I also believe that the instant there is any indication of the likelihood of violence being perpetrated by a patient or a penitent, that seal should be broken for the greater good of the potential victims. I will not engage in religious or philosophical discussions here, but let me mention several names: James Egan Holmes, Jared L. Loughner, Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho,  Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. These gentlemen are responsible for the shooting deaths of 90 innocents and the wounding of 108 more. In every case, there had been ample evidence to mental health professionals and/or family (especially in Lanza's case) of deep disturbance and accompanying troubling behavior.  Worse yet, Kliebold and Harris  had posted to  an online service significant details of what they intended doing.  Protecting their privacy is something AOL has to live with.  Holmes, Cho, and Loughner were all identified as deeply troubled, yet either their psychiatrists, or school authorities failed to call sufficient attention to them, Holmes' doctor even trying to get her notes excluded. In trial, that is the rule, but maybe prior notification to authorities before the shootings ?  I can get in serious trouble for having a swimming pool without a fence, but as a Psychiatric counselor  or priest, I can be aware of things which can result in violent death, but am within my rights to say nothing to prevent it. What's wrong with this picture?

              Only in America:

          Can a religious sect, invoking their rights of free speech, trample all over the rights of others and loudly,  publicly celebrate the deaths of  20 five and six year old children. The Westboro  Baptist Church has, for years,  made a public spectacle of celebrating the deaths of innocents as a protest against what they view as the sins of other, unrelated individuals. At no time, has anyone  intimated  that they have not the right to feel as they do. Unfortunately, they also have been legally supported in offensively shoving their minority,  hateful opinions down the throats of mourning families. While I'm not wild about  Sweden's extreme Socialist  government model, I do agree with their attitude toward the type of  extreme hate speech purveyed by W.B.C.  Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as "publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation."  The crime doesn't prohibit a civil  and responsible debate, nor statements made in a completely private sphere. There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized.  The sexual orientation provision, added in 2002,  was used to convict Pentecostalist pastor Åke Green of hate speech against homosexuality (a la W.B.C.) based on a 2003 sermon.  If this law promotes civility in public debate and would stifle W.B.C., then we need one. 

              Only in America:

          Are we apparently impressionable enough (and sufficiently adman driven) to make the leap between a wonderful fantasy tale and a stack of pancakes. ladies and gents, I give you Denny's "Build your own Hobbitt Breakfast"  Really? A Hobbitt slam?  How about "Frodo, your feet are huge?!"  Delights include  the “Hobbit Hole Breakfast,” “Frodo’s Pot Roast Skillet” and “Build Your Own Hobbit Slam,”  including  new holiday favorites such as “Pumpkin Patch Pancakes,” “Shire Sausage,” and “Seed Cake French Toast.”  Add in   Gandalf’s Gobble Melt, “The Ring” Burger, Bilbo’s Berry Smoothies,  and Radagast’s Red Velvet Pancake Puppies. Made from real puppies, too, I hear.  In retrospect, there were many great opportunities missed in this field. Burger King is a British  company (which goes a long way to explain the shitty fries!), so why not a  Braveheart/BK  combo pack?  Of course Haggis, that Scottish fave would be there someplace  (The hard part is getting people on board with fast food haggis. You could put in on the menu in several ways: Robert the Bruce's Haggis Whopper, Fried Haggis Bites, and Wee Willy Wimky's Haggis Fingers. Add to that, The Drawn and Quartered Pounder. Like I said, a natural.            

        Whats next? "Shindler's Bisque?", "40 Year Old Virgin Olive Oiil"?, "American History Chex" (think about it), The new Energy Vitamin C drink -"Clockwork Orange", Friendly's "Any Given Sundae", "Lolita lollypops" (you know you want to lick em'), How about Red Lobster's "Prawn of the Dead?" . All these might work, but I'm afraid popular opinion  would jinx  the success of the  "Warhorse Half Pounder" (made with real horsemeat) and  of course  the Black Swan Tuna Taco has no chance!

