Comment history

Gun control case could have broad impact

It has amazed me since I was a child, that people could get past elementary English class and imagine that the prefatory clause in any way limits the body of the statement "the right of the people". Taken into account with the fact that you can call the National Guard a "militia" all you want but the 1789 word "militia" in context of the time it was written meant every able bodied male who could carry a weapon in defense of country (there's nothing in the *Federal* ammendment that implies anything about *State* militias). When you join both of those concepts to the power of Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years". There was no desire to have a standing Army except during war but to have the Militia ready to go when needed, while armies could be raised. To that end, every one of the people had the right to keep and bear arms, so that a functional ... well-regulated ... militia, funded by congress but under officers assigned by the States, could be brought together to defend the country.

March 10, 2010 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

H1N1 clinic tied to tournament game

So, the WHO, normally an excellent group, changes the criteria and definition of a "Pandemic" to fit the H1N1 occurence and never retracts it when it ceases to blossom into a true pandemic. So, they get to have their first pandemic, after creating all the (still valid) preparations for such an event.
Then H1N1 turns out to not be any more lethal than the seasonal flu (so far much less in the US), for which the flu shot is still of debatable use for those populations not in a particularly susceptible state, which is most people.
But we already spent the money to make all of this vaccine, so we have to justify it's cost by convincing everyone they're going to die without it.
Sorry folks, welcome to the big machine ...

March 10, 2010 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )