He supports unregulated markets from one side of his mouth.  The other side criticizes the government for not regulating financial institutions.  But that criticism is limited to one party.  It is interesting how “The Maverick” is so eager to go reach across the aisle to point the finger at the Democrats.  Why isn’t he “ruffling the feathers of his own party” this time?  He can’t be bipartisan enough now to lay blame at the feet of at any of the 40 or so Republican members of financial oversight committees? Why can’t he admit to the culpability of his own party, his own president?  The past eight years of this corporate financial free-for-all has left the richest even richer and left the rest of us holding the bill.

Now we see a glimpse into a McCain administration.  We can see that, like Bush, McCain is a self-serving manipulator of any situation.  He instinctively vows to attack the other party – simultaneously eliminating dissent and opposition, while shielding his allies from blame.  We’ve seen these Bush-style tactics for 8 years and we have collectively suffered from them.  McCain only offers more of the same and we can’t afford it anymore.

To the editor, New York Times:

Permitting guns into National Parks is an incredibly bad idea. Poachers will be delighted. So will the deranged predators, the rapists, the thieves, the sociopaths who prey upon innocent people. But for the rest of us, it’s a recipe for tragedy.

The NRA tells us guns will make parks safer. Wrong. Department of Justice figures clearly show that the innocent are far, far more likely to be the victims of gun violence than the beneficiaries. In 2004, a fairly typical year, private citizens used their guns to kill 170 criminals. Criminals used their guns to kill 11,624 innocent victims. What makes anybody think that appalling ratio will somehow be reversed if we allow guns into our national parks?

When people come to National Parks, they’re looking for respite, for peace and quiet, for the simpler joys of our natural world. They want to get away from the violence and tension of their workaday world. Let’s not ruin it for them, for all of us.

It's normally bad blog etiquette to post an entire news item, but in this case it's a short letter and makes the argument in 141 words, so I figured, great, let's copy and paste it!

 Assessing the status of embryos

SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 22

LENGTH: 141 words

Sir, Pamela Huby (letter, March 27) voices popular misconception that the Roman Catholic Church holds the dogma that the embryo is fully human at the very first stage of conception. On this issue it is non-believers who are dogmatic; the Catholic Church is agnostic and rational.

To the question, "At what point does an embryo become human?" or as Christians put it "When does it acquire a soul?", the only sensible answer short of a divine revelation is, "We don't know", which is the stated position of the Church. So the only safe procedure is to avoid all experimentation on embryos.

Even earlier Catholic thinkers who suggested that embryos gained souls at a later stage pointed out that in killing an embryo you are either killing a human being or robbing something of its chance to become human, both of which are wrong.

(Times March 29, 2008)

This wonderful freedom of philosophical agnosticism (which is the most rational position and takes into account the full range of evidence, contrary to the assertions of all our prominent scientists!) reminds me of a saying of Chesterton in "What is Right With the World":

 I am an agnostic, like most people with a positive theology. But I do affirm, with the full weight of sincerity, that trees and flowers are good at the beginning, whatever happens to them at the end; that human lives were good at the beginning, whatever happens to them in the end.

The ordinary modern progressive position is that this is a bad universe, but will certainly get better. I say it is certainly a good universe, even if it gets worse. I say that these trees and flowers, stars and sexes, are primarily, not merely ultimately, good. In the Beginning the power beyond words created heaven and earth. In the Beginning He looked on them and saw that they were good.

Your analysis of the Washington, D.C. gun control case before the U.S. Supreme Court (“Gun Case Causes Bush Administration Rift ,” March 17, 2008) is interesting, but like many stories reviewing the Second Amendment, it relies on the standard but confusing punctuation which inserts a comma between the words “Militia” and “being.”

However, examination of volume I of the Journal of the Senate of the United States and the Annals of Congress for the first Congress shows that text of the amendment actually submitted to the states for ratification lacks that comma, resulting in a sentence which clearly links the concept of militia service to the right to bear arms: "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."

That linkage is all the more important given the technological development of weaponry from the time of the Revolution to the modern day. In the late 18th Century, the militia relied on the same types of weapons a common citizen might possess, but the responsibilities of today’s militia -- the National Guard and the Reserves -- demands weapons nobody would suggest should be in private hands.

This is not merely an interesting grammatical distinction, for a proper understanding of the Second Amendment best serves the needs of this nation even now.

Sumitted March 17, 2008

San Francisco Chronicle

Feb. 5 2008

Test of democracy

Editor - If someone takes $100 from you and offers to give you back $1, do you: 1) Vote for this "economic stimulus." 2) Know you are being swindled.

If your government borrows trillions from two of the most oppressive and heavily armed countries in the world to invade and occupy a country that has no weapons of mass destruction, only oil, do you: 1) Think that this promotes democracy. 2) Know that democracy is for sale.

