-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Disease of Apprehension
Author: Raine
Date: 01/10/2013 14:13:30
This was written by a friend. He has given me permission to re-post his words here. They are his own, but I admit that I agree with the premise. I don't think I could say it much differently than he did, but it coincided with some research I have been doing with regards to the gun debate we are having in this country...
In the Federalist papers (28), Alexander Hamilton spoke of The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
Alexander Hamilton had the following published exactly 225 years ago in a New York Newspaper
How, in 225 years, we went from a rational discussion about the common defense and what type of militia we should or should not include in our yet to be ratified Constitution to paranoia and conspiracies is a sad story. The likes of Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and Wayne LaPierre are not patriots, but perhaps the disease borne of apprehension that Hamilton warned us about.
and 
Raine
Update:
On the topic of apprehension, it is worth noting how the Second Amendment found a place into the bill of Rights. This was written in 1998, and it is one of the few historical presentations of its history:The Hidden History of the Second Amendment It appears that the 2nd amendment was born from the fear of slave uprisings from states in the south.
It took another war and the 14th amendment to begin to change that.
Having said that, it should be worth noting that we have, in Article 3, section III of the constitution, a treason clause. Perhaps I am of a minority in seeing a certain irony from arguments put forward by those that claim an unadulterated right to own firearms. It is in our constitution that rising up against the government is treason. We can petition, we can protest -- we can do a lot of things -- suggesting to take arms against our government against tyranny? Not so much... it's right there in the constitution -- it's a no no.
Couple the history of fearing slave uprisings with the treason caluse and tell me if this statement is not worth considering with regard to our current Gun discussion dialogue:
People who say they have a right to own a gun have that right. They can say such things because as a citizen of the country -- our country -- have the right to free speech. That said, I believe that the right to own a gun ends when one speaks about fighting the tyranny of the government. The right to own a gun should not mean the right to overthrow our government -- no matter how awful one may consider our government.
"I was watching the now infamous Alex Jones interview with Pierce Morgan the other night and it hit me - our gun problem isn't that we have guns ... it's that all the wrong people have guns. Hear me out on this. It's certainly a complex issue and I definitely understand searching every nook and cranny for an answer, but it's also more complex than just debating the Second Amendment.
As I watched Jones fanatically rail against the government and theorize about the most insane conspiracy theories, I realized that this man can legally own one gun or a hundred. That should give everyone pause and it certainly did me - but more importantly, it illustrated everything that is wrong with the gun culture in America today. So many of these individuals have a wanton lust of fear. It's always about fear with them. Fear of the government. Fear of their fellow man. Fear of the world. Fear of the end of times ... fear, fear, fear.
They fear everything around 'em and believe everything is a conspiracy. 9/11 was an inside job ... Obama is responsible for Sandy Hook ... the Oklahoma City bombing was entirely perpetrated by the government to cast blame on the militias.
The problem with this mindset is that it breeds not only fear, but also paranoia. So, you've got millions of Americans who fear everything around 'em to the point where they are unreasonably suspicious to an unhealthy degree.
Now on its own, it would seem less a problem and more a nuisance for the rest of us on planet earth, but when you combine it with this frenzied gun culture, then it does become an increasingly disturbing trend. Some Americans don't treat their guns as just a tool to hunt or protect ... many don't even see it as a hobby and instead an absolute lifestyle. These are the people who feel the need to flash their weapons to everyone as if it's some type of cultural status. Because of this, you have a growing number of people who become obsessed with the weapon. Instead of it being an accessory, it's now seen as essentially an extension of their being. It's always about the gun. It's about the look, the feel, the power and the thrill. The extent of their desire for these weapons seems a bit pornographic. The thing with pornography is that it can become an unhealthy obsession if it engrosses every aspect of your lifestyle.
In the end, what's the difference between getting that thrill from porn or a gun? It's all the same if you think about it - except a tit on the computer screen never kills.
Beyond that, now you have these individuals who buy into a certain mindset that they're the defenders of freedom - the protectors of everything good. You saw that on full display when Jones ranted about a second revolution and you've heard it from guys like Jesse Ventura, a man I have a lot of respect for, who lists the government as a reason we need guns - suggesting, openly, that we can only keep our government in check by the bullet.
I take offense to that because it seems this is becoming an increasingly acceptable narrative. The problem here is that we have a fairly grim history of Americans feeling the need to kill their leaders because of the very reasons Alex Jones pushes every day during his radio show - that the government is evil and treasonous and must be stopped ... at all costs.
