text:
It's Time for Gun Control Proponents to Reclaim the Constitutional High GroundNews at Home
Polling data for decades have shown that most Americans favor stronger gun laws. Indeed, surveys demonstrate that such policies are even supported by most gun owners. Yet pundits and political soothsayers have written off this issue because it is perceived to be a loser at the polls.
Gun rights and gun control have long histories. Although both sides in the great American gun debate have claimed to have history on their side, each has presented a version of the past that is highly selective. One of the many embarrassing truths about the debate over the right to bear arms that neither side wishes to admit is that gun rights ideology is the illegitimate and spurned child of gun control.
Efforts at gun control, particularly policies aimed at broad scale prohibitions of firearms, have generally led to an intensification of gun rights rhetoric and activism. Understanding the history of this tangled relationship, one of American history's more bizarre examples of ideological co-dependency, may provide some insights into how we might move this debate forward and break this cycle.
As long as there have been guns in America there have been regulations governing their use and storage. Without government direction there would have been no body of Minutemen to muster on the town greens at Lexington and Concord. If the Founders had imbibed the strong gun rights ideology that drives today's gun debate we would all be drinking tea and singing,"God save our gracious Queen."
Ironically, the Second Amendment does not prohibit robust gun regulation, it compels it. Today's gun rights ideology is antithetical to the original understanding of the Second Amendment and only emerged in the 19th century when individual states began passing the first gun control laws to deal with the new problems posed by hand guns.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's recent summit on gun violence reminds us that this is not the first time in American history that gun violence and gun control have been on the minds of New Yorkers. DeWitt Clinton, mayor from 1803 to 1815, bemoaned the problem posed by hand guns almost two hundred years ago.
There is much to be learned from America's first gun violence crisis and the first gun control movement. It is not surprising that during that struggle gun rights supporters tried to lay claim to the Second Amendment by reinterpreting it as an individual right of self defense. This argument continues to be effectively employed by opponents of gun regulation.
Modern gun control proponents have generally been embarrassed by the Second Amendment, viewing it as an anachronism. Early proponents of gun regulation did not make the same mistake. Rather than dismiss the Second Amendment as a remnant of America 's revolutionary past, they venerated it, reminding their opponents that the Second Amendment was about an obligation citizens owed to their government and communities to contribute to public defense. They also staked out another right that has not been much talked about recently in this debate: a right to be free from the fear of gun violence.
What does all of this mean for the contemporary gun debate? Proponents of gun control must not demonize gun owners, particularly given the fact that most gun owners support reasonable gun regulation. Any solution to America's gun problem must have the support of gun owners.
Rather than abandon the Second Amendment and dismiss it as a relic of another era, supporters of gun regulation need to reclaim this part of our constitutional heritage. Supporters of regulation need to point out that liberty without regulation is impossible. The right to be free from the threat of gun violence deserves as much respect as the right to bear arms.
This piece was distributed for non-exclusive use by the History News Service, an informal syndicate of professional historians who seek to improve the public's understanding of current events by setting these events in their historical contexts. The article may be republished as long as both the author and the History News Service are clearly credited.
comments powered by Disqus
More Comments:
Bradley Smith - 3/5/2008
I agree entirely with your final observation. It occurs to me that if the word "guns" is replaced with the word "arms," which surely is what is intended to be discussed, then we have got a problem with the State that needs to be addressed.
Tim Matthewson - 10/21/2007
Right, America is a real polite place. Why not ask the 20,000 dead people and their families if they think that America is real polite? Indeed, the southern US has long had a reputation as being the region characterized by its good manners. But it also has a reputation for dueling and lynching and mob violence against white and blacks.
Get real. Guns don't solve problems, they create problems, such as homicide!
andy mahan - 9/18/2006
I think we pretty much understand that the rights and liberties granted citizens by the US Constitution are the minimum levels that MUST be protected. States, on the other hand, can guarantee additional, and higher level protections yet cannot diminish the rights extended by the US Constitution.
Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006
I find the message of this article confused and confusing.
The author tells us that the 2nd Amendment implies gun control. I can accept that; I'm in favor of gun control. He then tells us the 2nd Amendment cannot be read as supporting an individual right of self-defense. This latter claim makes no sense whatsoever.
The 2nd Amendment makes reference to "a well-regulated militia." It is one thing--and a legitimate thing-- to take the phrase "well-regulated" to imply a commitment to some sort of gun control. It is quite another thing--and simply incoherent--to take the word "militia" to exclude a right of individual self-defense. If individuals didn't have a right of self-defense, how could militias get them? If individuals didn't have a right of self-defense, how would anyone or anything have any rights at all?
The author needs to come clean on the status of individual self-defense. Is it his view that we literally give up that right because we've entered government? In that case, if I'm attacked, is he saying I can't use force to resist an attack on me? But if he thinks I can resist my attacker, and my attacker has a gun, why can't I resist him with a gun? Commonsensically, it seems that I should have the right to shoot him.
I've often heard the more unrealistic proponents of gun control insist that instead of firing a gun, we should dial 911. But this claim is patently silly. What if I don't have a cell phone? What if there's no time to dial it? What if I'll be killed by the time the police come? More importantly, why should my very life have to take a back seat to some historian's interpretation of the original intention behind the 2nd Amendment?
