Woodstock CT Café

From Con

I simply meant that the term “pro-abortion” is a phrase concocted and manufactured by what I consider the more hostile and extremist side (to TPOV) – (again, nothing without qualifiers: not all are hostile or extremist) and from the moment I heard it, my natural reaction and interpretation was disgust and revulsion – this was outside of my control because it was simply my natural reaction without thought or consideration.

But I believe it was created with a lot of thought regarding which possible short phrase could the sound most abhorrent and repulsive; that’s how it’s always sounded to me.

‘Pro-Death Penalty’ means you support an established form of the most serious of all punishments and only when all Constitutional rights and full Due Process has been fully satisfied and it is flat-out ‘warranted’ by a heinous crime. It surely does NOT mean that you love to have as many human beings possible put to death while acting as part of an underlying organization, as an actual participant or as part of a system doing so.

Of course we can discuss forever that the innocent to which you allude has been afforded zero rights, Due Process, etc., but that’s not what you asked about. From the moment I heard the term “pro-abortion” I instantly made the above interpretation and I believe I’m not the only one. I also believe it’s part-and-parcel of an intelligent and manipulative attempt at creating the most division in the starkest possible manner.

I have always heard the term “pro-abortion” as a repulsive, manufactured description of a group who just loves abortions, cannot get enough of them, wishes there were more and more! That they believes that the more abortions the better.

I have never interpreted that revolting phrase in any other way and I believe that is how it’s meant to be interpreted by those who manufactured it with professional-level ‘PR Campaign’ whose work is to define in the worst possible way their perceived opponents. Does ANY group truly advocate for more and more abortions – that feels there cannot be enough of them!

Subjectively, of course, this is how I have always interpreted this phrase and I cannot control that. Obviously you do not, which is kind of heartening to hear and I’m glad to disagree when your POV is so much more positive than my own and I do respect your POV and opinions. Read the rest of this entry »

From John (Presidential IQs have been corrected)

According to the respected Multiple Intelligences Theory pioneered by Harvard professor Howard Gardner, there are a variety of intrinsic approaches and skills we use to perceive, understand, and shape our world – in other words, several different kinds of intelligence. We each possess different intelligences, or different combinations of them, that affect how we learn.

1. Linguistic Intelligence – the gift of words. Linguistically intelligent people best understand the world through the spoken and written word.

2. Visual/Spatial Intelligence – the gift of pictures. Visually intelligent people best understand the world through visualization and spatial orientation.

3. Musical — The gift of music. Musically intelligent people best understand the world through rhythm and melody.

4. Bodily Kinesthetic Intelligence – the gift of body. Physically intelligent people best understand the world through physicality

5. Logical/Mathematical – the gift of logic and numbers. Mathematically and Logically intelligent people best understand the world through cause and effect.

6. Interpersonal Intelligence – the gift of people. Socially intelligent people best understand the world through the eyes of others.

7. Intrapersonal — the gift of self. Intrapersonally intelligent people best understand the world from their unique point of view.

8. Naturalist Intelligence — the gift of nature. Environmentally intelligent people best understand the world through their own environment.

The Presidents’ IQs from the Simonton study (I didn’t work hard enough. Thanks TPOV). Click to enlarge. These IQs are listed by President in descending order from left to right:

From Diane

Not even two days had elapsed since the Boston Marathon bombings before the wing nuts were out in full force.

On the Left:
“Exactly, same as 9/11, a set up to impose the will of the fascist state over us even more.”
“We also know that there were bomb sniffing dogs at the marathon yet the crowds were not evacuated.”
“Who benefits? The gun lobby, the extreme right wing elements of the government…”
“Yes, a good setup to increase military law in the US.”
“…would not be surprised to learn it was a white anti govt group that did this… fascist rightwing anti guv who blame all things on Obama.”
“Setting off bombs at a crowded event is terrorism no matter who is responsible!”
“I just hope they don’t try to whitewash the word for what it truly is, if they find out American conservatives were behind this.”
“This bears ALL of the signs of being WHITE REPUBLICAN PARTY TERRORISM.”
“…we shouldn’t necessarily jump to the conclusion that the government was behind this, when the targets of this attack fall right in line with the targets of other well known attacks by American conservatives.”
“Of cource they will point at muslims but will forget all about christain nut jobs.”
“Or it could be a “false flag” to go along with the hyped up fear mongering about North Korea to make sure the bloated military budget doesn’t get cut.”
“…there was a memorial to the Sandy Hook children…” “Yet another right-wing REPUBLICAN target of hatred.”