What other nation of our stature and our progressiveness has seen so many of its leaders struck down by a bullet the last 150 years? Abraham Lincoln. John Kennedy. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. That doesn't even get into the leaders who survived assassination attempts - Teddy Roosevelt (who was shot), FDR (the mayor of Chicago was killed instead), Gerald Ford (twice!), and Ronald Reagan (who was also shot). Then there are the threats. Hundreds and thousands of threats to past presidents, including our current. Some of those threats turned to hardened plans and were only foiled at the last moment.
But the thing is, the thing that is often ignored, is that while we hold up the American Revolution as proof of citizen force, we also forget everything that has since followed. American history has progressed and developed not through citizens arming themselves and defending their inalienable rights, and the trials of liberty, but often by peaceful protest and internal, bloodless demand.
Women didn't gain the right to vote because they stormed the capitol with their pistols and demanded it. No, they protested and pushed their leaders to do what they believed was right. In the end, blood was not shed to give them that right. Forty years later, a preacher from Georgia helped lead millions to the promised land and it wasn't by military force or violent uprisings - but generally peaceful protests and a resilient determination. Ironically, the man of peace was brought down by violence.
In most every reach for freedom we've seen in this country, especially the last 100 years, a gun was not needed.
Guns might not be the problem. But it's clear the gun culture in this country is. It bleeds over into troubling conspiracies and leads to irrational thought. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know the status quo is damning and we'll only continue to be haunted by gun violence until we wake up and ask ourselves why our culture admires the gun more than peace. Until that question is answered, unfortunately, the violence will only continue."
In the Federalist papers (28), Alexander Hamilton spoke of The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
We should recollect that the extent of the military force must, at all events, be regulated by the resources of the country. For a long time to come, it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionably increase. When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.
Alexander Hamilton had the following published exactly 225 years ago in a New York Newspaper
"... 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."
How, in 225 years, we went from a rational discussion about the common defense and what type of militia we should or should not include in our yet to be ratified Constitution to paranoia and conspiracies is a sad story. The likes of Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and Wayne LaPierre are not patriots, but perhaps the disease borne of apprehension that Hamilton warned us about.
and Raine
Update:
On the topic of apprehension, it is worth noting how the Second Amendment found a place into the bill of Rights. This was written in 1998, and it is one of the few historical presentations of its history:The Hidden History of the Second Amendment
In his 99-page article, Professor Bogus argues that the evidence, including an analysis of Madison's original language, and an understanding of how he and other founders drew on England's Declaration of Rights, strongly suggests that Madison wrote this provision for the specific purpose of assuring his constituency that Congress could not use its newly acquired power to deprive the states of an armed militia. Madison's concern, Professor Bogus argues, was not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to governmental tyranny, but slave control.
The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments. At the time, the southern states extensively regulated their militias and prescribed their slave control responsibilities. Second, the hidden history is important because it fundamentally changes how we think about the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.
It took another war and the 14th amendment to begin to change that.
Having said that, it should be worth noting that we have, in Article 3, section III of the constitution, a treason clause.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Couple the history of fearing slave uprisings with the treason caluse and tell me if this statement is not worth considering with regard to our current Gun discussion dialogue:
This ideology claims to rely heavily on the Second Amendment, and yet it is rooted not in the Founders’ vision, but in the insurrectionary ideas of Daniel Shays and those who rose up against the government of Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787. Indeed, there are gun-rights advocates today who think the Second Amendment actually gives them the right to take up arms against the government—but if that were true the Second Amendment would have repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines treason as taking up arms against the government!
People who say they have a right to own a gun have that right. They can say such things because as a citizen of the country -- our country -- have the right to free speech. That said, I believe that the right to own a gun ends when one speaks about fighting the tyranny of the government. The right to own a gun should not mean the right to overthrow our government -- no matter how awful one may consider our government.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
trojanrabbit on 01/10/2013 14:17:48
trojanrabbit on 01/10/2013 14:17:48
Oooh firsties.
I didn't need Facebook to tell me my Dad's birthday was today.
* sigh *
I didn't need Facebook to tell me my Dad's birthday was today.
* sigh *
Comment by 
TriSec on 01/10/2013 14:29:43
TriSec on 01/10/2013 14:29:43
Morning, comrades.
I'll just keep harping on the "Well-Regulated Militia" bit that is always overlooked.