The Real Reasons for the Season

So I'm seeing a lot of signs saying some version of "Jesus is the Reason for the Season", which is most certainly true for those who place the signs.  Interestingly enough, however, though the choice of the date near the Winter Solstice is not considered by any Biblical scholars as the actual birth date of  Jesus.    The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a convergence of Origen's (of Alexandria, an early Christian writer)  concern about pagan gods and the church's identification of God's son with the actual celestial sun.  December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman "birth of the unconquered sun"), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian "Sun of Righteousness" whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier.

          The  earliest attempt  (and still the only reasoned one)  to pin down Jesus' birth was made by Clement of Alexandria  who gives a date using the Egyptian calendar that converts to May 14, 6 BC in the Gregorian calendar. This is consistent with background material described in Luke. Examples include the fact that shepherds would have been in the wilderness of Judah, not in the fields surrounding Bethlehem, since this was the season when the wheat and barley were growing. After that harvest in April/May the sheep are put into these fields to eat the stubble and fertilize for the next growing season. Even the Associates for Biblical Research affirm that in all their efforts, the is nothing found in the Bible which supports any linkage to December 25.   Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival to supplant the old ones which were popular among many pagan peoples.

          So, let's see what they looked like:  

          "Yule" is the name for 'infant' or 'little child.' In the ancient Middle East, the 25th of December was known as Yule day or the birth of the promised child day. This was the day of the birth of the incarnate God, who appeared as a baby child to redeem a world bound in darkness. It was an essential belief of their religious system, that their God,  was the chief god in a polytheistic system. The "promised child"  was also worshipped as the god incarnate, or promised baby son of God, who was to be the Savior of the world. Sound familiar? It should, since it parallels and significantly predates  Christian belief about Jahweh  and Jesus. It actually stems  from centuries earlier. "Yule" is Chaldean, in origin, the baby whose coming was celebrated was Tammuz, son of Baal (The God of the Sun, the principal God of  Babylon) . The Christ-mass tree and the Yule log used today were first used to celebrate the birth of  Tammuz, in what became an annual religious festival in ancient pagan Babylon. Interestingly enough, the Babylonians' paganism  (in many interpretations, including the Torah) was fostered by Nimrod, Noah's great grandson.

          Another  description of  Yule practices is interesting as well:

          It was ancient custom that when sacrifice was to be made, all farmers were to come to the  temple and bring along with them the food they needed while the feast lasted. The narrative continues that toasts were to be drunk. The first toast was to be drunk to God  "for victory and power to the king", the second   "for good harvests and for peace", and thirdly a beaker was to be drunk to the king himself. In addition, toasts were drunk to the memory of departed kinsfolk. These were called "minni [memorial toast]".  Yule feast still had a function in the cult of the dead and in the veneration of the ancestors, a function which the mid-winter sacrifice certainly held for the West European Stone and Bronze Ages." The traditions of the Yule log, Yule goat, Yule boar  (described in several Icelandic Sagas) are still reflected in the Christmas ham, Yule singing, and others stemming  from Yule customs, and customs which indicate the significance of the feast in pre-Christian times. These custom, like the Babylonian Yule, are pre-Christian that is post - Jesus, but before Christianity reached their practitioners, the early proto-Germanic  tribes. The "God was Odin, the toast for harvest  and peace were drunk to Njoror and Freyr.  

          In Germanic Neopagan sects, Yule is celebrated with gatherings that often involve a meal and gift giving. Further attempts at reconstruction of surviving accounts of historical celebrations are often made, a hallmark being variations of the traditional. Groups such as the Asatru Folk Assembly in the US recognize the celebration as lasting 12 days, beginning on the date of the winter solstice.

          In the Heathen tradition of Urglaawe, the Yuletide begins at sundown on December 20 and ends at sundown on January 1.  Broken down and translated, "der Urglaawe" literally means "the original faith" in the Pennsylvania German (Deitsch) language. The  focus is on the pre-Christian religious and cultural undertones that still flow through the Pennsylvania German culture. Note: The term Pennsylvania Dutch derives  from the ignorance of English speakers who confused "Ich Bin Deutsche" as meaning " I am Dutch" Although the Pennsylvania Germans did not exist as a distinct ethnic group during the pre-Christian era, their ancestors brought with them many Heathen practices that continued to flourish here after the German "diaspora" into the Americas. Urglaawe worshippers'  purpose is to weave the cultural experiences of the Pennsylvania Germans into the Heathen tapestry. Practices such as Braucherei and Hexerei as well as folklore and folk medicine lend more insight regarding  the way their  ancestors practiced the original faith. 