On the Right:
“Only this time we have a lying, murderous Communist-Muslim president, with Benghazi blood on his hands, falsely boasting about some justice to come.”
“The Boston Bombing Is An Inside Job — Evidence!”
“kill all Muslims in response to Boston attack”
“Obama and his satanic socialist administration is pure evil!! Wouldn’t be surprised if he himself had it done.”
“They won’t find the “bombers” because it was their own communist bombers.”
“This will give the ; king ‘ , hussein ‘ , more reason , to justify Martial Law.”
“You mark my words that this will be pinned on gun rights advocates by the liberal media and their mouthpieces.”
“Liberals murder hundreds of thousands of babies EVERY year… Do you think killing several and wounding/maiming a few dozen would keep them up at night?”
“If this thing dies it will be because the guy that did it is a muslim who crossed the border illegally from mexico…”
“Personally I think it was a obama supporter.”
“There was a “tweet” about “bomb drills” like the military drills before 911, 7/7, and Newtown.”

From John

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 715 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Statement of Purpose: To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.

From Libdem

Actually, Mr. Jenkins, I respect and appreciate that reasoning for voting against gun control regulation, but that’s not what Mike Alberts said.

Further, please consider this thought: While an elected representative needs to weigh heavily on the expressed desires of his/her supporting constituency, they also have a responsibility to lead. Having greater access to more balanced information than the public, elected officials have an obligation to protect their districts by considering the greater good and not just their personal political capital. Leadership means taking a personal stand even when it runs against your constituency. If it is tied to a sincere pragmatic explanation, people will respect a leader for this in the long run.

Mike Alberts is extremely popular and respected enough to take a leadership role in politics. He has the political capital to go against the republican grain and go with what makes sense. If he truly believed that the greater good was served in voting against gun regulation, then he did a poor job at explaining why. Simply pointing out minor flaws in the legislation and using them to scapegoat his way out tells me one of two things things. Either he doesn’t have an opinion or he is too afraid to state it. I don’t believe the former to be true, yet I don’t understand why the latter.

From John

means that the real reason they voted NO was that they wanted support from the Gun/NRA lobby for their re-election.

Melissa Ziobron [R; East Haddam] “It won’t stop evil people from doing evil things or criminals from committing crimes.”;-) And Daniel Rovero [D; Thompson] voted NO and said “I think we should have had a couple of days of public hearings”… “But it was all in one bill, and I couldn’t vote for it” … “I don’t think it’s going to have any effect on gun violence,” Rovero said .

[Mister Rovero and Ms. Ziobron, perhaps we should revoke the laws on (w)reckless driving, human trafficking, rape, homicide, robbery, extortion, sexual abuse; in fact, why not revoke all criminal laws because they don’t seem to prevent these crimes.]

Tony Guglielmo [R; Stafford] voted NO in part because “There is an economic component to this. Connecticut has a huge industry that produces fire arms and ammunitions. We have pride for our history in the firearms industry. We dedicated state money to make the Colt Complex in Hartford an historic landmark. There are 5,000 jobs in our state concentrated in the firearm industry .

[So Mister Guglielmo, it's all about the money. Isn't this what the partnership between the NRA and the firearm manufacturers is all about through funding and lobbying. Maybe we should arrange for more wars to spur further job growth.]

Linda Orange [D; Mansfield] voted NO because “I have learned over my lifetime that when dealing with an issue, it is best to separate emotion from the actual problem. Personally, I was disappointed to see a bill that exempts drug and alcohol from the 6-month look-back for voluntary commitments. The new law stops short of fully addressing important mental health issues.”