Living here in Original Minuteman Country, it's easy to draw the historic parallels. When the Constitution was written, there was no US Army, at least not as we know it today. The closest modern equivalent would be Switzerland. They have no standing army, but every able-bodied male of a certain age is part of the "militia".
In colonial times, each town had their own militia, men ready "at a minute's notice", to take up their arms and defend the community against all enemies. The second ammendment was written because of the British, not the Americans. If you recall, the whole revolution started because the regulars were out looking to capture a store of cannons and ammunition in Concord. By extension, the population was afraid the soldiers would come for their "regular" muskets as well. Guns they needed in those days more for hunting and food than anything else.
This system worked throughout most of our history. It wasn't until after the Civil :War that a "regular army" began to be formed by the government. Of course, the necessities of world wars and 20th century global pressures changed that situation forever.
It's not lost on me, however, that our way may not be the most efficient way. Last summer, we attended a presentation along the Battle Road, and it was pointed out that literally hundreds of Minutemen were present at Old North Bridge within just a few hours of Paul Revere raising the alanm. Of course, we know what happened. But the guides pointed out that if that happened again toaday, under our current system, we simply couldn't mobilize that amount of men in that short a time...because we're no longer organized that way.
In any case....it was the local militias in the towns that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Ammendment. If it's true that the Constitution is a living document, then it's far past the time that this was re-written to reflect our modern needs.
I'll just keep harping on the "Well-Regulated Militia" bit that is always overlooked.
Living here in Original Minuteman Country, it's easy to draw the historic parallels. When the Constitution was written, there was no US Army, at least not as we know it today. The closest modern equivalent would be Switzerland. They have no standing army, but every able-bodied male of a certain age is part of the "militia".
In colonial times, each town had their own militia, men ready "at a minute's notice", to take up their arms and defend the community against all enemies. The second ammendment was written because of the British, not the Americans. If you recall, the whole revolution started because the regulars were out looking to capture a store of cannons and ammunition in Concord. By extension, the population was afraid the soldiers would come for their "regular" muskets as well. Guns they needed in those days more for hunting and food than anything else.
This system worked throughout most of our history. It wasn't until after the Civil :War that a "regular army" began to be formed by the government. Of course, the necessities of world wars and 20th century global pressures changed that situation forever.
It's not lost on me, however, that our way may not be the most efficient way. Last summer, we attended a presentation along the Battle Road, and it was pointed out that literally hundreds of Minutemen were present at Old North Bridge within just a few hours of Paul Revere raising the alanm. Of course, we know what happened. But the guides pointed out that if that happened again toaday, under our current system, we simply couldn't mobilize that amount of men in that short a time...because we're no longer organized that way.
In any case....it was the local militias in the towns that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Ammendment. If it's true that the Constitution is a living document, then it's far past the time that this was re-written to reflect our modern needs.
Comment by 
Raine on 01/10/2013 14:29:59
I;m sorry, Rabbit.
Raine on 01/10/2013 14:29:59
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Oooh firsties.
I didn't need Facebook to tell me my Dad's birthday was today.
* sigh *
I;m sorry, Rabbit.
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 14:31:02
That is why I found what hamilton discussed so amazing.
Raine on 01/10/2013 14:31:02
Quote by TriSec:
Morning, comrades.
I'll just keep harping on the "Well-Regulated Militia" bit that is always overlooked.
Living here in Original Minuteman Country, it's easy to draw the historic parallels. When the Constitution was written, there was no US Army, at least not as we know it today. The closest modern equivalent would be Switzerland. They have no standing army, but every able-bodied male of a certain age is part of the "militia".
In colonial times, each town had their own militia, men ready "at a minute's notice", to take up their arms and defend the community against all enemies. The second ammendment was written because of the British, not the Americans. If you recall, the whole revolution started because the regulars were out looking to capture a store of cannons and ammunition in Concord. By extension, the population was afraid the soldiers would come for their "regular" muskets as well. Guns they needed in those days more for hunting and food than anything else.
This system worked throughout most of our history. It wasn't until after the Civil :War that a "regular army" began to be formed by the government. Of course, the necessities of world wars and 20th century global pressures changed that situation forever.
It's not lost on me, however, that our way may not be the most efficient way. Last summer, we attended a presentation along the Battle Road, and it was pointed out that literally hundreds of Minutemen were present at Old North Bridge within just a few hours of Paul Revere raising the alanm. Of course, we know what happened. But the guides pointed out that if that happened again toaday, under our current system, we simply couldn't mobilize that amount of men in that short a time...because we're no longer organized that way.
