Comments for American Reality

Comment on America Needs to Outlaw Smoking! by Leroy Jordan

Leroy Jordan — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:40:43 +0000

I hate the smell of cigarettes. We should have to the right to kill anyone that lights up a cigarette nears us. Smoking should be outlawed.

Comment on Are Escort Services for Women a Sign of Progress? by the-free-energy-com

the-free-energy-com — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:31:28 +0000

Hey, that�s somekind of contribution and it sounds interesting. I only use email for my business communication and I use Outlook as my email client with the help of Email Sorter Wizard(an Outlook add-on) because I can get all my email filed. Fortunately I read your wisdom that sent to me by my friend, nicely done.

Comment on Uninformed Red State Voters are Screwing Themselves by Jonathan Simeone

Jonathan Simeone — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:03:09 +0000

Ian, A question for another day is why do so many red state voters believe in small government when they need government so much? Every time they scream for a tax cut they lose the most.

Comment on Uninformed Red State Voters are Screwing Themselves by Ian

Ian — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:45:42 +0000

Excellent post. The facts speak for themselves.

Comment on The People of Kashmir Should Be Able to Determine Their Own Destiny by Sana

Sana — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:02:23 +0000

A new book by a former US diplomat calls for an effective role by the US in resolving the Kashmir issue.
“I believe that the Obama administration ought to look for opportunities to play a helpful role on Kashmir,“ says Howard B Schaffer author of ‘The Limits of Influence: America’s Role in Kashmir.’ The book has been published by the influential US think-tank, the Brookings Institution. ought “What’s important is that the Obama administration has to be on the look-out for opportunities, and whatever role it does play will have to be very low-key,” says Schaffer.
“I also think – and this is very important – that the basic outline of a settlement on Kashmir now seems in view,” he said.
Schaffer, currently deputy director and director of studies of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University’s Edmund A Walsh School of Foreign Service, is a 36-year veteran of the US Foreign Service and has served as ambassador to Bangladesh (1984 to 1987), and as political counsellor in India (1977 to 1979) and Pakistan (1974 to 1977).
According to the author, ‘The Limits of US influence’ spell out what America’s role has been including that in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s when the US really sought to project it towards a development of a settlement in Kashmir. But it was limited and unsuccessful.
Later, US efforts were focused not on developing a framework for settlement on Kashmir – as they had been under Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy – but rather towards what you could call crisis management. “That is, we tried to calm down the situation when developments connected with Kashmir led the two parties into a critical confrontation,” said Schaffer.
According to Schaffer, the elements of the Kashmir settlement as spelled out in his book include: One is that the ceasefire line or the Line of Control (LoC) should become the international boundary, with minor adjustments perhaps, acceptable to the two sides. Secondly, that there be a considerable degree of autonomy for both sides of Kashmir.
And third, that there be free movement or easy movement of goods and people from one side of the divided state to the other. “What you need to do is to fill in the details, to flesh out the settlement, which will also have to include a considerable degree of demilitarization on both sides of Kashmir. And finally, I would like to see the development of some All Kashmir institutions, which can deal with non-controversial issues, such as say, tourism or electric power generation.”
Obama, according to Schaffer, should proceed on Kashmir the way he told Joe Klein of Time magazine during the campaign trail. “Sure, he (Obama) makes some good arguments as to why India should want to be rid of this problem to focus on development, and why Pakistan should want to be rid of it in order to focus on the problems on the Afghanistan side. And that’s the way Obama should proceed on the Kashmir issue,” he said.
A settlement on Kashmir, according to Schaffer could be worked out only if there are strong governments in both countries (India and Pakistan). “And when the two countries come closer to a settlement, it is at the point, I think, that the United States might – and I stress might – be of some help in getting the two sides across that elusive finish line on
Kashmir they’ve never been able to cross on their own.”
According to Schaffer there would be greater concessions to be made by Pakistan than by India, which after all will keep the Kashmir valley – which has always been the crux of the issue. Nonetheless, there will be some concessions that India would have to make – on the autonomy issue for example.
Schaffer considers independence for Kashmir as unworkable, unthinkable, an idea that, according to him, will never be accepted by any Indian government no matter how strong. “I have said in the book, and I believe there are many Indian commentators who agree with me, that if they had a choice, the Muslims of the Kashmir valley would vote in favour of independence. But they are not going to have that choice.”
According to Schaffer, during his visits to India, he had talked to senior Indian officials about this call on Musharraf’s self-government proposal, “and the answer we got from some of them was yes, self-government is fine – all Indian states enjoy self-government, so why would we object to Kashmir having similar self-government?”
“But that, of course, is not what I see as the basis for a settlement. There would have to be a much greater degree of autonomy – and this would apply both to Indian and the Pakistani side – than is afforded to Indian states. And to make the settlement acceptable, you would have to develop ironclad guarantees that this autonomy will not erode over time. You have to do that because the experience in Kashmir suggests that Indian governments can slowly erode that autonomy. So, such guarantees have to be worked out.”