There is a sensible middle-of-the-road position here. Grant that individuals have a right of self-defense. Grant that in America, this right includes a right to firearms of certain types (but not others). Then appeal to the State's legitimate monopoly on the legitimate use of force to regulate firearms in a reasonable way. None of this violates the 2nd Amendment, but none of it requires that we literally ask ourselves what its authors would do to figure out what we should do.
Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006
Thanks. I think my view would only be controversial to people who believe (a) that we have an unlimited right to purchase any sort of weapon we want regardless of any other consideration, and (b) those who deny that individuals have a right to self-defense (or have any individual rights at all).
Claim (a) presupposes anarchism, and claim (b) presupposes totalitarianism.
Once you reject those two positions, gun control is just a technical legal matter about which guns are to be regulated how. That's not an easy issue, but it's not a deep philosophical problem, either.
Neal J. Lang - 6/22/2006
"At the start of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had to call up the Militia to protect Washington --because many of his top military officers were with his Secretary of War Jefferson Davis organizing an army to attack Washington."
Hmmm! Under what Article, Section and Clause of our Constitution does the President base hit authority to "call forth the militia?"
Neal J. Lang - 6/22/2006
"The Federalist papers are not particularly relevant to this discussion because all three authors opposed a bill of rights at that point in time. They were politicians arguing for passage of the constitution as drafted in Philadephia."
But one of the Federealist Papers authors, James Madison, actually present the original draft of the Bill of Rights to Congress, and by such received the recognition of being both the "Father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights"?
Neal J. Lang - 6/22/2006
"Be wary of where your "non sequitor" argument leads. State governments, unlike our national governments, are not limited by the concept of enumerated powers."
Really? A just what do you suppose the various State constitution do, if not limiting the "power" of the State governments by delgating to them "limited" Powers?
"It takes no effort to stand your argument on its head and ask, "Where is the indication that the people, through their government, do not have the power to interpret that right as narrowly as the wording allows?"
If a "majority" can narrowly limit a "right", then that "right" is no longer a "right", but a simply "privilege" granted by government. You forget that the Constitution was originally passed and ratified without a "Bill of Rights", primarily because the Framers believed that the "rights" in question existed with "the People" before the institution of their government. Unlike our British rulers, the Founding Fathers established the United States based on a "new World order". The "old World order" was based on a construction of sovereignty whereby the King (government) was given its power by God, and on that basis government was the source of "the People" right. The Founders, as stated in the founding document of this Nation, the "Declaration of Indepence", established the "new order" whereby God granted to "the People" sovereignty, and then "the People" could "delegated" some of their sovereignty to government through a Charter, such as our Constitution. If you note that the 2nd Amendment does not speak of "Congress making no laws respecting". Instead, it definitively STATES - "the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", thus limiting the Federal government authority when it came to an armed people way beyond simple law making.
Neal J. Lang - 6/22/2006
"Proof: The vast majority of people with strong-line anti-gun positions (ban them all!) nonetheless would agree that, for example, a woman has the right to strike back at a rapist."
Unfortunatedly they don't. See Great Britain as an example.
Neal J. Lang - 6/22/2006
"There are three types of regulation at issue here.
1. Regulation of ownership.
2. Regulation of use.
3. Regulation of purchase."
Regualtion of ownership: Actually, the 2nd Amendment provides for two "rights" - the "right to keep" and the "right to bear" arms - free from the "infringement of governmet.
Regulation of use: Actually ALL RIGHTS are subject to "restriction" on their use, including "freedom speech and the press". "Rights" are not license, as "rights" never can be exercised for "evil purposes", only "good". "The People's right" to "keep and bear arms" exists inorder to allow "the People" to exercise "self-defense" for themselves, their families, their neighbors, their communities, their States, and the Nation.
Regulation of purchase: If the government retains the "power" to regulate purchase", than "the People's right to keep and bear arms" does not exist. A with the "sufferage right", the State can "debar" and individual the right to "keep and bear arms" if the have proved themselves to be "untrustworthy" by being convicted of a felony. Beyond that, the government cannot "regulate" trade in firearms.
As for just what types of "arms" were contemplated by the 2nd Amendment, according to "Miller" the Reynold's Supreme Court found that specifically weapons that might be considered part of the equipment of a "well-regulated" military force could not be regulated by the Federal government without violating the restraints of the 2nd AMendment. That being the case, sales of firearms, such as the AK47, BAR, Thompson Submachine Gun, and M-16 (all fully automatic machine guns or TRUE "assault rifles") could never be limte by Federal law. The National Firearms Act of 1934, merely taxed the purchase of fully automatic and short barrelled firearms. However, the "ability to tax" is also the "ability to destroy".
Neal J. Lang - 6/22/2006
"The statement by (Tim) is crap! "(Tim) does not know what he is talking about."
The Colonies rebelled against England because the King demonstrated NO RESPECT for "individual rights" of the colonists. The 1775 "Shot heard 'round the World" was fired at Lexington and Concord by armed "citizen militia" at British troops on a "gun control" raid. BTW, until the 1920s and '30s, Englishmen enjoyed virtually NO restrictions on their individual "right to keep and bear arms". Even beyond what their American cousins enjoyed. However, on the pretext of "fear of rebellion and anarchy" by radical communists, the British government gradually began resticting "the right of the People to keep and bear arms", along with the "right of self-defense", both of which are today all but non-existent.