In any case....it was the local militias in the towns that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Ammendment. If it's true that the Constitution is a living document, then it's far past the time that this was re-written to reflect our modern needs.
Comment by 
wickedpam on 01/10/2013 14:41:08
wickedpam on 01/10/2013 14:41:08
Morning 
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 14:58:27
Tri, sorry this isn't correct. The US has maintained a standing regular army since it was founded. The regulars fought in the War of 1812 along with militia. They were the backbone of Army in the Mexican War. The militia is called up and federalized in times of war.
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 14:58:27
Quote by TriSec:
Morning, comrades.
I'll just keep harping on the "Well-Regulated Militia" bit that is always overlooked.
Living here in Original Minuteman Country, it's easy to draw the historic parallels. When the Constitution was written, there was no US Army, at least not as we know it today. The closest modern equivalent would be Switzerland. They have no standing army, but every able-bodied male of a certain age is part of the "militia".
In colonial times, each town had their own militia, men ready "at a minute's notice", to take up their arms and defend the community against all enemies. The second ammendment was written because of the British, not the Americans. If you recall, the whole revolution started because the regulars were out looking to capture a store of cannons and ammunition in Concord. By extension, the population was afraid the soldiers would come for their "regular" muskets as well. Guns they needed in those days more for hunting and food than anything else.
This system worked throughout most of our history. It wasn't until after the Civil :War that a "regular army" began to be formed by the government. Of course, the necessities of world wars and 20th century global pressures changed that situation forever.
It's not lost on me, however, that our way may not be the most efficient way. Last summer, we attended a presentation along the Battle Road, and it was pointed out that literally hundreds of Minutemen were present at Old North Bridge within just a few hours of Paul Revere raising the alanm. Of course, we know what happened. But the guides pointed out that if that happened again toaday, under our current system, we simply couldn't mobilize that amount of men in that short a time...because we're no longer organized that way.
In any case....it was the local militias in the towns that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Ammendment. If it's true that the Constitution is a living document, then it's far past the time that this was re-written to reflect our modern needs.
Tri, sorry this isn't correct. The US has maintained a standing regular army since it was founded. The regulars fought in the War of 1812 along with militia. They were the backbone of Army in the Mexican War. The militia is called up and federalized in times of war.
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 15:15:21
Raine on 01/10/2013 15:15:21
I find the letter written by Hamilton in Federalist papers 29 fascinating.
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 15:18:17
Raine on 01/10/2013 15:18:17
The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 15:28:53
Raine on 01/10/2013 15:28:53
Gun blog killed the blog.
Comment by 
Scoopster on 01/10/2013 15:30:18
Scoopster on 01/10/2013 15:30:18
Comment by wickedpam on 01/10/2013 15:33:44
wickedpam on 01/10/2013 15:33:44
Comment by wickedpam on 01/10/2013 15:34:32
no, I'm just in a kinda
mode until I finish my project that I have a meeting on tomorrow 
wickedpam on 01/10/2013 15:34:32
Quote by Raine:
Gun blog killed the blog.
no, I'm just in a kinda
mode until I finish my project that I have a meeting on tomorrow
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 15:38:33
Raine on 01/10/2013 15:38:33
Comment by wickedpam on 01/10/2013 15:42:48
wickedpam on 01/10/2013 15:42:48
this guy was never a Dem 
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 15:46:37
That was a whollotta crazy.
Raine on 01/10/2013 15:46:37
Quote by wickedpam:
this guy was never a Dem
Comment by wickedpam on 01/10/2013 15:48:15
wrapped up in a giaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnttttttttt ..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
pause
wickedpam on 01/10/2013 15:48:15
Quote by Raine:That was a whollotta crazy.Quote by wickedpam:
this guy was never a Dem
wrapped up in a giaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnttttttttt ..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
pause
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 15:49:39
he didn't read the cheat sheet given to him...
Raine on 01/10/2013 15:49:39
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:That was a whollotta crazy.Quote by wickedpam:
this guy was never a Dem
wrapped up in a giaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnttttttttt ..............................................................................................
..............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
pause
he didn't read the cheat sheet given to him...
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 15:56:35
Raine on 01/10/2013 15:56:35
Something to think about. the Constitition has a treason clause:
I was reading this article over at the Daily beast.. and it makes a few very good points, perticularly this:
Kinda puts a crimp in the theory, no?