[So Ms. Orange, because of the 6-month look back exemption, the bill deserved a NO. Mental Health issues can be addressed on a wider scope, can't they. ]

Tim Ackart [R; Vernon] voted NO and said “While the bi-partisan task force on gun violence and school safety held many public hearings on the issue, the public was denied the opportunity to speak on the specific language in this bill – and that’s wrong.” “We also have to consider the number of jobs that are at stake with this legislation being enacted,” said Ackert. “Our state has a long history of gun manufacturing, and this bill sends a bad signal to the manufacturers that have provided our state with great paying jobs for decades.”

[Mister Ackart, you were elected to write the "specific language" not members of the NRA. For you, like Tony, it's all about the money, huh.]

 [Chris Davis [R; Ellington] doesn’t explain his NO but it seems obvious that he is in Tony’s pocket since they give joint town meetings.]

Penny Bacchiochi [R; Somers] voted NO citing the increased number of banned weapons as one of the reasons behind her vote.

[Penny has her sights on the office of the Lieutenant Governor for the fall 2014 ticket and does not want to lose the support of the NRA/gun lobby and their funding.]

The following is the only statement Mike Alberts [R; Woodstock] personally makes on his NO vote:

“During the debate on the floor of the house, Rep. Alberts discovered a potential flaw in the legislative proposal pertaining to the permit process.”
“Under the bill’s current language, there appears to be a significant issue regarding the permit process,” said Rep. Alberts. “Under current law, an individual has 60 days to apply for his or her full permit with the Department of Public Safety after receiving the temporary permit from the municipality. Currently, if a person fails to apply for their full permit with the Department of Public Safety after 60 days, it is required for that person to start the permit process over again– a procedure that normally takes 6-8 weeks. Under this legislation, if a person fails to apply to the Department of Public Safety after 60 days, that person would need to wait a year before he or she can reapply for their temporary permit again. My concern is that it’s very easy for a temporary permit to be lost and misplaced; in cases such as this, under this legislation, that person may need to wait a year to apply for his or her permit again, rather than immediately reapplying for their temporary permit. This is an issue that needs to be clarified.”

[Two wrongs in so short of an explanation is rather unusual. I bet these persons Mike is talking about are rather irresponsible gun owners and may have other issues with playing by the rules with other items as well. First, they get a Temporary Permit from the Licensing Office in their town or city. Then they allow it to expire since they are not that enthusiastic about following through in the first place. For some unexplained reason, this temporary permit ends up being forgotten and possibly ends up lost and now, they have amnesia as they "forgot" why they got the permit in the first place. I strongly, strongly recommend that these people forget about owning a gun for a year or more so that they can mature and evolve as grown-ups and perhaps gather some sense of responsibility.]

From Kevin

The second amendment was written under the context of gun owners (i.e. adult males) being members of local militias. These organizations had several responsibilities associated with them and were controlled by local governments. One such responsibility was to show up for drill and be trained in the use of the weapon you possessed. Another responsibility was to purchase, with your own funds, the weapons and adequate powder and ammunition. On more than one occasion my ancestors were fined for not having the required amount of dry powder on hand. Of course, these organizations and their control/responsibility/regulation around gun ownership do not exist anymore which puts the second amendment in a different position than when it was written.

If you listen to a lot of the proponents of no control around weapon ownership, they like to pretend that when the second amendment was written that there was this right to individual ownership of guns and no civic responsibilities or dues came with it. But that myth was not the reality of the situation. You were required to pay for weapon ownership, you were required to spend your own time drilling and training in their use, it was not only a right but part of a civic responsibility. The second amendment was not written so people could own some toys.

Yes one of the reasons to have these militias was to fend off foreign powers; others were protection of local towns from Native American attacks and slave revolts. Of course now we have a standing army, no Native American threat and certainly no problem with an impending slave revolt. The reasons for those local militias had evaporated, by the end of the 19th century the militias were gone along with the original context of the second amendment. It’s fair to say the rights of gun owners still exist and it is also fair to discuss what the responsibilities of gun owners are too now that the militia system no longer exists.