Japan, until losing to the US in WWII, had a culture where the average person was debarred "the right to keep and bear" while a caste of mercenary warriors, the Samurai, were the only ones permitted to be armed. Of course, the royalty and wealthy landowners, which made up the government, hired these Samurai mercenaries to insure their power by keeping down the peasant population. To hold Japan up as an emample of an enlightened, free society is truly quite dumb. In addition to nothing meeting any resemblance of US 2nd Amendment Rights, the Japanese also lack 4th and 5th Amendment protections for their citizens. Also their 1st Amendment rights are substantially curtailed. As for Japan being a "civilized, advanced industrial democray with regards to "individual rights", I suggest that you ask the Japanese-Koreans who have lived and worked in Japan for generations over centuries and to this day are still considered "gaijin" (foreigners), by the bigoted and racist Japanese.
"West European countries and other similar societies have highly rescrictive gun laws and ceeabrate their respect for individual rights."
You mean like Germany, that first had to disarm its popultion with draconian Gun Control Laws (that, BTW, became the model for the US Gun Contral Act of 1968) before that government could effectively demonstrate its the true "respect for individual rights" by slaughtering some 6 million Jews and other "undesirables" in their "Final Solution". Had the Jews met the Gestopo and SS with legally owned firearms when they came for them, Hitler would have found recruiting Gestopo and SS to be a lot more difficult task.
"The rights of Englishmen were the foundation for the American constitution and bill of rights and England is as free or freerer than the Unites States and Brits are far safer from violence than the citizens of the U.S." Actually, unless you live in one of the America's "gun free" zones, such as Washington, DC, Americans experience substantially less violence than do their English cousins.
"The US is a second class country when it comes to the question of violence, more like some third world dictatorship than a civilized advanced industrial democracy."
If you bother to check, you will see that the violence in most "third World dictatorships" is inflicted on "unarmed" private citizens by armed "dictatorial" governments or their armed "henchmen". For an example see the "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sudan, and Rwanda as merely a few of the most recent examples. In Rwanda, had the Tutsis been armed, they might have ended the Hutus' "ethnic cleansing" before it began, by merely meeting the "machete weilding" Hutu mobs with legally owned firearms.
"An armed population is a polite population".
Tom Gunn - 5/20/2006
5 years ago an article like this would have generated 100's if not 1000's of posts.
Gun control is a failed proposition.
Can't even gererate a buzz here.
I'm sure happy.
I currently have two ccw permits and will be getting a third soon.
Life is grand with a defensive gun in hand.
tom gunn
Henry Sydney - 5/19/2006
Well, Mr. Khawaja, at least you've leveled your logical fallacies against both sides.
FALSE DICHOTOMY I (against pro-gun people)
A person either agrees that some guns should be regulated or he is an anarchist who rejects consideration of other factors.
Proof: Most pro-gun people oppose the regulation of particular guns as "bad guns," but most (including the NRA) also accept that certain classes of people should not be allowed to buy or otherwise access weapons (the insane, toddlers, etc).
FALSE DICHOTOMY II (against anti-gun people)
A person either agrees that people should have access to some guns or he is a totalitarian who rejects the concept of self defense (if not all individual rights).
Proof: The vast majority of people with strong-line anti-gun positions (ban them all!) nonetheless would agree that, for example, a woman has the right to strike back at a rapist.
Bill Heuisler - 5/19/2006
Mr. Matthewson,
Lunch meat is a very private matter. But your naivete about the world has become embarrassingly public. You obviously know nothing about guns, the Second Amendment, England or freedom. England's crime rate has risen since most guns were banned. Japan's personal freedoms are very restricted in matters of housing and work and their justice system. Just once travel to a third world country like Egypt, Morocco or even Mexico and compare your safety with the US.
And when you graduate from school and peek into the world of grownups you'll realize how difficult it would be to "remove" guns. How?
Wave a wand, perhaps?
Or would you try to confiscate all guns from citizens - maybe search every home and person? And disarming all those criminals would be quite a task, wouldn't it? And where do you see people shooting down others? Try to remember television isn't real. Read something other than DC comic books, travel beyond the playground, talk to adults. Grow up.
Bill Heuisler
Tim Matthewson - 5/18/2006
The streets of American cities are not safe because of the presence of guns on American streets. Remove the guns and the safety of Americans would increase.
The US is like some Third World dictatorship when it comes to guns for everybody thinks that it's OK to shoot down those you don't like.
It is far safer in countries such as England and Japan where guns are restricted and said countries are also freer than the United States for they genuinely respect the right of the individual to life.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/18/2006
The Federalist papers are not particularly relevant to this discussion because all three authors opposed a bill of rights at that point in time. They were politicians arguing for passage of the constitution as drafted in Philadephia.
There may be an assumption of a core right to own some form of firearm behind the second amendment. But the amendment itself has more to do with the ratification arguments over the dangers of a standing army (Don Williams is probably correct about that) and the relations between states and the national government than it does with protecting the rights of people to bear arms. Both the framers of the original constitution and the framers of the Bill of Rights left that to the states just as they left the recognition and protection of many other rights to the states.
You are correct in questioning the assertion that the second amendment was intended to "compel" regulation, except perhaps in clarifying the role of the states in the militia system. I will be interested to see in Cornell's book what evidence he uses in backing that assertion.
