Breaking News Events

[Rufusboi]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

That's not what Aj said. You're the only one in this conversation who has stated that we're talking about a majority of or most Americans. This reflects part of our opinion that facts matter in critical thinking, in that it appears to me that you're trying to critically think and present an argument based on something that wasn't said.

President Obama gave his first Oval Office speech on the Gulf disaster recently. 32 million people watched - roughly 10% of the US population. Of the other 90%, some are young children, at work, infirmed, etc. and clearly not capable of watching or clearly too young. What about everyone else? Are they already so informed that they had no need to watch or do they not care enough to bother? Even more disturbing, the largest audience for post-speech coverage watched O'Reilly on Faux Newz. 3.6 million - 10% of the viewers and 1% of the population (roughly) - people chose as their source of post-speech analysis the single worst place in all of television in which to get anything resembling either facts or critical analysis.

You're right. Dreadgeek did not say most. Dreadgeek asked how many people do we know who would check Google Earth and the CIA factbook and how many would look down their noses at those that did? These were rhetorical questions. The unstated response/belief behind that rhetorical question is....not many. The rhetorical question itself assumed that readers would agree. I just chose to point out that I didn't.

Unless Dreadgeek wants to correct my assumption and let me know that the question was literal and she wanted an actual number for how many people I personally know who would or would not scoff or who would or would not go to Google Earth and the CIA factbook. I can get those numbers but it might take a while. So I jumped in and answered the unstated assumption behind the rhetorical question and said Many. More than you give Americans credit for.

I happen to think more people would than would not. I mean, really, this is all we are arguing about. Opinions. Dreadgeek's opinion not so many, my opinion, more that you are willing to give credit for. Other than that I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. I'm debating a few points you make, that's all.

And based on the stats you used above about FOX I'm really happy that according to those stats only 10% of the viewers and only 1% of the population (where did you get those stats from? No link or citation was posted. ) tuned into Fox for post speech discussion.

So very tentitively based on those uncited stats whose credibility I have no way of checking because I don't know the source, I'll go out on a limb and say, America, I'm proud of ya for choosing not to click over to FOX News.

Perhaps, America, you found other sources of information that you think are more credible. Or, maybe you just went to bed. Or maybe you listened, thought about it, came to your own conclusions and chose not to tune into any of the post analysis opinions that clog the airwaves. Maybe you just watched a Seinfeld rerun.

And perhaps part of the 10% that did tune into Fox went there to see what the opposition was saying, then they jammed on over to MSNBC, then they hit the internet to check on their favorite blog sites, and so on because maybe they wanted to get a bigger view of all the various discussions because they didn't want to just be tied to one point of view or party line. Or maybe some of those 10% had FOX on because Uncle Walter was over for dinner and he refuses to watch anything but FOX, so to keep the family peace they just handed him the remote. We'll never know. All we have is that stat staring us in the face. Some will argue that stat is too high and proves x, y and z. Some might cheer, like me, and say yippee, only 1% of the population tuned into FOX's post analysis and this proves x, y and z.

And maybe stats don't tell us much after all.


Rufus

[MsDemeanor]

My apologies for not posting sources.

linkyloo

They watched basketball and murder fiction:

right after he was done, tens of millions of viewers switched off the analysts, and turned to NCIS repeats and the pre-game show of Game 6 of the NBA Finals championship series between the Lakers and the Celtics.

linkyloo

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Toughy

just in case Rufus was talking about Hilary Clinton......

In 1969 she was the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley. She later graduated from Yale Law School and became the first female partner at Rose Law Firm. During that time she was twice listed among the top 100 lawyers in this country.

Her time as first Lady is well known. She was elected to the Senate in 2000. She was the first viable woman candidate for POTUS. Obama selected her as his Secretary of State.

Hilary ain't no slouch in the brains department.

Palin on the other hand could not think her way out of a paper bag.

She sure as hell isn't! And taken some horrible abuse from the media and the right wing-nut wagon of crazies! The woman has worked on behalf of so many for damn long time. She has earned the respect of many on both sides of the political isle for the simply fact that she gets things done!