This reminds me that not only does our government and community have a responsibility to us, we have a responsibility to them. Civic duty is important and it was the foundation that the second amendment was created upon. It pains me to see people put so much stock on what the responsibility their communities have to them and so little stock in what responsibilities they have to their communities. If this attitude had existed several hundred years ago and individual guns owners did whatever they wanted, first, we would have been wiped out by the Native Americans. If they didn’t get us the French would have. By the time the Revolution rolled around our irregulars would not have even had the benefit of local training and that would have gone very poorly for us too. This right was always strongly tempered by a commitment and responsibility to the community and that meant personal sacrifice to achieve that by the very people who were expected to own those arms the second amendment protected.

Yes this new law was flawed, just like most will be. Why? Because very few people acknowledge, much less approach, such legislation from the perspective of, “What responsibilities do gun owners have to their communities?” Instead we approach it from the myth that there was an unfettered right to individual ownership. When we can start the discussion with an acknowledgement that the second amendment also contained responsibilities and we can think about what those responsibilities might be in the current context then we might have something.

Thanks, Kevin

From Chairman Charles (you guessed it) Super

From Dave

I see that the US medical community has been taken over by greed. How lucrative it must be to control the flow of medical care and pharmaceuticals! These industries set their own prices, almost without any form of logic applied to the costs of everything from tongue depressors to cancer treatments. Most citizens cannot afford even a basic level of care without the government paying for most, if not all, of the cost. There are many alternatives to our current system, but the one that would provide the most relief is cast aside as “socialism” by those politicians who support the greedy corporations that depend on this form of corporate welfare. I believe these corporations, HMO’s and hospitals, realize that the huge money river would slow to a reasonable stream should their operations come under government control and regulation.

Our government was forced to control and regulate each and every major industry that has grown beyond their own abilities to charge reasonable and fair prices. From oil and steel, to computers and telecommunications. Even Microsoft, that forced competitors to bow to its will with market dominance through illegal contracts, was charged and tried and brought under some small measure of control by federal regulators. Can you imagine a world without Macs? Microsoft sure could. Each industry that’s become too large and powerful in the past has been federally-regulated in order to prevent either outright illegal and immoral behavior, or just to give the US consumer minimal protection (keyword being “minimal”).

We, the people, most certainly must bring the healthcare industry under this same type of corporate control and regulation. When the federal government failed to reign-in the banking industry, the entire world economy nearly collapsed. Those same banking industry watchdogs are still in power, still telling the federal government not to prosecute, as though the banking community were made up of some sort of untouchable group of kings. This fear of regulation is the main reason so much US tax revenue disappears into thin air, untraceable. We must accept that our own government is corrupt to the core, as corrupt as any Iraq, or Pakistan, or Iran, as corrupt as any Mexico or Brazil or Nicaragua.

And are we, the people, supposed to bring our own government under control? How can we possibly flush out the corruption from our own government in order to stop corporations from continuing their rule of economic oppression and price gouging? Are we seriously expected to ask our own congressional politicians to stop doing the wrong things and start doing the right things? Does anyone seriously believe that Bonehead Boehner and Mitch (filibusters his own bill) McConnell would ever acknowledge themselves as the corporate puppets they know they are? Bonehead’s only there due to gerrymandering – their puppet masters are the wealthy, corporate-connected, the very people who benefit the most from offshore investment income and from shoveling in huge profits (corporate welfare profits) from the federal government that is forced to pay outrageous prices and fees due to a lack of any regulation. Of course they want to prevent regulation and they very much want to prevent the closing of tax loopholes that “legally” allow them and their wealthy buddies to make millions without any tax responsibilities. These and their equally-evil corporate cohorts are the true cowards of our nation. Read the rest of this entry »

This is just for the Army- not the Navy and Air Force – due to the sequester which is being enforced by the Republicans in Congress.

The National Journal has been compiling vote ratings for three decades based on selected roll-call votes to see how lawmakers compare with each other on an ideological scale.