Your editorial of January 17, "Fight in Afghanistan," unfairly denigrates the contribution of our NATO allies in Afghanistan, alleging that they are "too averse to casualties" to be as effective as U.S. troops and backing up that derogatory insinuation with a cruelly misleading comparison of the number of fatalities suffered since the invasion of Afghanistan began. However, since the middle of 2006 when NATO significantly increased its force size and shouldered a larger share of allied operations, it has been our allies, primarily from NATO, who have paid the higher blood cost, with 193 allied fatalities compared to 165 U.S. troops. Happily, I haven't heard of any of our NATO allies alleging a similar canard about the U.S.

Note: This is in response to a Washington Post editorial of January 17, 2008.

submitted December 1, 2007 in response to an article (click for full article) reporting on legislation to increase auto efficiency standards

Contrary to the assertion reported in the Times, the automotive fuel efficiency standards wending their way through Congress would not "force wrenching changes on the American car companies." The handwriting has been on the petroleum wall ever since our existing standards were enacted nearly a quarter century ago.The technology to meet the proposed standards is not only proven, but available to consumers throughout the rest of the world. The proposed legislation calls for only a 27% increase in automobile efficiency over the 36 years since the existing standards were set, a rather paltry improvement considering that even China is already there, and the Europeans are already 14% better.The only real questions are why such belated action is even controversial, and why stronger efficiency standards aren't even on the table.

Letter as printed:

Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons — and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is — Americans should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean, surgical strike ("Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," Opposing view, Iran debate, Nov. 20).

Any attempt to launch a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil America in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further and expose us to greater risks abroad and at home.

Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This is a fatuous claim because the Constitution clearly assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

With the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles, America has come to accept the logic that a president can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war.

There can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war.

Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. America had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or in China when those countries developed nuclear weapons than it now has in Iran. Past presidents have wisely ignored calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right.

Deterrence will work with Iran, too. Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that it would be destroyed if it ever used a nuclear weapon against the USA, Israel or any other American ally.

(Overly long) Letter as written:

Joshua Muravchik calls for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities
(Iranian bomb 'intolerable'," November 20, 2007). Even assuming that Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons, and there is no credible and convincing evidence that it is, we should all realize by now that there is no such thing as a clean "surgical strike." Any attempt to launch a massive attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities would embroil us in yet another futile Middle Eastern war, stretch our overburdened military even further, and expose us to even greater risks abroad and at home, for Iran would be a far more dangerous foe than any group of Iraqi insurgents.

Muravchik asserts that an attack would not require a declaration of war, which he describes as "an antiquated concept." This fatuous claim is incredible, since conservatives from his own American Enterprise Institute and other conservative think tanks supposedly hold sacrosanct the principle of "strict construction" of the Constitution, which very clearly assigns to Congress and not the Presidency the power to declare war. With the advent of ICBMs, America has come to accept the logic that a President can launch a defensive war without a formal declaration of war, but there can be no excuse for a failure to comply with the Constitution when contemplating a preemptive war. Surely we recognize by now that Iraq has proven the folly of recklessly starting a war without a reasoned national debate.

Muravchik also overlooks the effective role of deterrence. We had no greater confidence in the Soviet Union or China when they developed nuclear weapons than we now have in Iran, yet Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon wisely ignored similar calls by the belligerent pundits of their day, and history has proven them right. Deterrence will work with Iran, too, for Iran's leaders know with utter certainty that they and their country would be destroyed if they or their proxies -- and we could determine the origin of any bomb used, no matter how anonymous the group might be which actually detonated it -- ever used a nuclear weapon against the U.S., Israel, or any other American ally.

Letter to the Editor

We the People

The two seemingly opposing views on the Constitution presented in Sunday’s Insight are perhaps the most important and controversial articles I have seen in the Chronicle for a long time. These articles were a very wise choice to focus us to address pressing and possibly catastrophic events shaping this country today.

First, let me point out that our government has already trampled over and reshaped this precious document. Our feelings of anger and powerlessness are quite justified. But virtually all of the problems that were discussed in these articles were not due to the shortsightedness of the framers of the constitution, but instead due to the constant tinkering done by proceeding generations. These are the amendments that need examination and national debate.

If we were following the direction of the constitution today, each state would be able to have the right to experiment with a great many of the ideas that were suggested by Sabato. Virtually all the ills- the extraordinary power of  multinational corporations, the perpetual war machines, the bankruptcy of our national treasury were NOT powers built into the constitution but powers that grew by stealing power away from individuals and their States.

Karen Leonard

Beware of unintended consequences, especially when voters take the law into
their own hands, as demonstrated by the passage of Jessica's Law last
November. The law bars sex offenders, released after November 2006, from
living within 2,000 feet of schools and parks. It sounded good on paper and
70 percent of California voters approved it.

However, as a result of that law, Ventura County's first designated sexually
violent predator, Ross Wollschlager, has been living in a tent in a riverbed
since August, after he was kicked out of seven hotels throughout the county.
He was offered a place to stay with a friend, but couldn't accept because
the friend lives within 2,000 feet of a park.

That is one example of thousands of potentially homeless sexual offenders in
California. That is worrisome on two counts:

- First, studies show the risk of sexual predators reoffending drops when
they have a stable place to live.