Tim Matthewson - 5/18/2006
The statement by Jacoby is crap! Jacoby does not know what he is talking about. England, Japan, west European countries and other similar societies have highly rescrictive gun laws and ceeabrate their respect for individual rights. The rights of Englishmen were the foundation for the American constitution and bill of rights and England is as free or freerer than the Unites States and Brits are far safer from violence than the citizens of the U.S. The US is a second class country when it comes to the question of violence, more like some third world dictatorship than a civilized advanced industrial democracy.
mark safranski - 5/17/2006
I was very much amused by the author's attempt to revise the history behind the 2nd amendment by accusing his opponents of revising the history behind the 2nd amendment. Either he's exceptionally cynical or is a true believer in gun control the sense meant by Eric Hoffer.
Here is a neat juxtaposition. In this passage Cornell writes about the opponents of gun control as revisionists:
" It is not surprising that during that struggle gun rights supporters tried to lay claim to the Second Amendment by reinterpreting it as an individual right of self defense"
And here he writes about Gun control advocates:
"They also staked out another right that has not been much talked about recently in this debate: a right to be free from the fear of gun" violence."
Really ? Where is that found in the 2nd amendment ? I don't recall Hamilton, Madison and Jay writing in the Federalist Papers about the need for a well-regulated militia as a mechanism to get guns out of the hands of irresponsible frontiersmen either. I guess one man's illegitimate "reinterpretation" is another man's " right not talked about much lately"
Self-Defense, by contrast, can at least make the appeal to hundreds of years of common law precedent as well as statutes defining the legal use of deadly force.
Perhaps the whole root of the gun control argument is a psychological discomfort with self-defense.
Don Williams - 5/17/2006
I'm not talking about a "right of revolution." as you use it. I'm talking about Congress and the State Governments having the power to protect themselves from illegal and unconstitutional aggression by the President. The Supreme Court and Congress do not have the power to impose a tyranny on the US --the Executive Branch does.
The Congress has the power to impeach the President -- not the reverse.
But the problem may not be the President --it may be a faction within the military or Executive Branch. At the start of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had to call up the Militia to protect Washington --because many of his top military officers were with his Secretary of War Jefferson Davis organizing an army to attack Washington.
Congress controls the Militia but Congress does not have the right to destroy the Militia with gun control legislation. Just as Congress does not have the power to scrap freedom of speech, press, and assembly. The reason is that if a specific Congress did those things it would endanger the Constitution and the existence of future Congresses.
There are other such constraints in the Constitution --e.g., the ban on Congress appropriating military funding for a time period beyond its time of office. I.e, the 107th Congress can fund the military during its two year period of existence -- the 107th cannot pass a law funding
the military into the future --into the time periods of the 108th and 109th Congress.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights --including the Second Amendment -- was explicitly stated as being one of contraining the power of the federal government.
Your analysis of our present day situation is incomplete. The problem
is not just the size of the standing army but the extent to which it is "fixed" by a countervailing power or opponent.
We built up a huge military establishment under the pressure of the Cold War but we are keeping it after our opponent collapsed. For the first time in 225 years we have a huge standing army unopposed by any countervailing force.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/17/2006
I like your approach to the problem.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/17/2006
Bellesiles cooked his findings concerning gun ownership, for which he has rightly been exiled from most scholarly circles. The dimensions of the right to bear arms and the ability of government, state or federal, to regulate or restrict aspects of that are a legitimate topic for debate.
If you think someone here is lying or using information misleadingly, indentify it. If you think someone is wrong, say why. If you think an interpretation is bad, give your own.
But if the best you can do is guilt by association, then you don't have much to say.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/17/2006
A few points
1. Most of my comments above were directed at the state level, not the national level. The situation at the state level is very different constitutionally.
2. There is, in fact, no right of revolution at either the state or federal level. More precisely, people only have the right to revolt violently against the government if they win. (They may have the moral duty to do so in some situations, but that is a different argument.} The framers of the constitution were far more concerned with putting down a Shays' rebellion of the future than with legitimizing one.
3. The mechanisms that you note for civilian control of the militia always have it under a government elite at some level. The militia do not stand apart from government.
4. I am not arguing above that a near absolute right to bear arms might not protect us against tyranny; I am simply noting that the phrasing of these rights always (to my knowledge) is conditioned with specific purposes. And revolution against the government is generally not listed.
5. That the presidenncy over time has taken over from Congress some of its military/militia oversight, I agree is true. But part of the responsiblity for this lies with the cross pruposes of the founders. They wanted the presidency and the military to be limited by Congress and yet they also wanted the president free to respond militarily to internal as well as external threats quickly.
So long as the military was small, this contradiction rarely surfaced. A president had to go to Congress to get an army. AFter World War II, our military build up stripped that away. He has a great military at his command. Neither the original constitution nor the Bill of Rights anticipated this.
Don Williams - 5/17/2006
Anyone remember the Bellesiles Arming America scandal a few years ago?
I think Bellesiles was actually the spearhead for an attempt by a group of historians favoring gun control to construct a historical narrative in order to influence the Supreme Court, as the Court prepared to address a Second Amendment case that could have defined the meaning of the Second Amendment.(US vs Emerson)
I wrote an article about those historians here at HNN. Saul Cornell was one of them. See http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=741
For an overview of the Bellesiles scandal, see HNN's article here: http://hnn.us/articles/691.html
The historians' mob might have succeeded if Clayton Cramer had not stuck out his foot and sent the whole matter down some hard, steep stairs. hee hee
Don Williams - 5/17/2006
In the 1780s, Congress defined it as all white males of military age --17 to 46-- not in the military. Which covered most of the citizens who could vote. Today it is defined to cover most of the citizens -- ALL men of military age --plus those women in the National Guard.