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
I was reading this article over at the Daily beast.. and it makes a few very good points, perticularly this:
This ideology claims to rely heavily on the Second Amendment, and yet it is rooted not in the Founders’ vision, but in the insurrectionary ideas of Daniel Shays and those who rose up against the government of Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787. Indeed, there are gun-rights advocates today who think the Second Amendment actually gives them the right to take up arms against the government—but if that were true the Second Amendment would have repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines treason as taking up arms against the government!
Kinda puts a crimp in the theory, no?
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 15:58:06
Raine on 01/10/2013 15:58:06
Caller is saying EXACTLY what I just posted!
Comment by Scoopster on 01/10/2013 15:58:38
Oh wow.. that was written by one of the profs at RWU (right down the street from my place!)
Scoopster on 01/10/2013 15:58:38
Quote by Raine:
The hidden history of the 2nd amendment. Written in 1998 -- fascinating.
Oh wow.. that was written by one of the profs at RWU (right down the street from my place!)
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 16:02:34
About the Daily Beast quote, spot on! The Founding Fathers were not American versions of Robespierre or Trotsky, they were stolid, bourgeois cats who didn't want to be pushed around by England. The last thing on their minds was continual revolution. We need to push back on that notion that we have the 2nd amendment to keep the government in check. It is another RWLM fantasy.
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 16:02:34
Quote by Raine:
Something to think about. the Constitition has a treason clause:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
I was reading this article over at the Daily beast.. and it makes a few very good points, perticularly this:This ideology claims to rely heavily on the Second Amendment, and yet it is rooted not in the Founders’ vision, but in the insurrectionary ideas of Daniel Shays and those who rose up against the government of Massachusetts in 1786 and 1787. Indeed, there are gun-rights advocates today who think the Second Amendment actually gives them the right to take up arms against the government—but if that were true the Second Amendment would have repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines treason as taking up arms against the government!
Kinda puts a crimp in the theory, no?
About the Daily Beast quote, spot on! The Founding Fathers were not American versions of Robespierre or Trotsky, they were stolid, bourgeois cats who didn't want to be pushed around by England. The last thing on their minds was continual revolution. We need to push back on that notion that we have the 2nd amendment to keep the government in check. It is another RWLM fantasy.
Comment by trojanrabbit on 01/10/2013 16:03:32
trojanrabbit on 01/10/2013 16:03:32
My sad day is getting sadder.
Boomtown's Rex Trailer passes at 84
In Boston he was THE Saturday and Sunday morning TV fixture from 1956 through 1974. And afterwards ran a Waltham production company and taught at Emerson college.
Boomtown's Rex Trailer passes at 84
In Boston he was THE Saturday and Sunday morning TV fixture from 1956 through 1974. And afterwards ran a Waltham production company and taught at Emerson college.
Comment by TriSec on 01/10/2013 16:06:34
Oh, no!!!
His production office is still in business right in downtown Waltham. Joe Kearns Goodwin rented out the studio and office as a campaign headquarters back during the primary. (Mr. Trailer did not visit us at any time, however.)
Dayum. More childhood gone.
TriSec on 01/10/2013 16:06:34
Quote by trojanrabbit:
My sad day is getting sadder.
Boomtown's Rex Trailer passes at 84
In Boston he was THE Saturday and Sunday morning TV fixture from 1956 through 1974. And afterwards ran a Waltham production company and taught at Emerson college.
Oh, no!!!
His production office is still in business right in downtown Waltham. Joe Kearns Goodwin rented out the studio and office as a campaign headquarters back during the primary. (Mr. Trailer did not visit us at any time, however.)
Dayum. More childhood gone.
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 16:08:41
Oh -- that is really cool!
I was talking to bob about the blog today, and the 29th FP letter -- particularly the part where hamilton was trying to address the anti federalists. Bob responded with a theory
It was after he said that that I came upon this article. I have been looking for something more substantive about HOW the amendment got into the bill of rights. That coupled with the treason clause in the constitution seems to really blow away all of the theories put forth by those that want no gun control at all.
Raine on 01/10/2013 16:08:41
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:
The hidden history of the 2nd amendment. Written in 1998 -- fascinating.
Oh wow.. that was written by one of the profs at RWU (right down the street from my place!)