A friend and I were talking the other day about the days of true legislators in Congress and how presidents such as LBJ knew how to legislate! Agree or disagree with legislation, but, todays deadlocked Congress is not representative of the Democratic process of the US and is a disgrace! It also represents how we absolutely need to change political campaign funding! Public funding must be adopted or we can kiss any semblance of a democratic republic goodbye!

Hilary Clinton has made her own strides very much appart from Bill. She is bright, articulate and loyal and a true diplomat and stateswoman. Have I always agreed with her? No. But she does not sit on her ass or rest on her laurels. And I respect this. Palin is just not an intelligent person. Frankly, there are some GOP women that I could support (albeit, very moderate)... but they know their history, the Constitution and what legislation is all about.

Side note- I was happy that Rachael Maddow closed her week’s programming summing up what Obama has indeed, accomplished. And under the political web of NO via the GOP. Not bad, really. Not all that I wanted and a few things I didn’t, but, I will give credit where due. Especially since we do not have the kind of guts in our elected officials that we did in many past leaders that actually knew how to legislate and make decisions.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Rufusboi

You're right. Dreadgeek did not say most. Dreadgeek asked how many people do we know who would check Google Earth and the CIA factbook and how many would look down their noses at those that did? These were rhetorical questions. The unstated response/belief behind that rhetorical question is....not many. The rhetorical question itself assumed that readers would agree. I just chose to point out that I didn't.

Yes, it was a rhetorical question but I didn't have a number in mind. If I HAD to put a number I would say that as much as 40% of the American population either would either not bother looking going to a map and/or taking other actions based upon the following:

A Roper ASW poll found that 87% of Americans 18 - 24 couldn't find Iraq on a map, 83% couldn't find Afghanistan on a map and 11% couldn't find the United States on a map. Let that sink in for a moment...slightly more than 10% couldn't find their OWN country on a map!

Only half of the population will buy a book of ANY sort this year.

According to another study, only 53% of the American population know that a year is the time it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun. Only 59% know that humans and dinosaurs didn't live at the same time. Only 47% can correctly estimate the amount of the Earth that is covered in water.

Again, let that sink in. Fully 47% of the population doesn't know something as basic as what a year *actually* is. 41% believe, against all available evidence, that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. These aren't kids, these are adults. And yet we are supposed to be sanguine that large numbers of people would go out and take the time to educate themselves on some matter when they could just as easily watch American Idol? I see nothing to be sanguine about. If 10% of adults thought humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time--again there is no evidence in support of the idea that they did and every piece of available evidence says they didn't--that would be disturbing in itself. The idea that four times that percentage don't is deeply troubling.

Unless Dreadgeek wants to correct my assumption and let me know that the question was literal and she wanted an actual number for how many people I personally know who would or would not scoff or who would or would not go to Google Earth and the CIA factbook. I can get those numbers but it might take a while. So I jumped in and answered the unstated assumption behind the rhetorical question and said Many. More than you give Americans credit for.

If that is the case then how would YOU go about explaining the kinds of numbers above? Look around the Internet all you wish, every study or poll you find will have numbers in and around the same orbits. I wasn't saying nor did I mean to imply that a majority wouldn't bother or would scoff, I probably should have said a disturbingly large minority to have avoided this. But if the American people, overall, are so well informed can you explain why large numbers (40% of the American people is a significant number of adults) don't know basic things like why we have seasons, what a year is, what a day is.

I happen to think more people would than would not. I mean, really, this is all we are arguing about.

Based upon what?

Opinions. Dreadgeek's opinion not so many, my opinion, more that you are willing to give credit for. Other than that I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. I'm debating a few points you make, that's all.

Okay then I mistook what you were saying. Because when you stated that if someone disagrees about evolution it doesn't make them ignorant it read, to me, like you were saying that it was possible for someone to be well versed in biology, know evolutionary biology at a level one could call a reasonably informed layperson, and still disagree with the theory. I would strenuously disagree. The only people I know who disagree with evolutionary theory are either inveterate liars (Michael Behe) or cranks (Fred Hoyle) or have no idea what the theory actually states (everyone else who argues against evolution using arguments of the form "well, if evolution happened where is the half-crocodile, half-man" or "if evolution happened and we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" or "evolution is only a theory").

And maybe stats don't tell us much after all.