Don Williams - 5/17/2006
1) First, the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
is NOT a restriction on the right to bear arms. It is an explanation of why that right is so important and so necessary.
A MILITIA --of all citizens --NOT a federal STANDING ARMY --is NECESSARY to the SECURITY of a FREE state.
2) The reason is that there are 3 possible threats to a state:
a) invasion by a foreign enemy
b) domestic insurrection --an attempt by a domestic faction to overturn the Constitution
c) An attempt by the President or some faction in the Executive Branch/Military to overthrow the Constitution and institute a dictatorship --probably under the guise of "emergency measures" --see
"Patriot Act" and Attorney General Gonzales various pieces of legal sophistry. Read Tacitus's description of how Augustus Caesar gave lipservice to the outward forms of the Roman Republic while replacing it in reality with a veiled dictatorship.
3) Gun control proponent never address the third case, but it was certainly in the mind of the Founders. Of the three branches of government, only the Executive Branch has the resources and power to install a dictatorship. The Founders well knew that: In 1783 , the officer corps of the Continental Army discussed overthrowing Congress -- google "Newburgh Mutiny". In a separate incident, A unit of the Continental Army actually took the Congress prisoner by surrounding Independence Hall in Philadelphia --
Congress escaped by getting the unit drunk and then fled to the protection of the Princeton Militia.
4) The Constitution explicitly states that the Congress can impeach and remove rogue Presidents and military officers --
maybe Mr Chamberlain can explain to us what Congress is supposed to do if the President/military officers refuse to recognize the authority of Congress to do so.
Note that the President cannot remove members of Congress.
Note other measures in the Constitution --CONGRESS controls the seat of government --the District of Columbia.
5) THE major mechanism in the Constitution for dealing with case (c) is the fact that CONGRESS --NOT the President --controls who is in command of the Militia.
In the event of case (a) or (b), then Congress can give command of the Militia to the President.
But if the President/Federal Army is the threat, then Congress gives command of the Militia to the State Governors and flees to their protection.
This is not speculation -- James Madison, the primary creator of the Constitution, explicitly described this mechanism in Federalist 46.
6) A Militia is not necessary for the defense of a dictatorship -- a standing army can handle cases (a)
and (b). But the reason a Militia is NECESSARY for a FREE state is that only a
Militia can deal with case (c). A secret conspiracy may plot a coup -- a secret
takeover of the command of the standing army. But it's impossible to seize control
of the militia in secret --due to its nature. Madison went on to note in Federalist
46 that a unified Militia will always be able to defeat the formal military --
because no nation can afford to sustain a standing army larger than 1/100 of the
Henry Sydney - 5/17/2006
>>If you disagree with my parsing, that's one thing. But you seem to disagree with the necessity of doing that at all. And I find that strange.<<
Of course there's a need to interpret the words. I simply disagree with parsing them outside their historical context.
You want to ignore the history. I don't. I don't see how continue the discussion.
Ta Ta
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/17/2006
Actually I was referring to our discussion and not to your criticism of Cornell.
You have not grappled with something fundamental: states--as opposed to the national government--have power except where prohibited by the state's constitution and by national law and the national constitution.
Because of that, the pecularities of statements of the right to bear arms are of considerable import and must be "parsed" or interpreted, because where the right ends, state power begins. And there are straightforward interpretations most statements of the right to bear arms that would leave individual states broad powers to regulate the right to bear weapons and, as you do note above, even greater power to regulate their use.
If you disagree with my parsing, that's one thing. But you seem to disagree with the necessity of doing that at all. And I find that strange.
James Jacoby - 5/17/2006
If it were true that "most Americans favor strong gun laws," why would politicians that push for these laws keep getting voted out of office?
Does Cornwall really think that the "uber-powerful gun lobby" really has the power to rig elections.
The fact remains that unless temporarilly swayed by the emotional response to some tradgedy involving a gun, most Americans realize that gun restrictions will not stop violent crime.
It is those knee jerk reactions to isolated events that scare me most. Australia lost almost all of its gun rights because of a massive over reaction to one event (Port Arthur). When people are afraid, they make all sorts of irrational decisions. Groups like Handgun Control have been trying to scare people into giving up their rights for years. But the election results across the nation speak for themselves. Americans aren't buying it, and most Americans are clear thinking enough to know that "strong gun laws" only hurt those that follow them. And by definition, only the law abiding follow them.
Henry Sydney - 5/17/2006
>>You want to ignore the words when you don't like them and pretend that intent trumps the phrase if the two are in conflict. <<
You're out of line.
Cornell made claims about the intent of the framers. Thus, it is appropriate for me to place the burden of proof on him -- or his proxies in these threads -- to provide evidence of that intent from the historical record.
Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 5/16/2006
"Polling data for decades" can be cooked by clever questions...
I think it is highly significant that state legislatures have quietly been passing concealed handgun laws, one after another. Something like 43 states how give their citizens this right. Those legislatures have been swayed by the evidence set out in such books "More Guns, Less Crime." I don't think the legislators in the majority on the pro-concealed handgun question have any doubt that their constituents are affirmative about concealed carry. And why not, since it is proven to reduce crime?