          Braucherei's name  comes from the book Pow-wows, or, The Long Lost Friend, written by John George Hohman and first published in German as Der Lange Verborgene Freund in 1820. Despite the use of  of  "pow-wow", taken from an Algonquian Native American word for a gathering of medicine men, the collection is actually a very traditional collection of European magic spells, recipes, and folk remedies. These formulas/spells  mix prayers, magic words, and simple rituals to cure simple domestic ailments and rural troubles. Curiously enough, they blend Christian and pagan terms and prayers. Hexerei might best be described as "White Witches" in today's parlance. Their tools included hex signs (seen on some Amish  barns today)  spells, and protective "charms." Many Germans who came to America as Hessian mercenaries in the Revolution (such as my several greats grandfather) carried papers with safety hexes written on them as protection. 

          The Yuletide includes several observances that are part of the Urglaawe faith or the wider Deitsch culture. Belsnickeling, which is the original Deitsch tricks-or-treats, takes place on December 21 or 22.  There are many parallels between Belskickel and Santa/St. Nicholas. Visitations from men dressed as Belsnickel, who is the Urglaawe equivalent to interaction with men and seeker aspects of the god Wudan, may occur throughout the Yuletide.  The linking of St. Nicholas to Santa is, without question, an attempt to distance Christian Christmas tradition   from the pagan  Belskickel. The Berchtaslaaf, or the Progression of the goddess Berchta, is celebrated on December 31 and includes Berchta's commanded meal of herring and gruel (double yuck!). The Yuletide ends on January 1 with the Feast of Frey. This traditional feast includes pork and sauerkraut, both of which are held as sacred to Frey ("Please pass the sacred sauerkraut?"). In our  family tradition (Pa. Deutsch on both sides) this is a traditional New Years' Dinner!

          The Sigillaria on December 23 was a Roman day of gift-giving.  This is almost certainly the origin of the "present" idea, linked by the Church to St. Nicholas to displace  Belskickel.  Because gifts of value would mark social status contrary to the spirit of the season, these were often the pottery or wax figurines called sigillaria made specially for the day, candles, or "gag gifts", of which Augustus was particularly fond.  Children received toys as gifts.  In his many poems about the Saturnalia, Martial names both expensive and quite cheap gifts, including writing tablets, dice,  moneyboxes, toothpicks,  a hunting knife, an axe, various lamps,  perfumes, pipes,  a sausage, a parrot, tables, cups,  items of clothing, statues, masks, books, and pets. Gifts might be as costly as a slave or exotic animal,  but Martial suggests that token gifts of low intrinsic value inversely measure the high quality of a friendship.  Patrons or "bosses" might pass along a gratuity to their poorer clients or dependents to help them buy gifts. Some emperors were noted for their devoted observance of the Sigillaria. In a practice that might be compared to modern greeting cards, verses sometimes accompanied the gifts. Martial has a collection of poems written as if to be attached to gifts. Catullus received a book of bad poems by "the worst poet of all time" as a joke from a friend. 

          So, why spend all this time on this topic?  First of all, I have that kind of time, second of all, I'm sick of people bitching about other persons celebrating (or not) whatever version of this holiday they choose to follow.  While I generally agree that it's inappropriate to force  Jewish child to play baby Jesus in a Nativity scene, (a joke, Jesus was Jewish, and his name was almost certainly Yeshua)  I am fine with the Christian owner of a store piping in Christmas carols, or Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel, or whatever they wish.  We all need to lighten up, tolerance wise,  about whichever festival we're celebrating, since there are aspects of Ancient Sumerian history, Christianity and Paganism in essentially all of them and the one sure thing is that the timing of  Christmas was selected to coincide with them.  By the same token, I can see the logic behind not spending tax dollars provided by all citizens, regardless of tradition, to commemorate one specific group's  religious celebration. Consider the uproar if tax dollars were used to fund celebrations of Diwali, Eid al-Adha, Nagar Kirtan, Visakah Puja (Hindu, Muslim, Sihk and Buddhist if you're keeping track).

