On guns, religion, and more....

I find it interesting that some assert their 2nd amendment right essentially is more important than anything else contained in the constitution.  And that "arms" refers to any/every thing that shoots bullets.

In the 1920s, our congress saw the use of machine guns as bad, and decided to restrict their sale to protect the citizens. But gun manufacturers figured out that by calling them "assault rifles" and making them "semi" automatic, they could essentially get around the law.  And then, others figured out that you could sell a kit that converted them to automatic, essentially skirting the law.  Aside: the word "assault" appears in the name.  What could it possibly be used for?

And this congress does nothing because "arms" means whatever you want.

The framers of the constitution had no idea what the future held for weaponry. A musket, like they had at the time, took anywhere from 20 seconds to a minute to load a single shot (depending on which type they were using and the the training of the person using it), and they were not mass produced in a factory - so only some people had them and they were mostly used to maintain order, frequently by slave owners.

And don't forget that they were wildly inaccurate. https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/the-inaccuracy-of-muskets/

So yes, the right to keep and bear arms should extend to anything that was developed in the 18th century. Or how about to simpler devices that don't have the ability to kill dozens in a few seconds?

That's the funny thing about the constitution.  Like many older documents, it has some things that don't really fit into today's world.

Another oddity is the 3/5ths compromise.  Some will tell you it's about black people being considered less of a person than a white person.  And that's true, but it's not.  Essentially, for the purposes of establishing representation that's how they do the math.  Remember representation is based on the population.  So, if you owned 100 slaves, they would only count as 60 people for this purpose.  And then, if a representative is assigned for every 1,000 people, this would matter.

But this law has been tweaked through amendments, because that's how we evolve.

And then, as I've pointed out before, we have the "Christian nation" argument.  It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution.  And if the founders had tried to establish a religion, it would have been Anglican, because that's what most of them were - at least until it was time to pull away from the monarchy.

So in this case, we're interpreting the constitution to mean something it doesn't say.

My point is that it was written in a different time, and it serves as a good foundation, but it must be interpreted to be fully understood - so in one case. We take it literally, in another we misunderstand it but have amended it to make it clearer, and in the last we're assuming something that's not there.

I'm all for an amendment that clarifies what an "arm" is...

Sent from my iPad

If you think otherwise you're a loser.

#MakeAmericaSmartAgain make a simple DIY particle detector!

This is a tad unusual, Ivanka edition

I get it.  We all make friends with people we have something in common with, and sometimes outsiders can't figure out why we might have such and such friend. 

At some point, ivanka made friends with Wendi Deng, who was the wife of Rupert Murdoch, the mogul who owns Fox News. That's interesting in a way, but not particularly newsworthy. 

But Deng divorced Murdoch in 2013, and is rumored to be dating .... Vladimir Putin.  And she has allegedly given ivanka access to Putin, or at least putins office because there's an email that suggests she (ivanka) had a chance to sit in Putins chair.  Whether it's actually true or not, it's not something most of us would ever do, have access to, or think about. Under normal circumstances, this might be met with a shrug.  But under the circumstances we have today, it should be rightly scrutinized. 

But wait, there's more! Deng at some point introduced ivanka to another socialite friend, Dasha Zhukova.  She is the wife of Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich.  One person noted that "There's no oligarch among those still accepted in the West who's closer and more trusted by Putin than Abramovich."

Well, isn't that a remarkable coincidence?

There are photos of ivanka with dasha, of Jared and ivanka with the abramoviches at sporting events, and they have reportedly dined together. Again, nothing that unusual....except that in context it seems odd.  

Now they did disclose their relationship with abramovich on their federal forms, so in many ways there is "nothing to see here" .... except the company they are keeping appears to be closely tied to putin. And given the Russian influence, some of the timing, and the ongoing investigations, you kind of have to figure that there is more to this story.

These relationships can't be happenstance and unconnected to events we're hearing about. And el donaldo's recent (reported) rift with Jared, where he's saying that dear son-in-law led him to do things would lend credence to that.  Even if it's not connected, he's throwing shade to make it look like it's a possibility. 

You can read more about ivankas relationships here - 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-18/billionaire-ally-of-putin-socialized-with-kushner-ivanka-trump

Sent from my iPad

Kneeling and the NFL

I'll start the conservation here because it's relevant. Tim Tebow knelt *during* games, and he was either lauded or no one cared. He was calling attention to himself for his cause: religion.

Meanwhile, black players kneel *before* the game to draw attention to their cause: social justice.  And there is much discussion and public outcry on every side of the issue. At least in part because the man in the Oval Office is race baiting. 

So the NFL is trying to decide what to do about all of this.  The only thing that really matters here is public perception and (more importantly) money.

And then the underlying race issue rears its head in the ensuing discussions. Old, white owners say really stupid things to the black players. I won't say it was intentional, but certainly the roots of racism run deep, because they said things they wanted to say, but which are at the very core of the issue.  Saying they can't let the inmates run the prison is exactly what the kneeling players are protesting in general.  Sure, it's an expression, but wrong in the context. And then to even comment on race at all for the owners isn't right.

Should the NFL do something? That's within their control and, as the workplace, they can.  But they have to ban kneeling to promote a cause, including prayer, in its entirety. And find a way to keep,it from being the focal point of games.  

Players can and should protest in their own way.  But stop saying it's about patriotism. And let's have an honest discussion about racism.  Perhaps the NFL could create a forum to let players express themselves, and let them not come out for the anthem if they so choose. And because this has become a hot button issue, maybe the players need to find a new way to express their views. 

Dave’s take: Trump plans to release classified JFK documents

I see el donaldo wants to release all the JFK material. I suppose it's another attempt to distract and whatever.

And surely conspiracy theorists and some on the right will seize on excerpts to try and make some "deep state" linkage to try and tell us government is bad and to setup for the scenario that if trump face impeachment or removal then it's connected somehow.

That said, in spite of my interest in the assassination, I won't go through whatever is released.

I've waited this long. I can wait longer. The only focus should be on our hacked election and our incompetent fool in the Oval Office.

Once that's done, I'll have some reading to catch up on.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/21/politics/trump-jfk-documents/index.html

Still troubled

The ability to "micro target" and "influence voters" still troubles me. It's not so much that it happened because it probably did.

The question is about whether it helped sway the entire election.

I keep going back to the polling that was taking place. Near the end of September, the polls looked like this:
Clinton: 49%
Trump: 45%
Other: 3%
Undecided: 3%

Now to be fair, a month or so before, the undecided percentage was higher and looked something like this:
Clinton: 45%
Trump: 37%
Other: 9%
Undecided: 9%

So in essence, they each took some of the undecided and other voters.

But people are funny. Some of the ones who switched might have been single issue folks who could be swayed. But I can't see how it would be enough to swing the election, can you?

I doubt it. Especially since Clinton won the popular vote.

The more I consider it, look into it, and understand it, it seems much more likely that the effort required to affect the vote itself is much less than trying to influence voters and maybe get a result.

Think about the voter suppression efforts. The subtle attempts to change voting locations and times they were open for early voting. The mailers that went out that were intended to confuse voters. The ID requirements. The provisional ballots in some cases.

And then, of course, there is the VERY REAL prospect that votes were altered, or not counted properly.

Electronic voting is vulnerable, as unhackthevote.com and others have shown us.

Or maybe it was even simpler. We know that some election databases were hacked. To what aim? Whatever it is, it can't be good. Perhaps it was to target some voters so they would encounter issues and have to be provisional - and essentially uncounted.

Hopefully we'll know the truth one day. Our democracy depends on it. Let's simply go back to paper ballots and hand counting them until we find a better way.