- Second, it is much harder to keep track of someone who is homeless.

For instance, if sex offenders have a place to live, their address is listed
on the Megan's Law site. If they are homeless, no address is given and they
are listed only as "transient," as is currently the case with Mr.
Wollschlager.

Certainly, Mr. Wollschlager's living in a river bottom makes it harder to
keep track of him, even though he is monitored by a global positioning
system.

It was just the circumstance those opposed to the law - including The Star -
warned about at the time Proposition 83 was voted on.

Michael Schwartz, Ventura County's special assistant district attorney, told
The Star in September: "The status of this case with him (Wollschlager)
living in a river bottom is not a good state of affairs. I think the state
has got to come up with a better solution where to house these people where
we can keep track of them."

The solution the state is employing at the moment is arresting released sex
offenders who live too close to schools and parks. Although the state
Supreme Court last week blocked the arrest of four parolees who claim
Proposition 83 is vague and unfairly punishes sex offenders after they are
released from prison, it declined Monday to expand its ruling to cover all
paroled sex offenders affected by the law.

That is despite the fact state prisons are so overcrowded federal judges
have threatened to release some prisoners before they have served their full
sentences.

In July, it was determined that some 2,100 newly paroled sex offenders in
California were living illegally near schools and parks and they were given
45 days to find new homes. In Ventura County in August, 33 registered sex
offenders were identified by their parole agents as having to move.

Thursday, parole agents around the state were directed to arrest sex
offenders who could not prove they were living outside the restricted zones.

State Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, co-author of Jessica's Law, said in
July that he would be willing to amend the law if housing for sex offenders
becomes a problem.

We think the evidence is in that housing is a problem, as demonstrated by
Mr. Wollschlager's situation and the ongoing arrests. Those arrests should
be halted at least until the court challenge on behalf of the four parolees
is decided.

Jessica's Law was well-intentioned, but that does not make it a defensible
law.

Sen. Runner needs to amend his law or the courts, no doubt, will eventually
amend it for him, as they should.

Dear Editor

Knee jerk reactions are the norm when people are confronted with a horror
story such as Jessica's. Politicians-ever anxious to make a name and rep for
the public eye, throw their cape back and declare themselves "Here to save
the Day!" They quickly score points for the most draconian of laws that
under normal circumstances would at least cause the public to ponder and
debate. Decisions made from pandering to your most volatile emotions
invariably create chaos and injustice. Thus; California imprisons more
people per capita than any country in the entire world. Thus; prison guards
make more than teachers and "Prisons" become our states fastest growing
industry with income from slave labor.

I want to express how much I appreciate the AVA, particularly for publishing discourse concerning religion.

It has been my belief that religion is the bane of humankind, and that the idea of heaven has created a hell on earth. Once we evolved an ego, the inability to accept death has been the primary reason our species created a God or Goddess (in our own image, of course), that would have the power to control the unknown. It has been an incredibly useful tool of preachers and politicians to control society.

I will always remember Arthur C. Clark’s book, The Fountains of Paradise. It tells the story of human’s first contact with an artifact from an alien culture; a solar powered satellite that receives and sends radio signals. The world holds its breath for the first broadcast from the alien computer onboard the satellite. After listening to all the human broadcasts for three months it responds with a question…“Unable to decipher difference between Beatle mania, Football and Religion. Please Explain.”

Thanks again for the anti-religious refrain. It gets very scary when you know you are in a very small minority. We need much more discussion on the freedom from religion.

Karen Leonard

Sumitted to the Washington Post August 30, 2007

Dear Editor:

The Virginia Tech Review Panel correctly notes that "no one connected all the dots" but it is the Review Panel that fails to make the most important connection. The Panel analyzed a great many relatively peripheral issues, but missed the most salient fact: the Virginia Tech killer, like murderers all across America, easily acquired his deadly arsenal. When will we recognize the significance of our firearm homicide rate being more than quadruple that of any other advanced country -- and about ten times the rate of our otherwise very similar neighbor to the north? The difference is not that the people of Canada, Japan and Europe are better than us; the difference is that our country is flooded with legal handguns and other deadly firearms. Yes, improved coordination between schools and mental health providers and law enforcement agencies should be encouraged, but if we do not want more Virginia Techs or Columbines, the first thing we must do is get rid of the guns.

Submitted to the Washington Post, July 20, 2007

The administration's assertion that the Justice department will not obey Congress and pursue contempt citations against the administration (Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings, July 20, 2007) raises two simple questions: is the administration's perception of its own power so expansive that it could even refuse to surrender power in January 2009, and does Congress have the courage to stop this presidential putsch, whether by using its own inherent contempt power or, better yet, by impeaching the president and all other administration officials who so contemptuously subvert this republic?

Published, New York Times, July 26, 2007

Not all Virginians are angered by the state's increased traffic fines. Egregiously bad driving deserves large fines. I have no sympathy for those so contemptuous of public safety, and I like the idea of shifting some of the burden of financing our transportation network to those who abuse it, and sparing the law-abiding Virginians who depend on it.