          There are many reasons for this season, including the physical fact that after the Winter Solstice, we begin to see the sun longer; so lighten up, be happy for your friends and neighbors who celebrate for whatever reason  and. as The Buddha, Confucius, Mithras , Jesus, and so many others have said over the ages,  love each other. And I do believe that's all I have to sway about that (today).

Really?

So let's just get this out there, because internalizing it just makes my head hurt. Some cats in the waay back believed in human sacrifice, snakes as oracles. Corn (maize) as a God, jaguars (the cats. not the cars) as deities, all of which most sane persons roundly reject. Yet, there are those that say out of all those ludicrous assumptions, these guys could predict the end of the world? In like manner, there are those who take one quote from one man (Mark) who was (I suppose) equally certain of what he believed, and base their lives on that assertion. A third group, believe in accelerating war in the MidEast to hasten the return of Jesus, even though both Matthew and Luke have Jesus assuring the faithful that he would return IN SOME OF THEIR LIFETIMES!! (that ship has sailed) And yet.... (wait for it) Many of all of these groups choose to reject and ridicule sound, overwhelming data supporting global warming because....?
Man's fatuous willingness to shape his ends to the unreal and the rediculous never cease to astound me.

How Many More?

New Rule #16: Unless you are truly are a psychic, in touch with the dead, You must stop telling me what the Framers of the constitution meant until you read what they wrote (and this includes the reactionary Justices on the USSC.)

In the wake of yet another handgun related tragedy, the gun lobby's sycophants (FOX News, et al.) are already marshalling their forces to stall and/or stop any meaningful discussion of gun control. I would understand this better if they just came out and said "Our pee pees are tiny and guns are our substitute" or. "I am a borderline psychopath who carries a gun hoping to be able to justify shooting someone or something."

I am specifically excluding those whose statement would be, "I am a hunter and I eat what I shoot", because sometimes Bambi just has to die. Pheasant, venison, squirrel, rabbit, elk, moose, ducks - all game animals, all tasty, and damned few ever killed with a handgun! Most hunters are true sportsmen who are as concerned with conservation and management as the EPA. A hunter who carries a handgun is probably only going to use it to administer the coup de grace to a wounded animal.

The argument put forward by the gun lobby, however, somehow would have us believe that any effort to control or eliminate hand guns would be attack on hunters. Outright crap. If I asked the average real hunter/sportsman if he'd give up a handgun (keep the shotgun and long gun, excluding rapid fire assault weapons) to reduce the over 55,000 gun related deaths annually by even 25%, I would guess that would be acceptable to most, but not to the NRA.

The worst part of their argument is the Second Amendment to the US constitution which says:

"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." Most of the Second Amendment debate has been related to the meaning of the prefatory clause "a well regulated militia being necessary..... " The writings of both Madison and Hamilton in The Federalist leave little doubt about what they thought about what a well regulated militia or its necessity, meant.

Madison: "The power of regulating and calling forth the militia has been already sufficiently vindicated and explained."

Modern scholars like McAffee and Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions." In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the state militias would not be disarmed. we may never know precisely what Madison believed, but there is little difficulty understanding Alexander Hamilton's position.

Hamilton: Federalist 24

"Previous to the Revolution, and ever since the peace, there has been a constant necessity for keeping small garrisons on our Western frontier. No person can doubt that these will continue to be indispensable, if it should only be against the ravages and depredations of the Indians. These garrisons must either be furnished by occasional detachments from the militia, or by permanent corps in the pay of the government. ......The latter resource of permanent corps in the pay of the government amounts to a standing army in time of peace; a small one, indeed, but not the less real for being small. Here is a simple view of the subject, that shows us at once the impropriety of a constitutional interdiction of such establishments, and the necessity of leaving the matter to the discretion and prudence of the legislature."

Federalist 29

"The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy."

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense....." "This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force."

"The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.".... "This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

"What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular states are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers?"

These descriptions and elaborations upon the nature of the meaning of "Militia" are unambiguous, and describe nothing quite so clearly as the National Guard. There is nothing here which implies "Give every yahoo a gun," and even if there were, in the relevant time frame, the thought of multiple shot rapid fire weapons was non-existent.

