One day the pastor of a small rural church saw a donkey staggering along the road leading into to town. The lost animal could barely walk and it looked starved, its ribs nearly poking through its sides. Taking pity on the poor creature, the Pastor brought it back to his church, where the nuns and children of the parish lovingly adopted the animal, and nursed it back to health. Soon it was romping freely around the grounds of the parish, delighting in giving rides to the children and relishing the attention it received from everyone.
A few weeks later, the Pastor watched the donkey as it raced from one end of the church grounds to the other, and was amazed at how fast the creature could run. And so the following week he entered the animal in the donkey race at the Town Fair. As he and his parishioners cheered him on, the donkey won easily, braying merrily at all the attention.
Everyone was so pleased that the next month, the Pastor entered the donkey in the race at the County Fair. Once again, their donkey easily beat all comers, and the following day an article in the local paper read: “PASTOR'S ASS BEATS ALL.”
Reading the paper over breakfast, the Bishop was so shocked that he sputtered coffee all over his tea and toast. By lunchtime, he’d become so upset with this kind of publicity that he ordered the Pastor not to enter the donkey the race at the State Fair. And so the next day the headline in the local paper read: “BISHOP SCRATCHES PASTOR’S ASS."
This was too much for the Bishop, so he ordered the Pastor to get rid of the donkey. Tearfully, the Pastor gave his beloved animal to a nun in a nearby convent. The local paper, hearing of the news, posted the following headline the next day: “NUN HAS BEST ASS IN TOWN.”
The Bishop fainted and, upon recovering, the Bishop ordered the nun to get rid of the donkey, and so she sold it to a farmer for the nominal sum of $1.
The next day the headline read: “NUN SELLS ASS FOR A DOLLAR.”
This was too much for the Bishop, and so he ordered the nun to buy back the donkey and lead it to the plains, where it could run to its heart’s content, and no longer be an embarrassment to the Church. And the next day the headline read: “NUN’S ASS NOW WILD AND FREE.”
The Bishop was buried the following day; and two days later, the donkey returned to its home in the parish, where it remains to this day.
The moral of the story is . . .
Being concerned about what everyone else thinks can bring you much grief and misery…and maybe even shorten your life.
So stop worrying about everyone else's ass: you’ll be a lot happier, and maybe live longer.
Just be yourself, and enjoy life.
JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the Guardians of Peace-tm science fiction adventure series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Paving Materials on the Road to Hell
Recent tragedies in Connecticut and elsewhere, in which large numbers of innocent people were killed by deranged gunmen, have led to a flurry finger-pointing, as polticians of every stripe try to convince voters that they can solve the problems of gun violence in America, while looking for scapegoats to blame.
Predictably, some blame the gun lobby for its tone-deaf intransigience about setting rules and limits on guns; some blame the video-game industry for encouraging a culture of violence. Some blame our existing gun restrictions, for preventing law-abiding citizens from coming to the rescue with guns blazing whenever there's trouble. Some even blame our Constitution for elevating the "right to bear arms" to the level of a constitutional right --- or heap the blame on our Supreme Court, for recognizing in the text of the Second Amendment a personal right to bear arms for our own self-defense.
On this last score, some gun control advocates point to the pre-existing case law --- effectively acknowledging that the Second Amendment precluded only Congress from enacting limits on the right to bear arms --- to argue that the current court has made the "activist" decision to rewrite the Second Amendment, and pointing to the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v Chicago as Exhibit A. The reason we had "a body of law" through the 1970s that has been revisited today is not because of "judicial activists" on the bench today, but because of the judicial activists of the 1960s.
From our founding until the middle of the 20th Century, the US Supreme Court had routinely held that the Bill of Rights applied only to restrict the power of the Federal government over its citizens...and had no application against the state. States, through their own laws and constitutions, were largely free to organize themselves, and to write whatever laws and rules their citizens saw fit to impose upon themselves. In this context, the Federal Government could impose no rules respecting weapons in the possession of its citizens of any kind --- with the possible exception of those being transported in across state lines, in interstate commerce. Any such rules and regulations were left to the states, which were free to impose any rules they wished.