Ranking of Conservative and Liberal Senators in 2010. The article discussing 2012 is here . See the Senators’ rankings on the next page. Read the rest of this entry »

From Mary Mapes

Like every discussion, libdem has no idea what she is talking about, not a clue.

Soldiers on military bases are only armed with weapons and ammunition at the firing range. You can ask anybody that has ever served. Many will relate stories of guarding important places with their rifles, but no ammunition. That is how the Marine baracks was attacked in 1983.

As for those who tragically perish from guns, we do know from many studies that guns prevent over 2.5 million crimes a year.

I do not think libdem is smart enough to know she is using Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals rule #13 “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.” It is pretty easy to follow the communists in this country from occupy to our local communists because they follow the blueprint of Alinsky to the letter.

The problem here is the people are responding; guns across the nation are sold out, bullet shelves are bought clean, the N.R.A. has over 300,000 new members and even Democrats in the Senate refuse to discuss the commie gun grab bills.

Yes, in CT, there will be a lot of new laws that are unconstitutional and will be quickly challenged.

The hypocrisy of you commies again is funny; you desire to take the abilty of people to defend themselves and you give F-16s and Abrahms tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood. You scream outrage and bloody murder over Bush’s use of pouring water up the noses of 3 terrorists and Obama puts out an executive order to kill Americans without trial or consent of Congress.

As funny as it is to listen to you commies when you’re out of power, it is far more enjoyable to listen to you useful idiots when you are in power. It won’t be long until you screw everything up with your stupid ideas. Communism doesn’t work, never worked, and never will work. The only problem with trying it again is that every time commies try, millions end up being slaughtered.

Libdem, please get a clue and maybe try to research something before you write your foolish thoughts for all to see. Your handlers would have to object that you are not being of much use as an idiot to the cause.

From John

Yesterday at 3:30 PM at a shooting range in central Texas a man killed two other men with a gun. The two other men were armed. In fact, one of the men killed was the number one sniper for the Navy Seals with over 150 kills in the service of our country. How does this speak to the NRA’s contention that all people should be armed to secure their own defense?

From John

This is for the NRA and rightwing conservatives who justify their need to have military style guns to defend themselves against the United States of America.

Federalist # 74 HERE: “The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive.”
From the New York Packet
Tuesday, March 25, 1788.

Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:

“THE President of the United States is to be ‘commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States.’ The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority…”

Federalist # 25 found HERE: “The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered”
From the New York Packet.
Friday, December 21, 1787.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

“IT MAY perhaps be urged that the objects enumerated in the preceding number ought to be provided for by the State governments, under the direction of the Union. But this would be, in reality, an inversion of the primary principle of our political association, as it would in practice transfer the care of the common defense from the federal head to the individual members: a project oppressive to some States, dangerous to all, and baneful to the Confederacy (of the States).”

…

“Here I expect we shall be told that the militia of the country is its natural bulwark, and would be at all times equal to the national defense. This doctrine, in substance, had like to have lost us our independence. It cost millions to the United States that might have been saved. The facts which, from our own experience, forbid a reliance of this kind, are too recent to permit us to be the dupes of such a suggestion. The steady operations of war against a regular and disciplined army can only be successfully conducted by a force of the same kind. Considerations of economy, not less than of stability and vigor, confirm this position. The American militia, in the course of the late war, have, by their valor on numerous occasions, erected eternal monuments to their fame; but the bravest of them feel and know that the liberty of their country could not have been established by their efforts alone, however great and valuable they were. War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perserverance, by time, and by practice.