How do we know what they intended?" Fortunately they put it in writing during the first Congress. On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring: Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States.....shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack." Sound like handguns and assault rifles to you? Me neither. At every turn, the concept of armed citizens is expressly stated as a buttress against external threats to the state or the nation, not for use against one another.

One defense of the "everybody needs a gun" school of thought comes from the English unwritten constitution and Bill of Rights: The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law." This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it was written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy and is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments. Remember who had rights in England during this time, when less than 10% of Englishmen could even cast a ballot! Any implication that we were simply furthering a pre-existing English concept that every man should be armed is fatuous at best and sheer stupidity at worst.

As previously shown, the "prefatory clause" "A well regulated Militia, etc..." has been the source of most debate and analysis regarding the Second Amendment. In the latter half of the 20th century there was much debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an "individual right"' or a "collective right." The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).

Three basic (models, for want of a better word) were developed by various judicial bodies to interpret the Second Amendment:

1: The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective rights" model, was that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather, it recognized the right of a state to arm its militia. (this of course would infer no federal mandate for all citizens to be armed, or limit the states in prohibition thereof)
2: The second, known as the "sophisticated collective rights model", held that the Second Amendment recognized some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia while actively participating in the organized militia’s activities.
3 : The third, known as the "standard model", was that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Under both of the collective rights models(1 & 2) , the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause. These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.

Under the standard model (#3) , the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment. This interpretation was consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was resolved (as of now) with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. All of those rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.

So, what were these cases and exactly what was really "decided?" In chronological order (since I am not the brightest guy around, I'll keep the legalese simple as possible)

United States v Emerson (2001) : The Texas District appellate court found that a mentally unstable man who violated a restraining order after threatening to harm his wife and kill her friend could not be prosecuted for buying a pistol. There were several grounds given by the government, including firearms trafficking (he bought it elsewhere). The decision related to the Second amendment was overturned by the appellate court using the third interpretation, apparently deciding that notwithstanding all the concerns for the e-wife's safety, Emerson had the right to own the gun. (we never find out if he eventually shot her, himself, or anyone else!

Even while upholding Emerson's appeal, the majority opinion also stated:

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country.   Indeed, Emerson does not contend, and the district court did not hold, otherwise.   As we have previously noted, it is clear that felons, infants and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms. (Consider this statement re: James Holmes and others recently in the news.

Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the Constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA); (signed into law, by the way by then Ca governor, Ronald Reagan!!) California legislation banned the manufacture, sale, transportation, or importation of specified semi-automatic firearms. The plaintiffs alleged that various provisions of the AWCA infringed upon their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms as individuals.

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt wrote the opinion of the court. The court engaged in an extensive analysis of the history of the Second Amendment and its attendant case law, and it ultimately determined that the Second Amendment does not guarantee individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, the court concluded that the Second Amendment provides "collective" rights, which is limited to the arming of state militia. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review. So, as of 2002, the Supremes refused to hear a case which basically took the "collective right" point of view and allowed assault weapon bans.!

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves (like Washington, D.C.). The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states. Unfortunately, the decision also didn't give any hints as to how to separate those with "traditionally lawful" intent, from scumbags who want to rob, mug, rape and murder.

Justice Antonin Scalia: . "Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”. (or so he said)

Justice John Paul Stevens: writing for the 4 dissenters:
"When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. "

It should be obvious that there is significant disagreement within the Court on the issue, and the NRA got its way by 1 vote. Of course that's the way USSC works, but the issues may (one hopes) be revisited in time. The principle was extended to the states in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), another a landmark (5/4) decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states. The implication in McDonald is that States are powerless to pass laws restricting handgun ownership!

And there you have it, laid out and decided by a one vote margin on a court dominated by Reagan and Bush appointees. Just remember, it was the USSC who ruled segregation legal in Plessy V. Ferguson, and we know how that worked out! So load 'em up, boys while you can. How many more must die?

  

 

Toward more colorful language!

New Rule #15: To move modern idiomatic English into the  21st century, we need more really good  negating/contradictory and analogous   "catch phrases."