Building upon various threads of developing legal thought, and beginning in earnest with the 1960 Supreme Court decision in Mapp v Ohio, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote our Constitution, extending protections designed to prevent tyranny at the Federal level by applying them to the states. Though largely intended at the start to rectify obvious injustices being visited on black defendants in the Deep South, this morphed into what is known as the "incorporation doctrine"...by which language in the Fourteenth Amendment --- which read that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" --- transformed the Bill of Rights into general limits on state power, a bit of legal alchemy that had somehow escaped the attention of jurists until the middle of the 20th Century. Though most modern liberals insist that it only applies to those "privileges or immunities" that they approve of --- such as the right to counsel, or the protection against unreasonable search and seizure (all of which were generally granted in one way or another in the various state constitutions) --- inexorable logic, as well as the law of unintended consequences, made it inevitable that the same "incorporation doctrine" would someday come to apply to the Second Amendment as well as the rest.
Today, rather than a system in which Washington is prohibited from disarming its citizens but States are free to regulate weapons as they see fit, we now have a system in which the same limit on Federal power relating to weapons is being applied against the states...with the result that what seemed a good idea to the "Perpetual Committee on Constitutional Revision" that the Supreme Court became in the 1960s is running into the reality that the Founders tried hard to accommodate in 1787: ie, the fact that a "one-size-fits-all" government is a recipe for disaster, and that liberty is better preserved by placing strict limits on Federal power, and letting the People govern themselves as much as possible at the state and local levels. In the context of trying to control gun violence in our society, this means that local communities across the country have to abide by the same constitutionally mandated limitations --- even though farmers in rural Montana and neighborhood watch volunteers in Detroit may face different local problems, requiring different local solutions.
If we are going to decry "judicial activists," we should probably begin by studying how the Constitution changed in the 1960s. We are still grappling with the consequences, but at least you'd have a sense of the nature of the problem...and why it's proving so hard to get things right: judges are terrible at crafting the kinds of political compromises we need to govern ourselves intelligently, and make most people happy with the result; and once they assumed the power to rewrite the Constitution, they became a third political branch of Government, rather than simply serving as the referees. And so therefore, in the context of our current debate on gun control, rather than being able to rule simply that "the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; therefore, the State of (fill in the blank) is free to regulate firearms in whatever manner its citizens seem fit," it now has to craft constitutional rules relating to firearms that apply across the board to everyone, everwhere in the country...and determining which state laws and regulations can pass muster with five members of the Supreme Court. Multiply that by the number of issues now deemed to involve someone's "constitutional rights," and you have a recipe for the chaos and dysfunction we see everywhere in this country, at all levels of government.
Personally, I think the Founders gave us a much better system; it's too bad we had to muck it up.
JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the Guardians of Peace-tm science fiction adventure series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.
Predictably, some blame the gun lobby for its tone-deaf intransigience about setting rules and limits on guns; some blame the video-game industry for encouraging a culture of violence. Some blame our existing gun restrictions, for preventing law-abiding citizens from coming to the rescue with guns blazing whenever there's trouble. Some even blame our Constitution for elevating the "right to bear arms" to the level of a constitutional right --- or heap the blame on our Supreme Court, for recognizing in the text of the Second Amendment a personal right to bear arms for our own self-defense.
On this last score, some gun control advocates point to the pre-existing case law --- effectively acknowledging that the Second Amendment precluded only Congress from enacting limits on the right to bear arms --- to argue that the current court has made the "activist" decision to rewrite the Second Amendment, and pointing to the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v Chicago as Exhibit A. The reason we had "a body of law" through the 1970s that has been revisited today is not because of "judicial activists" on the bench today, but because of the judicial activists of the 1960s.
From our founding until the middle of the 20th Century, the US Supreme Court had routinely held that the Bill of Rights applied only to restrict the power of the Federal government over its citizens...and had no application against the state. States, through their own laws and constitutions, were largely free to organize themselves, and to write whatever laws and rules their citizens saw fit to impose upon themselves. In this context, the Federal Government could impose no rules respecting weapons in the possession of its citizens of any kind --- with the possible exception of those being transported in across state lines, in interstate commerce. Any such rules and regulations were left to the states, which were free to impose any rules they wished.
Building upon various threads of developing legal thought, and beginning in earnest with the 1960 Supreme Court decision in Mapp v Ohio, the Supreme Court effectively rewrote our Constitution, extending protections designed to prevent tyranny at the Federal level by applying them to the states. Though largely intended at the start to rectify obvious injustices being visited on black defendants in the Deep South, this morphed into what is known as the "incorporation doctrine"...by which language in the Fourteenth Amendment --- which read that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" --- transformed the Bill of Rights into general limits on state power, a bit of legal alchemy that had somehow escaped the attention of jurists until the middle of the 20th Century. Though most modern liberals insist that it only applies to those "privileges or immunities" that they approve of --- such as the right to counsel, or the protection against unreasonable search and seizure (all of which were generally granted in one way or another in the various state constitutions) --- inexorable logic, as well as the law of unintended consequences, made it inevitable that the same "incorporation doctrine" would someday come to apply to the Second Amendment as well as the rest.