Or maybe it depends upon where the stats come from, how they were gathered, and how methodologically sound the survey, study or poll was in its execution. There are stats that come from, say, NARTH that I don't buy because NARTH has no interest whatsoever in empiricism--they just like using the language of empiricism to bolster their manifestly unscientific positions vis a vis homosexuality. If, on the other hand, the AAS (American Academy of Science) or the NSF (National Science Foundation) conducts a study or sponsors one, I'm going to give it some credence because both of those organizations *do* care very much about empirical data and well-designed survey tools.

I get it that you disagree that large numbers--again not a majority but one-third of a population is NOT a trivial number--of the American people are not profoundly and willfully ignorant on a number of subjects. I have no idea why you believe that or upon what a reasonable person (which I like to think I am) might base such a belief other than sheer, willful, wishful thinking. However, I would love for you to explain to me why I am wrong because here is an instance where I would be overjoyed--turning cartwheels and shouting hallelujahs from every rooftop in a 5 mile radius overjoyed--if I were. Hell, if I were wrong I would weep in joy and probably die of relieved ecstasy.

So, lay it on me. Why am I wrong? Wishful thinking notwithstanding. Really, I want to be wrong about this.

Cheers
Aj

[Andrew, Jr.]

A pregnant woman, 23 yo, was shot several times today. She will recover but the child was lost. It was gang related. Sad.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Rufusboi

I would call it ignorance just like you do. But getting back to my original point. You offered a general opinion that most people would look down at someone who got out their Google map or went to the CIA factbook site. My opinoin is that most would not. Focus on the word "most." You tend to think a large majority of Americans scoff at education, while I don't.

Umm, I'll let the handwaving go but really, my core point has NOTHING to do with Google Earth or the CIA Factbook. It was a throwaway statement that is not core to the point that I'm making.

There will always be crazy thinkers, people who insist up is down.

I'm not going to call 40% of Americans who don't realize what a year actually is crazy thinkers. I'm going to call them tragically uninformed.

Not much we can do about that. They exist in all countires at all times. My point is that you tend to scoff at a lot of people who given the opportuniuty would welcome some facts and straight talking. Its easy to point fingers and say this person is dumb, that person is uneducated. But rather than blaming the individual we need to think in larger terms.

Perhaps you get the feeling that I think ignorance or being uninformed is somehow a measure of a person's moral worth in absolute terms. I don't. I am woefully uninformed about, to take just one of a possible laundry list, auto mechanics. If the answer is beyond "you have a flat tire" or "you're out of gas" or "the car's not turned on" and I say anything OTHER than "you should take your car to a mechanic" I am spouting off about things I know nothing about. There is no reason to take me seriously and every reason to say that I am uninformed about auto mechanics and/or that I am ignorant on the subject.

My larger point is not to point fingers at the masses or people who disagree with you, but to point out the problems with sources of information. My other point, made mostly to Msdeamenor, is if we focus on critical thinking, rather than shoving people full of facts to take a test, we will end up with more independent thinkers who have the ability to sort through the crap. We will teach people how to think, not what to think.

I'm sorry but you have to also give people good information. To take the "Earth is 6000 years old" example. What you are saying is that in the absence of any other information, if we just teach people to think critically they will come to the conclusion that the Earth isn't 6000 years old. I disagree. Without the evidence--the facts of the matter- no amount of critical thinking skills is going to do anyone any damn good. So while some might think that educating students on what, just to take one solid piece of evidence, red shift is and why this is proof that the Universe is expanding, is telling them what to think I would say that is giving them the *minimal* information upon which they can act as critical thinkers.

Its my belief that the problem is rooted in the school system. We no longer teach critical thinking. It is a learned skill. It is not easy to learn this skill alone. We need a school and social system that supports this type of thinking and learning. We don't have that. Based on some of your prior posts you think that an individual can pick up a book and teach themselves critical thinking and logic, I happen to disagree with this. Yes, it is a learned skill but it can't be done in isolation.