          I  know, I know......"Mike,  what the hell are you babbling about?" Let me explain.  There are a limited number of  really good catch phrases available to one when attempting to show that something suggested or even demanded is actually not necessary, but that the suggestion itself is actually contradictory to reason. Similarly, there relatively few examples of analogous  phrases (similes) The same old stale phrases include, "Like a hole in the head," "like a lead balloon (an analogy as well)". "Like a pregnant nun," etc. Feminists will rush to add Patricia Dunn's phrase (hijacked by Gloria Steinem): "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Similes include "Like a baby loves his toy", etc

          To this end, and because I have that kind of time, I shall append a list of suggested alternates. Since I shall post this relatively short New Rule to Facebook, please feel free to add suggestions of your own. The management thanks you; stay thirsty my friends..

Contradictory:  " Rush Limbaugh needs to be more of an asshole.......  

"Like Donald Trump needs a bad hair day,"

"Like Angelina's lips need collagen"

"Like Newt Gingrich needs an ego boost"

"Like Kim Kardashian needs butt implants"

"Like Yo Yo Ma needs cello lessons"

"Like Honey Boo Boo needs an energy drink"

" Like Rick Santorum needs to learn to be sanctimonious"

" Like Barack Obama needs hip lessons"

"Like Mitt Romney needs to whiten up"

"Like Lindsay Lohan needs a beer"

"Like Johnny Depp needs 'cool' lessons"

" Like Sean Penn needs a temper"

" Like the Hulk needs a gym"

" Like Barry Manilow needs a girlfriend"

" Like Meryl Streep needs acting lessons"

"Like the Tea Party needs to dumb down their message"

" Like Mel Gibson needs a bad career move"

 

Unlikely: " Donald Trump ever being sincerely humble is as unlikely as.........  

"  Bill O'Reilly writing  his own books"

"  Susan Sarandon aging badly"

"  Glenn Beck making sense"

"  Fox News being 'fair and balanced' "

" Charles Barkley breaking 90"'

"  Sean Hannity  marrying Rachel Maddow"

" Al Sharpton's  keynote address at  a Klan meeting"

" Mountain climbing in Venice"

" Rick Perry evolving"

" Tim Tebow's  legitimacy as a  QB"

" Pat Robertson's being  relevant"

"Adam Sandler 's Oscar nomination"

"Ballet, Gangnam style"

" A seeing eye Chihuahua"

"Linda Hunt having  sex  with Yao Ming"

 

Semi Analogous:  " Rush Limbaugh loves food and pain killers like....

" Bill Clinton loves a good cigar"

" Ted Nugent loves assault weapons"

" Kris Jenner loves Botox"

" Like Kenny Rogers would love to close his eyes"

" Like Nicole Ritchie loves puking"

" Like Pee Wee  Herman loves his hand"

" Jesse Jackson loves his own voice"

" Like "W" loves .....? ol'  what's his name?'

"  Paris Hilton  loves home movies"

"  Lana Del Ray would love to be able to sing"

"  The mentally challenged  love 'Hillbilly Handfishin' "

"  Hallmark loves holidays"

"  A cat loves a can opener"

"  A  dog loves a strange butt "

"  Snooki loves publicity"

"  Barack Obama remembering election night"

I never thought I'd say this, but.....!

New Rule #14: People who have no idea whereof they speak must actually learn something before they criticize and lie about those in public service. This is especially true for those who have been in business and should know better.

          Just to be clear: I am, and will always be,  among those Americans who feel Congress is frequently too self serving . I have frequently been critical of its (their) actions in many areas. I have frequently referred to some members and sometimes to the entire body in unflattering terms. I have sometimes thought that some individuals  were overpaid and underproductive.
          Having said all this, I have  reached my limit for blatant bullshit, as purveyed by those of both parties who are unhappy with some aspect of Congress' performance and choose to buttress their sometimes justifiable complain with absolute falsehoods and misinformation, all too readily believed by their equally gullible and ill intentioned acquaintances. It seems weird to be defending those whom I have so readily criticized, but liars  need to be called out and held accountable. I'll do this by listing the lies and misconceptions and then discussing each one.

·       Legislators receive free health care at military facilities such as Walter Reed.