I was talking to bob about the blog today, and the 29th FP letter -- particularly the part where hamilton was trying to address the anti federalists. Bob responded with a theory
probably driven by the Southern states wary of a federal government that would ultimately tell them to free their slaves
It was after he said that that I came upon this article. I have been looking for something more substantive about HOW the amendment got into the bill of rights. That coupled with the treason clause in the constitution seems to really blow away all of the theories put forth by those that want no gun control at all.
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 16:16:32
Design for the trillion dollar coin. :)
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 16:16:32
Design for the trillion dollar coin. :)
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 16:17:40
This is my favorite. One trilllion dollars!
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 16:17:40
This is my favorite. One trilllion dollars!
Comment by Scoopster on 01/10/2013 16:21:17
It would make much more sense to have the smirking chimp on this damn coin..
Scoopster on 01/10/2013 16:21:17
Quote by Mondobubba:
This is my favorite. One trilllion dollars!
It would make much more sense to have the smirking chimp on this damn coin..
Comment by wickedpam on 01/10/2013 16:26:17
wickedpam on 01/10/2013 16:26:17
hence why we have a show now called Moonshiners
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 16:35:42
Raine on 01/10/2013 16:35:42
Woodstock NY on the line!!!
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 16:38:38
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 16:38:38
Ha! "Zero Dark Thirty" snubbed for best picture. But "Life of Pi" is nominated? 
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 16:41:54
I've decided I'd rather wait for 0-dark-30 to come out on video. It just looks from trailers (and reading about it) too voyeuristic for me to pay to see it in the theaters.
Raine on 01/10/2013 16:41:54
Quote by Mondobubba:
Ha! "Zero Dark Thirty" snubbed for best picture. But "Life of Pi" is nominated?
Comment by 
livingonli on 01/10/2013 16:50:07
livingonli on 01/10/2013 16:50:07
Good morning, everyone. Another morning of slow, staggering out of bed.
Comment by trojanrabbit on 01/10/2013 17:02:30
Notwithstanding Mrs. Rabbit's discomfort from sitting in one position for long periods and not being able to see over the person in front of her, I see nothing that I would want to spend any $ on in a theater. MAYBE the next Star Trek movie.
trojanrabbit on 01/10/2013 17:02:30
Quote by Raine:I've decided I'd rather wait for 0-dark-30 to come out on video. It just looks from trailers (and reading about it) too voyeuristic for me to pay to see it in the theaters.Quote by Mondobubba:
Ha! "Zero Dark Thirty" snubbed for best picture. But "Life of Pi" is nominated?
Notwithstanding Mrs. Rabbit's discomfort from sitting in one position for long periods and not being able to see over the person in front of her, I see nothing that I would want to spend any $ on in a theater. MAYBE the next Star Trek movie.
Comment by trojanrabbit on 01/10/2013 17:05:55
trojanrabbit on 01/10/2013 17:05:55
I specifically went to bed early last night so I could enjoy Casino Night at work tonight. I think I failed miserably. Maybe after a few minutes at the craps table I'll feel better.
Must. Not. Drink. ANYTHING. Alcoholic.
Must. Not. Drink. ANYTHING. Alcoholic.
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 17:12:54
Raine on 01/10/2013 17:12:54
Expect a major edit to the blog in the next half hour.
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 17:15:08
Ya think? I think Bigalow is vastly overrated as a director. Kinda like her King of the World ex.
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 17:15:08
Quote by Raine:I've decided I'd rather wait for 0-dark-30 to come out on video. It just looks from trailers (and reading about it) too voyeuristic for me to pay to see it in the theaters.Quote by Mondobubba:
Ha! "Zero Dark Thirty" snubbed for best picture. But "Life of Pi" is nominated?
Ya think? I think Bigalow is vastly overrated as a director. Kinda like her King of the World ex.
Comment by Scoopster on 01/10/2013 18:34:16
Scoopster on 01/10/2013 18:34:16
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 19:17:28
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 19:17:28
Matt Taibbi's thoughts on the AIG shareholder lawsuit.
I'm gonna have to find a way to work goat-fuck into my daily conversations.
The only problem is, the suit is being filed by maybe the biggest douchebag of all time, Hank Greenberg (and his company, Starr International), a man who has not only been proven to be corrupt and a fraud, but who perhaps more than anyone else was responsible for the galactic balance-sheet goat-fuck that caused AIG's implosion in the first place. If there is such a person as an innocent AIG shareholder who was harmed by the government's conduct, it sure as hell isn't Hank Greenberg.