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/16/2006
Concerning: "parsing words outside those contexts," you simply have to deal with such parsing. It is often difficult to know the original intent of the people who write a document, not to mention that intent of those who read and ratified it.
For that reason, the first and most important source of meaning in any constitutional phrase is the words that make up that phrase.
You want to ignore the words when you don't like them and pretend that intent trumps the phrase if the two are in conflict. Neither is the case.
I say this not to defeat the right to bear arms, which I support. I say it because a lawyer relying on a clear interpretation of the text of the constitution can often defeat one who tries to "amend" the text by turning to intent.
Clayton Earl Cramer - 5/16/2006
Professor Cornell's argument seems to be built on the notion that the choices are either complete laissez faire (handgun vending machines in elementary schools) or his model. This is a strawman argument.
There's no question that the Framers, fairly pragmatic men that they were, supported reasonable regulation of firearms. But what constitutes "reasonable regulation"? You can search all you want through colonial and early Republic documents, and the most that you will find are the following classes of regulation:
1. Laws requiring gun ownership, and in some cases, requiring you to carry a gun. Here are a number of examples.
2. Laws whose purpose was to protect public safety from accidental or negligent firing or storage of firearms or gunpowder. This article examines a number of such statutes, including a 1786 Massachusetts law that Professor Cornell has pointed to as evidence of the lack of an individual right. But the statute, which prohibits leaving a loaded firearm in "any house, outhouse, barn, stable, store, ware-house, shop, or other building" is clearly a fire safety ordinance. ""Whereas the depositing of loaded arms in the houses of the town of Boston, is dangerous to the lives of those who are disposed to exert themselves when a fire happens to break out in the said town...." The law does not prohibit carrying a loaded firearm on the streets, and the ban on bringing loaded firearms into buildings is clearly for purposes of fire safety only. Otherwise, it would have been a general ban on carrying loaded firearms.
Interestingly enough, the list of items that you weren't allowed to have loaded in buildings in Boston tells us a lot about what the view of Bostonians was with respect to weapon possession. It applies to "fire-arms, or any bomb, granade, or other shell" and "cannon, swivels, mortars." Yeah, this is definitely a sign of the fierce antigun mentality of the time!
3. Laws that limit certain classes of people from owning guns. Slaves, not surprisingly, weren't trusted with guns (except when they were armed as part of some of the colonial militias), and in some colonies, free blacks weren't trusted, either. And guess what? Nothing has much changed. Much of the advocacy of "reasonable gun control laws" and licensing is really the same attitude: that "some people" can be trusted, but not "other people." By making the licensing decision discretionary, advocates of restrictive gun control get to hide the racist roots and current purposes of their laws.
Exactly who these "untrustworthy" sorts are changes with time. Individuals were disarmed for crimes during the Colonial period--although because most serious crimes--and even some that aren't so serious today--were hanging offenses, felons usually didn't need to be disarmed, since dead men with guns aren't very dangerous. In the 1920s, California adopted a law prohibiting non-citizens from possessing concealable weapons--and the stated goal was to disarm Chinese and "Latins." (Other parts of this law--including California's current discretionary concealed weapon permit law--survived court challenge, even though the ban on resident aliens was struck down in People v. Rappard (Cal.App. 1972).
Except for a few ideologues, there is general agreement that governments have the authority to prohibit gun ownership by violent criminals, those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, minors, alcoholics, and drug addicts. Whether a particular gun control law is an effective method of achieving these desirable goals, however, is where the argument lies.
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
>>In the last couple of posts, I was referring specifically to state constitutions, not the national one.<< Well, there's also an historical record for those.
I'm not trying to be a jerk. But I don't see the point of parsing the words outside those contexts.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/16/2006
In the last couple of posts, I was referring specifically to state constitutions, not the national one.
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
>>Let' say we can't know what the people who wrote that meant.<< But we can know. There's an historical record. The founders wrote plenty about "bearing arms." There's also a legislative record for the Bill of Rights.
We have an assertion (words = limited right). There's an historical record. Thus, whoever defends that assertion is obliged to provide evidence from the historial record.
I don't see the point in parsing the sentence outside its historical context ... no offense.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/16/2006
"Thus we're dealing with non sequitur and speculation"
Let' say we can't know what the people who wrote that meant. A provision is not meaningless in the absence of a known intent, but without such knowledge we are left with the phrases themselves. And compared to the statement of other rights, the usual statement of the right to bear arms is more limited.
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
>>The question is, to what extent does the stated right carve out an exception to the power of the state.<<
To the extent that there's evidence that the writers chose their words to imply a limitation ... or at least to the extent that there evidence that the writers believed in such limitations.
Where's the evidence?
Once again, perhaps that was their intent. But we have no evidence. Thus we're dealing with non sequitur and speculation.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/16/2006
No. What I am saying is this. In the absence of stated right to bear arms, the state government would have the power to allow, regulate, or even ban the possession of firearms. The question is, to what extent does the stated right carve out an exception to the power of the state.
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
>>State governments, unlike our national governments, are not limited by the concept of enumerated powers.<< I never said otherwise. Either way, we still require evidence that they indended to limit the right before asserting that point.
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
>>It takes no effort to stand your argument on its head and ask, "Where is the indication that the people, through their government, do not have the power to interpret that right as narrowly as the wording allows?<<
Yes, that's why I wrote, "Perhaps the founders did intend limitations. But where's the evidence?"
These threads are about Cornell's thesis. The burden of proof is on him -- or at least on his proxies here.
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
Crew weapons (cannons) and warships were privately owned in the post-Colonial era. I thus suspect that that the framers would have been comfortable with private ownership of their modern equivalents -- tanks, warplanes, etc.
This leaves free ownership of anything normally viewed as a *firearm.* The framers would be comfortable with people owning any *firearm,* whatsoever, period.
Would Tommy Jefferson have wanted to limit private ownership of atomic bombs. Yeah, probably. But that "fact" doesn't help us much in deciding whether a particular *firearm* is open to regulation.
No offense, but the "atomic bomb control" argument is a red herring.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/16/2006
Be wary of where your "non sequitor" argument leads. State governments, unlike our national governments, are not limited by the concept of enumerated powers.
It takes no effort to stand your argument on its head and ask, "Where is the indication that the people, through their government, do not have the power to interpret that right as narrowly as the wording allows?
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
Yes, I'm very familiar with the argument you're describing.
With all due respect, it's simply a non sequitur – and mere speculation – to jump from "they provided justification" to "thus, they intended limitation."
Where's the evidence?
If the framers wanted a limited right, I'd think there'd be indications in their writings, in the legislative record of the various constitutions, or at least in the laws they passed circa 1789-1820. While there were some laws proscribing certain uses (no shooting inside town, no carrying pistols concealed), there are none targeting ownership until decades later (targeting recently-freed slaves).
Cornell certainly doesn't provide evidence. Indeed, he engages in yet another non sequitur – that the post-Colonial duty to arm oneself implied a state power to take away those arms … he blurs *duty of the militia* with *regulation of guns*.
Perhaps the founders did intend limitations. But where's the evidence?
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/16/2006
I think we are talking past each other a bit. So let me try to rephrase.
The right to bear arms is rarely stated in absolute terms. Most, maybe all, constitutional provisions link that right to other purposes. The question then become this: is the existence of that link a statement that the right to bear arms is limited to fulfilling those other purposes? If so, then it leaves the state open to placing limits on that right that don't undercut the linked purposes.
It is useful here to compare the phrasing of the right to bear arms with the phrasing of other rights. To my knowledge, no free speech, petition, and assembly clauses in any state constitution link those rights with the purpose for which that speech will be used. Thus those rights are unbounded (at least until you get to "yelling fire in a crowded theater").
Whether one is a strict of a loose constructionist, such differences in phrasing matter. If the right to bear arms is as a broad as the right to free speech, why do constitutions not simply say that a person has a right to own and carry arms and leave out the purposes?
One logical answer is that the provision is intended to allow some limitation upon the right to bear arms. If that is the case, then under a constitution in which the right is limited only to creating a militia, the state could use its power to make sure that men bear arms only when doing their duty.
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
>> Not really. If the state provides the arms at a central armory, then the individual right is unnecesary for the purpose of forming a militia. <<
Another non sequitur. It is a non sequitur to suggest that the state's provision of XYZ negates the right to private ownwership and use XYZ for the same purpose.
You are confusing the concept of "need" (the "need" to have arms to defend the state) with the concept of "right" (the "right to have arms to defend the state).
Just because the state fulfills the need, the right remains. Rights are not dependent on need.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/16/2006
"It is a non sequitur to suggest that the duty to own arms to defend the state extends a power to the government to limit that ownership."
Not really. If the state provides the arms at a central armory, then the individual right is unnecesary for the purpose of forming a militia. That's why many state constitutions--such as the Michigan one quoted in a comment above-- indicate that self defense is also a reason for the right to bear arms. The defense of the home or person requires a right to ownership of weapons.
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
Cornell engages in a non sequitur on this point.
It is a non sequitur to suggest that the duty to own arms to defend the state extends a power to the government to limit that ownership.
If the state has such power, it most certainly does not come from the various expression of the right.
Henry Sydney - 5/16/2006
Mr. Chamberlain,
There are three types of regulation at issue here.
1. Regulation of ownership.
2. Regulation of use.
3. Regulation of purchase.
1. People in Michigan (and elsewhere) have the right to *own* guns, whatever the justification.
2. Their *use* of those guns is otherwise regulated, and even "gun nuts" rarely object to certain regulations of *use* -- no hunting without a license, no target shooting in city limits, etc.
The only *use* regulation that gets much debate is concealed carry licenses, and most gun owners seem to accept some regulation here -- the debate primarily is of the type of license ("shall issue" vs. "may issue"), not whether licensing is justified.
3. Regulation of *purchase* is the sticky issue.
Does the mention of justifications -- "defense of self and state" -- give the government power to regulate the *purchase* of guns – to place barriers before the right? Frankly, I find it a non sequitur to say, "The explanation of a right implies a government power."
Thus, whatever power the government has to require background checks, etc. must come from elsewhere than the statement of the right. Perhaps such government power truly and justifiably exists – it simply doesn't extend from the expression of the right.
That begs the question: where does that power come from?