Totally false!   Members of Congress can receive care at the new Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, but the cost of such care is billed to their federal insurance, which as we will see isn't as good as my military retired coverage!  If House and Senate members choose to use the Capitol attending physician and the Army and Navy hospitals while in D.C., they pay an annual fee (equivalent to being part of an HMO). If they seek private medical care while in D.C. or back in their home states, they use their private health insurance. If they are over 65, they use Medicare and whatever private supplemental insurance they may carry. And, of course, they pay into Medicare while working just like everyone else.

          Members of Congress are eligible — like all other federal employees — to sign up for one of the "cafeteria" health insurance plans offered all other federal employees. If they sign up for one of these policies, the federal government pays two-thirds of the premium and the Congressman pays the other one-third. This is comparable to insurance offered by many private employers.
          Most members signed up for one of the Blue Cross plans that has both deductibles and co-pays.  The family (spouse and children) of House and Senate members are not entitled to be treated by the Capitol attending physician and thus must be covered by private insurance. Most members include their wives ( and minor children) under a Blue Cross (or equivalent)  plan and pay the higher family premium. One of the most popular plans under FEHBP (the Blue Cross Blue Shield Standard plan) costs beneficiaries $430 a month for a family, and $185 a month for individual coverage.  This is about the same as family coverage costs a teacher in Orange County Florida, however, at present, the individual is covered at no cost, so Congressmen actually pay more than some school teachers!.

·       Myth: Members of Congress do not pay Social Security taxes and do not participate in the system

Fiction since 1984. The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act (P.L. 98-21) required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Thus, since then, all Members of Congress have paid, and continue to pay, Social Security taxes. All Members of Congress pay Social Security payroll taxes, regardless of any  other retirement plan coverage. Members of Congress, like all other workers covered by Social Security, pay Medicare Hospital Insurance taxes on all earnings at a rate of 1.45% of pay in 2007.

          Note: this means that some members of congress pay 14.2% of their Congressional pay into their retirement plans!

·       Myth: Members of Congress are exempt from the laws they pass

Just not true, since 1954, but  saying it sure seems to make the Tea Partiers feel better, though, and you'll note that the Tea Party members of Congress don't disabuse them of the idea, since they want the lunatic fringe support for the rest of their agenda. In fact, the Tea Party members of Congress' mantra is, apparently, "Everyone in Congress is f****d up except us, and you should trust us!

·            Myth: The new health care law (The Affordable Health care Act) will not apply to Members of Congress.

Reality: The law actually states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are created under this Act or offered through an Exchange established under the Act."  In other words, yeah, it certainly will apply!

·       Myth: Members of Congress can retire and receive their full salary after serving just a single, two-year term

This is perhaps the longest running, and most blatant lie extant regarding Congressional compensation! In fact, a person elected to Congress for just two terms as a member of the US House of Representatives is ineligible for any Congressional retirement whatsoever. We're talking about the difference between $174,000 (current compensation) and Zip, Zero, Nada!  That's some lie!! The minimum amount of service to be eligible under the retirement system ("vested" is the term usually used) is 5 years of service.

           Congressional pensions, like those of all other federal employees, are financed through a combination of employee and employer contributions. All Members pay Social Security payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the Social Security taxable wage base ($97,500 in 2007). Members covered by the federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) also pay an additional 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

          Under both CSRS (the pre-1984 plan) and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, no Member’s retirement annuity may exceed 80% of his or her final salary. This means that no member of Congress can ever retire at full salary, even if they serve 40 years in Congress! As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006 (For comparison, this is about the value of my Navy retirement as a senior enlisted man, and I have free medical on top of that!)

·       Congressional retirement in perspective:
 To put this into perspective a three term congressman who loses his seat is "vested" and can draw retirement, but only at age 62, at which time his retirement would be  12.5% of his high three salary years. If you were elected in 2006 at age 36 to the House and were defeated in 2012, you wait 20 years to draw any retirement benefit, and then it would be 12.5% of $174,000,  or $21,759. Not bad, but...a  Navy Commander, retiring at 42 after 20 years would earn a minimum of $50,000 annually and would have been paid over $1 million dollars in retirement by age 62, at which time he also would draw Social Security. 