I'm gonna have to find a way to work goat-fuck into my daily conversations.
Comment by 
Will in Chicago on 01/10/2013 21:02:09
Will in Chicago on 01/10/2013 21:02:09
Hello, bloggers!! I hope that everyone is doing well.
Trojanrabbit, firsts are heard to deal with. I hope that the day becomes easier with time.
Raine, thanks for a great blog. I think that we have people who peddle fear and addict others to it like a drug. To many people see shadows everywhere. As for the history of the Second Amendment, I think it is only sound to conclude that the Founders did not set up the mechanisms to overthrow the government but rather to defend it. Indeed, militias played a key role in early U.S. history. However, individual gun owners can no more take on the U.S. army than I could take on a mountain with a sledge hammer.
In some bad news, my niece Emily Rose is in the hospital with a respiratory infection. Hopefully, she will be home soon.
Trojanrabbit, firsts are heard to deal with. I hope that the day becomes easier with time.
Raine, thanks for a great blog. I think that we have people who peddle fear and addict others to it like a drug. To many people see shadows everywhere. As for the history of the Second Amendment, I think it is only sound to conclude that the Founders did not set up the mechanisms to overthrow the government but rather to defend it. Indeed, militias played a key role in early U.S. history. However, individual gun owners can no more take on the U.S. army than I could take on a mountain with a sledge hammer.
In some bad news, my niece Emily Rose is in the hospital with a respiratory infection. Hopefully, she will be home soon.
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 22:05:59
Raine on 01/10/2013 22:05:59
Oh Will, I am so sorry to read this news about your niece.
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 22:13:31
That kid has no luck, does she?
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 22:13:31
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Hello, bloggers!! I hope that everyone is doing well.
Trojanrabbit, firsts are heard to deal with. I hope that the day becomes easier with time.
Raine, thanks for a great blog. I think that we have people who peddle fear and addict others to it like a drug. To many people see shadows everywhere. As for the history of the Second Amendment, I think it is only sound to conclude that the Founders did not set up the mechanisms to overthrow the government but rather to defend it. Indeed, militias played a key role in early U.S. history. However, individual gun owners can no more take on the U.S. army than I could take on a mountain with a sledge hammer.
In some bad news, my niece Emily Rose is in the hospital with a respiratory infection. Hopefully, she will be home soon.
That kid has no luck, does she?
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 22:37:08
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 22:37:08
Well well, Markos Moulitses finally accepted my friend request on FB! I sent that so long ago I forgotten about it.
Comment by Raine on 01/10/2013 22:48:47
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"
Except when it doesn't... like today.
Raine on 01/10/2013 22:48:47
Quote by Scoopster:
......................................
Another school shooting, in California.
Except when it doesn't... like today.
Comment by Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 23:14:00
You mean Never, ever will work! I almost had a stroke this morning yelling at my radio when NPR dropped that sound bite into a gun control commission story.
Mondobubba on 01/10/2013 23:14:00
Quote by Raine:"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"Quote by Scoopster:
......................................
Another school shooting, in California.
Except when it doesn't... like today.
You mean Never, ever will work! I almost had a stroke this morning yelling at my radio when NPR dropped that sound bite into a gun control commission story.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 01/11/2013 04:29:46
It seems that Emily's only luck is bouncing back from illness but part of me is stunned that she has been through so much. My hope is that things get better on a permanent basis soon.
In the good news I do have an interview in the morning.
Will in Chicago on 01/11/2013 04:29:46
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Will in Chicago:
Hello, bloggers!! I hope that everyone is doing well.
Trojanrabbit, firsts are heard to deal with. I hope that the day becomes easier with time.
Raine, thanks for a great blog. I think that we have people who peddle fear and addict others to it like a drug. To many people see shadows everywhere. As for the history of the Second Amendment, I think it is only sound to conclude that the Founders did not set up the mechanisms to overthrow the government but rather to defend it. Indeed, militias played a key role in early U.S. history. However, individual gun owners can no more take on the U.S. army than I could take on a mountain with a sledge hammer.
In some bad news, my niece Emily Rose is in the hospital with a respiratory infection. Hopefully, she will be home soon.
That kid has no luck, does she?
It seems that Emily's only luck is bouncing back from illness but part of me is stunned that she has been through so much. My hope is that things get better on a permanent basis soon.
In the good news I do have an interview in the morning.