I strenuously disagree with this. Most strenuously. Over the course of my academic career I have taken precisely one philosophy class and that was a philosophy of science class. I learned logic and rhetoric, largely, by reading on my own--first were books that were just truly compelling arguments. Later came books about how thinking goes terribly wrong. After that I started picking up books that I realized, about a third of the way through, were probably textbooks being used in classes to teach logic. Now, I agree we should teach logic, rhetoric, critical thinking and the scientific method in schools. The only other thing one could really call formal training in logic were family dinners when I was growing up. My parents made my sister and I read an article out of the paper, we didn't have to commit it to memory but we did have to be able to hit the who, what, where, when, why and how if relevant. We would then be asked what we thought about the article and what we thought it meant. If we said something that couldn’t' be justified or if our argument had holes you could turn a 747 around in, then they would systematically go about eviscerating our position. This taught us that it wasn't good enough to have an opinion, it needed to be an informed opinion in order for others to have any justification for taking us seriously. Can I hold my own against a professor of logic, probably not but I've never had to put that to the test. I can say, however, that I am a reasonably logical thinker and that I hope I put together well-reasoned arguments that are internally consistent more times than not.

What's more, if you go back JUST 100 or 150 years, you see that autodidacts were all over the place and not just from the upper-classes. Thomas Paine, if memory serves, was not from the upper-class and ended up working as a apprentice to a printer. While there he taught himself philosophy, logic, rhetoric, political theory by reading the books that were being printed. So it *can* be done and not by just extraordinary people with extraordinary means. Would it be better if it was done in a formal classroom setting? Yes. But it *can* be done, but first one has to decide that given their limited discretionary time they would rather use it reading than watching American Idol and when reading they would rather it be something with meat on the bones instead of People magazine.

Cheers
Aj

[Delish]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...o_Pride_Event/

[Rufusboi]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

The Founders bet that an educated and informed populace could keep a Republic going. I see no reason to doubt that this is true. The problem we face is that our public is no longer educated or informed and many do not want to be, preferring the quick fix of emotionally satisfying jingoism or pseudo-cynicism (which is really high idealism masquerading as cynicism).



Cheers
Aj

I agree that we need an educated and informed populace. You get no argument from me here. I will state, as a side note, that the founders envisioned a white male educated populace. So their definition of an educated populace wasn't that everyone needed to be educated, only certain people. It would be interesting to find out the percentage of the population that didn't know certain "givens" or "core knowledge" in 1800 versus today.

The concept of mass literacy is pretty new. I'm thinking late 1800s in Europe but it could have come about earlier in the US.

That brings me back to your next statement, and again, this is where we disagree. You think "many" (maybe this is where I got the "most" idea I had in my head) do not want to be either educated or informed. This is where we part ways. Maybe I am naive, maybe you are cynical. But I don't think "many" prefer being uneducated or uninformed. I think many are trying everyday to fix that in whatever way they can. Can I prove this? No. I can point to college enrollment stats, book purchasing stats, library card stats just as you can point to the same stats to make your argument.

The two links Msdemeanor provided were basically two opinions/intepretations of Neilson rating data. For me they showed and proved nothing. Just two writers giving me their interpretation of Neilsen data.

The stats you find tell you that people are wallowing in their ignorance and like it down there. The stats tell me that our education system is failing all of us. And cultivating cirtical thinking would put a pretty quick stop to the influence of "emotionally satisfying jingoism."

I don't know whether you teach in a public school, a private school, High school, or college (you mentioned business school) but as an educator, what are you going to do? How do we fix this lack of basic knowledge? And as an educator, why do you think people are ignorant and uninformed? To me, it goes a lot deeper than people just prefer being ignorant and uniformed.

Rufus

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Rufusboi

The two links Msdemeanor provided were basically two opinions/intepretations of Neilson rating data. For me they showed and proved nothing. Just two writers giving me their interpretation of Neilsen data.

What part of One in five households with television sets watched President Obama’s Oval Office address about the gulf oil spill on Tuesday night, according to the Nielsen Company. An average of 24 million households and 32 million people tuned in to the almost 20-minute address, according to Nielsen, which counts only at-home viewing. is an interpretation that doesn't show or prove anything? Please explain your critical thinking process that led you to this conclusion.

[Mitmo01]

There can be a problem with Auto-Didactical thinking though....and that is there is no one bit yourself to challenge or critically analyze what it is your learning. ie--Hitler was an Auto-Didact.

If people want to learn they can, the problem is that you also have to be challenged and engaged and to do that is the function of higher education.