For example, the pension for a Representative or Senator who retired in

December 2006 at the end of the 109th Congress with a total of 30 years of service
years covered under CSRS and 23 years covered under FERS) and a high-3 salary of
$161,800 would be:
$161,800 x .025 x 7 = $28,315 (CSRS)
+ $161,800 x .017 x 20 = $55,012 (FERS)
+ $161,800 x .01 x 3 = $ 4,854 (FERS)
______________________________________

total retirement at 62 of  $88,181

Comparing again, A Vice Admiral in the navy, at retirement after 30 years (which, assuming he attended Annapolis at 18 would by 50 years old) earns in base pay alone, $167,000 annually plus as much as 40,000 in allowances. If a doctor: add 22k to 36k annually depending on specialty. If a dentist and (at any rank) agreeing to do 4 years naval service, add $50,000. If this theoretical admiral would therefore retire, assuming not medical or dental corps,  at 30 years, his immediate retirement would be about $125,000  annually, plus freed medical for life for him and his spouse, at age50. Before the Congressman retires at 62, on 30 years, the admiral will have been paid  over $1 and 1/2 million in retirement (not  to mention the immensely  profitable private sector jobs retired admirals frequently "earn" in their former military area of expertise. Even a Captain retiring on 30 years earns more retirement longer.

          Lest you think this is a military phenomenon, let's look at a civilian 20 year career:   firefighter.  The average  20 yr NYFD retiree earns in retirement just under 100k annually! NYPD is similar. Obviously firefighters, law enforcement personnel and the military risk their lives while employed, but this is about retirement compensation, not active duty salary. That's what hazardous duty supplements are for. By comparison, Congress does well, but not nearly as well as the lie portrays!  

          So why this willingness to lie about and castigate Congress and begrudge them their pay?  It may be that we feel that, as public servants, they should do exactly as we want, and so some persons are probably delighted with their representation while others are unhappy. It is also an "us" and "them" mentality, in which we single out Congress because they are easy to blame, just as many single out the President for things that are Congress' responsibility. Goodness knows it's easier to blame others than to assume responsibility for one's own shortcomings and misfortunes.  

          The real scandal is about what we are willing to pay (or about what Boards of Directors are willing to pay) Business executives, regardless of performance.  This is especially troubling in light of reality, which is that many of the economic woes we face are due to the malfeasance of CEOs in the financial sector of American banking and trading. America bitches about what Congressmen earn, yet seem fine with the huge disparity between the average wage earners'  pay and that of corporate CEOs.  Profits at big U.S. companies broke records last year, and so did pay for CEOs. The head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011, according to an analysis using data from Equilar, an executive pay research firm. Many CEOs have retirement packages and or "Golden parachutes" worth more than $25,000,000.

 In Great Britain, the ratio of CEO compensation to that of the  average worker is 22:1, in Japan - 11:1, in Germany - 12:1,  in the United States - 475:1 ! Where's the indignation?? (Curiously enough, the two nations whose CEO to Workers' earnings ratio (excluding the USA) is highest are Mexico (47:1) and Venezuela (50:1) - good company, huh??

          To illustrate this point I offer something I never thought I'd do - a defense of John Boehner, the second most powerful elected man in America. Boehner came to politics relatively late, since as one of 11 siblings, he had to work his way through college (seven years to graduate). Elected to Congress in 1990, he will reach 30 years service at age 71. At that age, assuming his current Speaker of the House salary (higher than a regular Congressman and deservedly so) he would draw a Congressional retirement pension of  about $113,000 annually, less than Lebron James earns just for showing up on the court for one game!. There will be no lump sum payout, no golden parachute. He will be responsible for his own healthcare costs as well.

          By contrast consider two executives who "failed"  at their jobs in the private sector:  

Robert Nardelli, (Home Depot) - bad performance as CEO, share prices down significantly, asked to resign, Consequences: $210 million in cash, $84 million in stock - A quarter of a billion dollars for leaving, having underperformed!

Tony Hayward (BP) - Deep Water Horizon scandal, much criticism of Hayward's  handling of it. Consequences: Asked to leave with $1.6 million in salary, and $17.6 million  golden parachute.   

          Yet there are those who begrudge an ex-President (arguably the most taxing and significant job in the world) their taxable pension., currently under $200,000 annually,  plus allowance for transition staff, etc.   

          Again, I have been mightily pissed off at Congress and the President from time to time, but I will never think they are over compensated as long as Donald Trump lives!