All violent policy, as it is contrary to the natural and experienced course of human affairs, defeats itself. Pennsylvania, at this instant, affords an example of the truth of this remark. The Bill of Rights of that State declares that standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up in time of peace. Pennsylvania, nevertheless, in a time of profound peace, from the existence of partial disorders in one or two of her counties, has resolved to raise a body of troops; and in all probability will keep them up as long as there is any appearance of danger to the public peace. The conduct of Massachusetts affords a lesson on the same subject, though on different ground. That State (without waiting for the sanction of Congress, as the articles of the Confederation require) was compelled to raise troops to quell a domestic insurrection, and still keeps a corps in pay to prevent a revival of the spirit of revolt. The particular constitution of Massachusetts opposed no obstacle to the measure; but the instance is still of use to instruct us that cases are likely to occur under our government, as well as under those of other nations, which will sometimes render a military force in time of peace essential to the security of the society, and that it is therefore improper in this respect to control the legislative discretion. It also teaches us, in its application to the United States, how little the rights of a feeble government are likely to be respected (talking about the Confederation od states before the formation of the Union under the Constitution), even by its own constituents. And it teaches us, in addition to the rest, how unequal parchment provisions are to a struggle with public necessity.”

From John

Since Thursday of  last week after hearing some nonsense spoken by politicians on the radio, I realized that in order to filter the claims of politicians about what the Constitution says, we need to understand the contextual environment of the framers of the Constitution as they put together the government that we now have. So this morning I continued on in reading Federalist Papers. I read Federalist blog #15 HERE written by Alexander Hamilton in the fall of 1787. While reading this paper, I realized that I needed to refresh my memory about the sequence of events from 1776 through to the early 19th century in order to understand what Hamilton and his Publius colleagues were talking about in the Federalist papers. I guess if I had been schooled at the Academy in recent decades, I would have known this history. It seems very important to understand this history in order to evaluate what politicians are saying and advocating today, especially when they invoke the founding fathers and the right to bear military style weapons. Federalist blog #15 says nothing about the right to bear arms but I have only read about 20 of the papers. Many that I haven’t read are talking about the structure of the three branches of our federal government so I doubt that the right to bear arms is even mentioned in these.

The Federalist papers were published from around September1787 up to April 1788. The significance this timing was that the United States of America was not yet a union. The Constitution was adopted by 11 of the 13 (later all 13) states and went into effect a year later on March 4, 1789. Up until that time the 13 states co-existed as a loosely organized confederacy under the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” ratified in 1777 by the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Under this document unifying the thirteen states was like herding cats.

This is the map of the thirteen states in the 1780s (click to enlarge). This is the sliver of what is now the United States of America that revolted against the British Empire with George Washington’s leadership, and won the war for our freedom. But the loose collection of states in the confederacy was basically broke. As an example, there was no unity over issues nor money to pay the ransom for the sailors and ships taken captive by the Barbary Pirates.

After the Constitution - which spelled out the structure of the Union of the 13 states - took effect in March 1789, we for the first time had a Congress composed of the House of Representatives whose members for each state were proportional to the relative population of each state, and a Senate in which each state was represented equally by two Senators regardless of size and population. This is the body of government that has formulated all of the laws of the United States ever since 1789. Having these two houses in Congress came from a proposal known as the “Connecticut Compromise.” In 1791, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, were added and, after that, 17 additional amendments were added all ratified by at least 3/4 of the states as required.

Federalist #15 opined about the weakness of the Confederacy in promoting the importance of forming a well-structured Union backed by a Constitution that could raise money, and negotiate treaties and trade agreements, while at the same time having the authority to assemble and fund a navy and army if there was an impending threat from Spain, France, Britain, Indian nations to the west, and later Mexico to the southwest. 

One of the first big deals of the Union was the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. By this time, the United States functioning under the Constitution was able raise the money to purchase this large landmass from France for $11,250,000 and cancelled debt of $3,750,000. France needed the money because of their Napolianic war with Britain. There was no provision for purchasing territories in the Constitution but the presidency was by that time was strong, so Jefferson just did it with the approval of Congress.

I had forgotten the details of the territorial acquistions that took place in the next 50 years leading up to Lincoln and the Civil War. Click to enlarge the map of these acquisitions and the list of the first four presidents of the United States. This growth would not have been possible under the Confederacy. Imagine a United States that didn’t own the Mississippi River or all the land west of the river.

So far, in reading the Federalist papers, I have not stumbled on to any discussion of the right to bear arms. The closest discussion I have found is the designation of the role of the legislature for organizing and funding the military.