[Rufusboi]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

What part of One in five households with television sets watched President Obama’s Oval Office address about the gulf oil spill on Tuesday night, according to the Nielsen Company. An average of 24 million households and 32 million people tuned in to the almost 20-minute address, according to Nielsen, which counts only at-home viewing. is an interpretation that doesn't show or prove anything? Please explain your critical thinking process that led you to this conclusion.

1 in 5 is a statistic. It is a number. I believe it is also a number based on a random sample of homes that work with Neilsen to track their viewing. Any multitude of people can then come in and interpret that number to mean something. The two people that you linked to offered their own personal interpretations of that number. I don't consider these two interpretations to be particularly meaningful or correct. THey are just two interpretations of Neilsen data written by two people who work for newspapers. They didn't say anything particularly noteworthy. They just offered their opinion of what they thought the Neilsen numbers meant. So therefore, they did not show or prove anything. They just informed me of what they think the Neilsen data means.

10 different people can look at that 1 in 5 and interpret that number to mean 10 different things. Then all we can do is decide who we think offers the best interpretation. 1 in 5 is meaningless until someone inteprets that data. This is where things get sticky.

Rufus

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Mitmo01

There can be a problem with Auto-Didactical thinking though....and that is there is no one bit yourself to challenge or critically analyze what it is your learning. ie--Hitler was an Auto-Didact.

If people want to learn they can, the problem is that you also have to be challenged and engaged and to do that is the function of higher education.

Mitmo:

I am not at all saying that auto-didactical thinking is ideal. Not at all. Given my druthers higher education--through the graduate level--would be free to all comers who qualified. NOTHING beats classroom instruction. And absolutely one needs to be challenged and have constant engagement (which is why I miss one of my colleagues, Russell, so much--he is a smart man, and just slightly to the far right end of William F. Buckley. We would have the *best* discussions at work). My parents did us a great service by shredding, night after night, sloppy arguments we brought to the table--particularly as opinionated teenagers.

I merely wanted to say that it is an option--if not to be fully educated in a subject, one can get a grounding in it.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Okay, let me clear up a misconception. I am not a teacher. I have thought about taking up 'the family business' but except for two stints, neither longer than a year and a half, have I taught as my job. I teach computer literacy classes--or did before I went back to school--but I'm not an educator. I wrestle with myself whether or not I will ever be an educator. My heart says yes, yes, yes. My very strong desire to eat says 'no, no, no'. Even at the university level (where I would want to teach) it is hard to find jobs with benefits nowadays--that is a powerful inducement *away* from teaching. Teaching in the public schools is pretty right-out for me. In many school districts teaching the subject of evolutionary biology--and I would teach biology if I taught anything in public schools--is just right out. In many more, one has to walk around the word saying everything BUT evolution. That would stay entertaining for me for all of about 10 minutes and then I would say something along the lines of "this is biology class. I wouldn't teach nor would I give serious time to astrology in an astronomy class and I'm not going to give it to creationism in a biology class for the same reasons." My time at that school would, at that point, be measured in days. If it were not for that, I would probably consider teaching at the high school level but there is that.

I hate to say it but I'll be honest, I don't *like* little kids enough to teach anything below high school. I liked my kid. I like my granddaughter (well, two year olds are hard NOT to like if you don't have to live with them all day... ). Other people's children? Not so much with the like.

What would I do? Having grown up with a professor of education, pedagogy was just in the air. I would move away from teaching to the test. I believe that if you have *standards* then you can, actually, assess within a reasonable level of approximation what a student knows by asking them to demonstrate that knowledge. For example, I presume that when I write about evolutionary biology I sound like I know what I'm talking about. When I have taught I could tell which students were getting it and which weren't simply by the questions they would ask (whether they spoke them in class, after class or called me over). But in order for something like that to work you have to have the emotional fortitude, as a teacher, to say that certain papers are well written and show knowledge of the subject and that research was clearly done (and documented) and certain papers do not. As long as there is any hint in the academy, at any level, that just turning in a paper--good, bad, incomprehensible--is sufficient for a student to feel good about themselves we'll have no choice BUT to teach to the test.

Don't get me started on educational issues, Rufusboi it is a passion of mine. I saw such a poignant example of the difference between the life of an educated man and the life of an uneducated man and the difference that it made in their children that I consider classrooms truly sacred spaces and teaching a vocation. Education almost but not quite rises to the level of a religion for me.



Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Rufusboi

I agree that we need an educated and informed populace. You get no argument from me here. I will state, as a side note, that the founders envisioned a white male educated populace. So their definition of an educated populace wasn't that everyone needed to be educated, only certain people. It would be interesting to find out the percentage of the population that didn't know certain "givens" or "core knowledge" in 1800 versus today.

The concept of mass literacy is pretty new. I'm thinking late 1800s in Europe but it could have come about earlier in the US.

That brings me back to your next statement, and again, this is where we disagree. You think "many" (maybe this is where I got the "most" idea I had in my head) do not want to be either educated or informed. This is where we part ways. Maybe I am naive, maybe you are cynical. But I don't think "many" prefer being uneducated or uninformed. I think many are trying everyday to fix that in whatever way they can. Can I prove this? No. I can point to college enrollment stats, book purchasing stats, library card stats just as you can point to the same stats to make your argument.

The two links Msdemeanor provided were basically two opinions/intepretations of Neilson rating data. For me they showed and proved nothing. Just two writers giving me their interpretation of Neilsen data.

The stats you find tell you that people are wallowing in their ignorance and like it down there. The stats tell me that our education system is failing all of us. And cultivating cirtical thinking would put a pretty quick stop to the influence of "emotionally satisfying jingoism."

I don't know whether you teach in a public school, a private school, High school, or college (you mentioned business school) but as an educator, what are you going to do? How do we fix this lack of basic knowledge? And as an educator, why do you think people are ignorant and uninformed? To me, it goes a lot deeper than people just prefer being ignorant and uniformed.

Rufus

[Soon]

U.S. Supreme Court bolsters gun rights

Second Amendment applies to individuals, not just 18th-century militias, justices rule by 5-4 margin


Paul Koring
Washington — Globe and Mail Update
Published on Monday, Jun. 28, 2010 9:13PM EDT
Last updated on Monday, Jun. 28, 2010 9:27PM EDT

As with free speech, Americans have a fundamental right to own guns, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday, answering a centuries-old debate and threatening laws and regulations enacted by states and cities that outlaw handgun ownership or impose tight controls on assault weapons.

Concluding that citizens can own firearms for self-defence, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, reasoned that the framers of the Constitution regarded “the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

The landmark 5-4 ruling in the long and bitter battle over the meaning of the Second Amendment makes clear that individual citizens – not just 18th-century militias – have a Constitutional right to bear arms. It amounts to a major, albeit narrow, victory for gun-rights advocates, who have long argued that outlawing guns keeps them from law-abiding citizens while allowing armed criminals to run amok.

Wayne Lapierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobby groups in the United States, called the decision “a great moment in American history,” but warned that the ruling will prove worthless unless it is enforced.

“I'm a practical guy. I don't want to win on philosophy and lose on freedom,” he said. “What good is a right without the gun?” he added, calling for the courts to roll back laws that make gun ownership difficult. “Here's a piece of paper – protect yourself. That's no right at all.”

Gun-control advocates warned the ruling will result in more bloodshed.

“People will die because of this decision,” said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center. “It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America's fading firearms industry.”

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the largest anti-firearms lobby in the United States, said the decision still allows for reasonable limits on gun ownership.

“The Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defence does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence,” he said in a statement.

The “gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution” was rejected by the Supreme Court, Mr. Helmke added.

The ruling sparked an immediate debate over its practical consequences. A host of challenges to local and state laws are expected. But whether gun-control laws can be redrafted to avoid infringing on what the court has ruled is an individual right may take years to become clear.

The ruling means “the Second Amendment joins other provisions of the Bill of Rights that are routinely enforced against both federal and state infringements,” Glenn Harlan Reynolds, the Beauchamp Brogan distinguished professor of law at the University of Tennessee, wrote in an online discussion at a New York Times blog of contributing experts.

“It may wind up being protected fairly well – as, say, First Amendment speech rights generally are – or poorly, as Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure often are, but it is now a full-fledged part of the Bill of Rights, not a neglected stepchild.”

Five of the court’s nine judges wrote opinions in the case. Perhaps second only to abortion, gun control and the right to bear arms remains the most divisive and hotly contested issue in the United States.

