You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2014.
The gun nuts–oh, I mean lovers of the Constitution–are at it again. The response to the latest mass murder included the comment, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” Clearly the author thought this settled the matter.
I’m pretty passionate about the Constitution, myself. So let’s look at a different amendment, the First.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Pretty strong language. “No law . . . abridging.”
Have the courts determined that the First Amendment entirely prohibits any overlap between religion and state functions?
No. It is acceptable, for example, for the Congress to invite clergy to give an opening prayer. Some argue that this constitutes establishment of religion; the court finds that it doesn’t.
Have the courts determined that we the people have an absolute right to exercise our religion?
No. If our exercise of religion conflicts with other responsibilities of the state, such as the protection of children, it may be restricted. People have been convicted of child abuse for denying their children medicine on religious grounds, and the Supreme Court has concurred in this “abridgement” of their religious freedom.
Have the courts determined that the press may print absolutely anything?
No. Libel and pornography may be held illegal. Is that abridgement of the freedom of the press? Sure it is. And yet it seems to be acceptable. First Amendment activists believe in balancing freedom of the press with freedom from defamation, not dismissing the latter.
Have the courts determined that freedom of assembly is absolute? It says right here it can’t be abridged.
And yet a crowd may not walk down Market Street at midday without a permit, or even gather in a public park in large numbers without prior permission. It turns out that in consideration of other important principles, such as people being able to move freely around the city, the government may reasonably abridge a right, even one stated as baldly as those of the First Amendment. Even the ACLU doesn’t disagree. It will argue that parade fees can’t be excessive, and so on, but it doesn’t argue against fees per se.
So, what do you think? May the government put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, or does the Second Amendment–
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.
–mean that everyone must be able to buy any kind of arms, without any restrictions whatsoever? No background checks? No limit on what type of weapon or how many? For example, someone with diagnosed paranoia and a history of making threats cannot constitutionally be prevented from walking into a gun show and buying a weapon of war?
I would like someone to explain to me why not.
I’m reading The Fault in Our Stars, and aside from loving it, I am deeply satisfied that the narrator calls Maslow’s hierarchy of needs “utter horseshit.” I have always thought so, at least if Maslow said what my teachers said he said: that you can’t be concerned with the needs on the top of the pyramid until you’ve satisfied the needs lower down. In fact, the same school that taught me that taught me about the kamikazes, who are an excellent disproof.
But you don’t need to take sophomore-year history to have observed that people who don’t even have shelter or safety still do art and philosophy and concern themselves with self-actualization.
Two years ago I wrote about the call for an increase in the minimum wage in San Jose from $8 to $10. It eventually passed, with excellent results, as reported here in the San Jose Mercury News: “unemployment was reduced, the number of businesses grew, the number of minimum wage jobs expanded, average employee hours remained constant and the economy was stimulated.”
The article doesn’t answer a question raised by a commenter on my earlier post: with the minimum wage still so far below a living wage, especially for workers with dependents, does this do anything to reduce the need for social services? I would really like to know. Wouldn’t it be something to pay people a living wage instead of letting their employers pay them poverty wages and then leaving the taxpayers to make up the difference (or fail to, since social services are rarely adequate)? We’re a long way from that, but it’s good to see successes like San Jose, especially as the argument is made yet again that an increase in wages will doom the economy–at least, if those wages go to the lowest-paid workers.
I came in a bit late to drawing today, because I’d realized a work report hadn’t uploaded and yada yada, had to take care of that–shortchanging my spiritual-practice time is not the way I like to start my Monday sabbath. Then when I got to the studio, I realized I was short on paper and needed to fit the remaining short poses onto one sheet. (I could get more at the break.) But maybe it was coming in late, working small, and starting fast that spurred me to draw only the darkest shadows, no subtle shading, no lines–or maybe it was just something dramatic in the light on the first two-minute pose I saw. I grabbed a small piece of soft charcoal and started in. No lines. Mostly black. Gradually, over the course of the session, I loosened up on both self-imposed rules, as they had the desired effect. This was one of the most satisfying mornings of drawing I’ve ever experienced.
Sermons in Stones 
Recent comments