Today, rather than a system in which Washington is prohibited from disarming its citizens but States are free to regulate weapons as they see fit, we now have a system in which the same limit on Federal power relating to weapons is being applied against the states...with the result that what seemed a good idea to the "Perpetual Committee on Constitutional Revision" that the Supreme Court became in the 1960s is running into the reality that the Founders tried hard to accommodate in 1787: ie, the fact that a "one-size-fits-all" government is a recipe for disaster, and that liberty is better preserved by placing strict limits on Federal power, and letting the People govern themselves as much as possible at the state and local levels. In the context of trying to control gun violence in our society, this means that local communities across the country have to abide by the same constitutionally mandated limitations --- even though farmers in rural Montana and neighborhood watch volunteers in Detroit may face different local problems, requiring different local solutions.
If we are going to decry "judicial activists," we should probably begin by studying how the Constitution changed in the 1960s. We are still grappling with the consequences, but at least you'd have a sense of the nature of the problem...and why it's proving so hard to get things right: judges are terrible at crafting the kinds of political compromises we need to govern ourselves intelligently, and make most people happy with the result; and once they assumed the power to rewrite the Constitution, they became a third political branch of Government, rather than simply serving as the referees. And so therefore, in the context of our current debate on gun control, rather than being able to rule simply that "the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; therefore, the State of (fill in the blank) is free to regulate firearms in whatever manner its citizens seem fit," it now has to craft constitutional rules relating to firearms that apply across the board to everyone, everwhere in the country...and determining which state laws and regulations can pass muster with five members of the Supreme Court. Multiply that by the number of issues now deemed to involve someone's "constitutional rights," and you have a recipe for the chaos and dysfunction we see everywhere in this country, at all levels of government.
Personally, I think the Founders gave us a much better system; it's too bad we had to muck it up.
JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the Guardians of Peace-tm science fiction adventure series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
The Right to be Fools
Overprotective parents who insist on making all the decisions for their children merely ensure that their kids are unprepared for making wise decisions as adults.
Similarly, a nation that infantilizes its population, by having its Government start making all of the "hard" decisions for its people to keep them from making unwise choices, only ensures that within a generation or two it will be populated largely by nitwits --- of the same caliber as those who will thereafter be making all of the Government's decisions.
In a free society, it's not the Government's job to run our lives, determine how much money we should have, or to determine what kind of culture we have. In a free society, if the citizens insist on being fools --- or choose to value greed over civic-mindedness, selfishness over cooperation, or trivialities over substance --- there's nothing the Government can or should do to stop them. Liberty gives us the right to be foolish as well as wise...and in a free society, learning to tell the difference is part of what gives life its meaning.
On the other hand, if we want to see what it looks like to have a Government in charge of determining income levels --- or making people who "have too much" give their excess away --- or deciding how its citizens should run their own lives --- we saw quite a lot of that in the 20th Century. As I recall, it didn't turn out too well.
JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the Guardians of Peace-tm science fiction adventure series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.
Similarly, a nation that infantilizes its population, by having its Government start making all of the "hard" decisions for its people to keep them from making unwise choices, only ensures that within a generation or two it will be populated largely by nitwits --- of the same caliber as those who will thereafter be making all of the Government's decisions.
In a free society, it's not the Government's job to run our lives, determine how much money we should have, or to determine what kind of culture we have. In a free society, if the citizens insist on being fools --- or choose to value greed over civic-mindedness, selfishness over cooperation, or trivialities over substance --- there's nothing the Government can or should do to stop them. Liberty gives us the right to be foolish as well as wise...and in a free society, learning to tell the difference is part of what gives life its meaning.
On the other hand, if we want to see what it looks like to have a Government in charge of determining income levels --- or making people who "have too much" give their excess away --- or deciding how its citizens should run their own lives --- we saw quite a lot of that in the 20th Century. As I recall, it didn't turn out too well.
JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the Guardians of Peace-tm science fiction adventure series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