Comment on Hey Idiots Terrorists are Already in American Prisons by Jonathan Simeone

Jonathan Simeone — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:11:53 +0000

Obviously, are “justice” system is broken and has reached many terrible results. But in almost all of those instances the bad result has either benefited the prosecution or the wealthy and/or famous defendant. There has been no instance of a high-profile terrorist walking on a technicality. There is no way the government will ever let these guys go. They will hold back some of the charges they could press just in case they get a not guilty verdict. That way, they will be able to charge them with something else and keep them locked up. Why would anyone want to let these people go? Obama’s presidency is over if the government does not get the verdict it needs in this case. There is no way these guys are going free. Your arguments simply do not make sense. You have been scared into believing in a possibility that will never happen.

Comment on Hey Idiots Terrorists are Already in American Prisons by jonolan

jonolan — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:02:55 +0000

jonathan,

You’re obviously being willingly blind in this is matter. What you say hasn’t happened has, in fact, happened thousands and thousands of times. Criminals are regularly released because the rules imposed upon civilian law enforcement and prosecution weren’t followed to the letter.

Do you really believe that it will be different this time?

Comment on Gun Owners Should be Forced Into the National Guard by worldwar1letters

worldwar1letters — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:03:14 +0000

It’s not a matter of “feeling” but of historical context and understanding. Much is not specifically said in the language of the Constitution itself because it did not need to be: It was clearly understood that all able-bodied men were both suitably armed and positioned to defend their own liberties which were God-given rather than bestowed by Government.

You also obliquely avoided a further discussion of the true meaning of the “militia,” which I find both telling and predictable but also neither scholarly nor historically authentic: It was never a debate among the Founders about whether individuals would be “permitted” to own firearms.

Also, why no response to my mention of the continued existence of the CMP? Clearly this does not exist as a bizarre phenomenon in a vacuum, although no doubt a hideous anachronism to those instinctively in favor of “gun control.” Consider the horror of it: The U.S. government actually continues to encourage civilians to develop and demonstrate their personal excellence in marksmanship, upon which they are qualified to purchase semi-automatic military rifles at extreme discounts. My guess is that you have no idea what I’m talking about, therefore you choose to ignore it since it does not jive with your frame of reference. That’s OK, I don’t have any expectations otherwise.

Very amusing that you want to take on all comers and then fence with them semantically while ignoring the historical applications. Also, why no humor about “bearing” arms? Would have though at least a chuckle would have been in order, but methinks you are too earnest about all this.

Comment on Gun Owners Should be Forced Into the National Guard by Jonathan Simeone

Jonathan Simeone — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:28:12 +0000

By discussing documents besides the Constitution you are not giving a strict evaluation of the Constitution’s language. That’s OK if that’s how you feel, because I think strict constructionists are crazy. It seems as if, taken on its face, the Second Amendment means exactly what I have said it means. But for the sake of argument I will discuss your contribution to this discussion.

It is true that many documents that impacted the views of the framers contained a stronger right to bear arms than does the Constitution. Several states, in fact, legally demanded that all men own and maintain guns. But that evidence only strengthens my argument. James Madison’s original proposal for the Bill Of Rights strongly linked gun ownership to the individual–not the militia by reversing the order of the clauses from what we now know to be the Second Amendment. Madison’s rejected proposal even added a section that said no gun owner could be forced to serve in a militia. That language was struck from the final version of the Second Amendment. So, it is possible to conclude that the framers would have supported the notion I am proposing.

Comment on Gun Owners Should be Forced Into the National Guard by worldwar1letters

worldwar1letters — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:06:00 +0000

A proper reading of both the source documents and other contemporary writings of the framers of the Constitution shows that the “militia” includes all able bodied males. The difference is between the “organized” militia which originated as state-based military organizations and ultimately was incorporated into the National Guard framework in the early 20th Century, and the “unorganized” militia which consisted of all male citizens not formally enrolled who were still expected to maintain their personal arms and proficiency therewith. This is one reason why the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) is still sponsored by the Department of Defense today, and actually supplies surplus military arms to civilians who participate in the qualifying program. The argument that the Second Amendment only pertains to the organized militia betrays a complete historical misunderstanding supported by an apriori bias against the personal ownership of firearms. The matter of whether firearms ownership can be “regulated” by the government in a constitutional manner is a secondary argument which is usually an either/or red herring: either you let me own a rocket launcher or you aren’t abiding by the Second Amendment.