More than 60,000 people are shot annually in the United States, many of them family members shot accidentally or in domestic disputes in households with legally owned and licensed firearms. But thousands of others are shot in violent and drug-ridden urban slums, often with illegal guns.

The court did not rule on the constitutionality of Chicago’s handgun ban – one of the nation’s toughest. Instead the decision sent the Chicago ban back to the lower courts to decide whether it conforms with the ruling.

“The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available for military use when our nation was in its infancy .... have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today,” wrote one of the four dissenting judges, Justice John Paul Stevens, in his last opinion. He retired Monday.

The Supreme Court ruling was made on a challenge to a Chicago law that severely limits handgun ownership. Despite “doomsday proclamations, [the court’s decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms,” Judge Alito wrote, adding that many jurisdictions already have reasonable laws keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals and the mentally ill and banning them from places such as schools and civic buildings.

For centuries, the meaning of the Constitution’s oddly worded Second Amendment has been hotly debated as to the intent of the framers. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Proponents of gun control contend it was intended to allow for militias comprised of a largely rural citizenry of farmers to keep weapons. The Supreme Court upheld the opposing view – that the Second Amendment means that every citizen has the right to own firearms.

Judge Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas comprised the majority.

Judge Stephens and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were opposed.

[Delish]

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/stor...rJjJPGy4g.cspx

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Delish

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/stor...rJjJPGy4g.cspx

Oh, the poor baby! Someone needs to throw that guy out of a window. Okay, no, that's not nice, but still.... *shakes head*

[Kätzchen]

>>> Tens of thousands take to the streets in Athens, Greece <<<

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...ne-2356-txt-nl


"Violent clashes have broken out between demonstrators and police on the streets of the Greek capital, Athens, as some 10,000 people took to streets to protest the government’s austerity measures intended to address Greece’s debt crisis."

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by Delish

http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/stor...rJjJPGy4g.cspx

Interesting. An innocent living thing, the dog was used to incite fear, the illusion of control over the dog's guardian, owner? I feel horrible about what happened to this dog but I also think we as a community should consciously take note of this act of violence against a woman. All of this madness is grounded in Domestic Violence. Somewhere along the way, our society has given a tacit nod in acceptance of this sort of behavior.

[Greyson]

I suspected it would only be a matter of moments before someone on this judicial panel would somehow imply that Kagan's judicial philosophy was tarnished by her mentee/mentor relationship with Thurgood Marshall. So many inuendos, code words, so little time. Paleezee.
______________________________________________


June 29, 2010


STATEMENT FROM NAACP LDF ON
SENATE ATTACKS ON THURGOOD MARSHALL


(Washington, DC) - During the Senate confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, several Senators have disparaged Justice Thurgood Marshall, his judicial philosophy, and his connection to Elena Kagan, who once clerked for Justice Marshall. In response to these attacks, NAACP LDF Director-Counsel John Payton issues the following statement:

"Thurgood Marshall changed our country dramatically for the better. Astonishingly, Elena Kagan is being attacked by certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee because she says her mentor was Thurgood Marshall. She could not have had a better mentor.

Here is what is undisputed: In the middle decades of the twentieth century, Thurgood Marshall was a leader of those forces whose faith in the Constitution and the American Dream dismantled the perverse empire of Jim Crow - with its separate and unequal schools and colleges, its rigidly segregated neighborhoods, and its profoundly unequal opportunity in every sector of American life. As the founder of LDF, Thurgood Marshall helped America understand what democracy really means; and he continued to expound that exalted vision as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

It is a disservice to the Senate and to the nation to have some, for the sake of hollow posturing, distort Thurgood Marshall's beliefs and his extraordinary contribution to our understanding of justice and equality. Simply put, Thurgood Marshall helped make our union more perfect, and that legacy illuminates the highest possibilities for all Americans yesterday, today and tomorrow."

[Toughy]

I expected they would go after Justice Marshall......so no big surprise to me. Those old white guys are racist to their core and only like black folks like what's his name....crap I really can't remember his name....google is my friend..........Justice Thomas who has the brains of a tadpole and has never asked one question in his time on the Court.

The only activist Judges they like are the right wing ultra-conservative ones........4 of the 5 most conservative Justices ever are sitting on the Supreme Court right now.