P.S. States don't "extend rights," they protect them (at least in the Anglo-American understanding of "rights"). Understanding that difference is key to understanding the gun debate.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/15/2006
I agree. Usually states can extend rights beyond what the national government does. I was simply pointing out that the Michigan provision did not provide an absolute guarantee but a conditional one (albeit with very broad conditions).
Bill Heuisler - 5/15/2006
Mr. Cornell wants to blur history and confuse stats to control the behavior of law abiding citizens.
Statistics speak for themselves, but arguments based on faulty history assume the ignorance of readers and build false justifications for specific points of view.
Mr. Cornell writes, "Without government direction there would have been no body of Minutemen to muster on the town greens at Lexington and Concord."
First, the actions at Lexington and Concord were those of local groups of patriots who had become loosely organized to resist the "government" and were not "directed" by anyone other than local community leaders.
Second, the Minutemen provide stark proof of the need for the Second Amendment in order to safeguard our other Individual Rights. Those who seek to restrict private ownership of arms in any jurisdiction ignore studies that pair lower crime rates with higher gun ownership and also show restricting firearm possession
only disarms the law-abiding citizen.
Lastly, most gun owners support the enactment of tougher penalties for crimes committed with guns. This does not translate into a desire for restrictions (which affect innocent citizens) but a desire for tough enforcement (which affects criminals)
Bill Heuisler
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/15/2006
But protection of the right to bear arms in the michigan provision is limited to two purposes. That suggests considerable room for regulation concerning the type of weapon and where it is kept.
There is room for regulation under both state (at least those I know) and national constitutional provisions.
Carl L Lot - 5/15/2006
Try as you may, support for Corn'balls biased research is fruitless. For instance, individual State constitutions also secure the right to keep and bear arms. Lets take the Michigan State constitution for example: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state". This States constitution make no mention of a "militia" ... so how do you deal with that?
James Jacoby - 5/15/2006
My comments were directed at the original acticle, written by Saul Cornell, not to the comments by Carl Lot. Carl Lot's comments are quite accurate.
Oscar Chamberlain - 5/15/2006
One of the challenges in this debate is the "upper end" of the arms that a citizen should command by right. I think there is a reasonable consensus that the right to bear arms does not extend to having weapons of mass destructions. But should the line between legal and illegal be there, be between bullets and missile, between automatic and semi automatic rifles, or somewhere else?
And what is proper criteria?
James Jacoby - 5/15/2006
It seems that Mr. Lot attempts to brush aside years of debate with one mighty sweep of his hand. The debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment phrasing has been going on for decades. Yet he confidently ends the debate with one or two sentences, leaving no room in his mind for doubt or controversy.
We can set that entire debate aside, and just for the sake of argument, pretend that the Second Amendment didn't exist. That does not change the fact that history has shown time and time again that an unarmed society eventually becomes a victimized society, whether by the government or by criminal elements in that society. So interpret the Constitution any way you like (I admit I disagree with Mr. Lot's "collective right" view of the Second Amendment) but guns should never, under any circumstances, be taken away from law abiding, and trustworthy citizens.
Carl L Lot - 5/14/2006
Cornell's take on America's Second Amendment is totally illogical and reflect the opinions of an anti-gun liberal. His statements are mearly 'opinion', not fact. Read "Dissecting the Lies" by Dan White to learn the truth at the following url:
- How Jimi Hendrix's London Years Changed Music
- Presidential Campaigns are Almost Always about the Future. In 2020, the Candidates Cannot Stop Talking about the Past
- Richard and the Revolutionaries: Why did Lefties Love Wagner?
- Trump Alleges 'Left-Wing Indoctrination' in Schools, Says He will Create National Commission to Push More 'Pro-American' History
- Black Leaders Launch '1776 Unites' High School Curriculum
- 52 Years Ago, Thelonious Monk Played a High School. Now Everyone Can Hear It.
- From MLK to Whistleblowers, the FBI's Trouble with Dissidents
- If the Electoral College is a Racist Relic, Why has it Endured? (podcast)
- It's the 100th Anniversary of the Wall Street Bombing
- Ed Bearss, Past Chief Historian Of National Park Service, Dies At 97


text:
What are Doctor Who's creeptastic new monsters planning? Who is Fringe's mysterious bowling-alley guru? What does young Bran remember on Game of Thrones? What does Eve want with Supernatural's Sam and Dean? And which horrifying epidemic could bankrupt America?
This week's television is full of strange discoveries and shocking revelations. Prepare yourself, by reading our in-depth guide below.
There's a new Adventure Time with Finn & Jake on the Cartoon Network at 8 ("Heat Signature"), followed by a new Mad at 8:15 and a new Regular Show at 8:30. And then there's The Problem Solverz at 8:45, "The Awesome Banditz"
There's no new Chuck this week.
But at 9 PM, NBC has a new episode of The Event, "Strain."
The White House is rocked by the sudden illness of one of their own, leaving Chief of Staff Peel (guest star Roger Bart, "Desperate Housewives") and Sterling (Zeljko Ivanek) to investigate possible conspirators. Michael Buchanan (Scott Patterson) comes to the aid of Leila (Sarah Roemer), but it leaves them both at risk of Sophia's wrath. Across the globe in Russia, Sean (Jason Ritter) and Vicky (Taylor Cole) race to stop Sophia's weapon from being loaded onto a plane heading to the United States.
Do you think they'll really kill off the president? That would actually be pretty gutsy.
Also at 9 PM, there's a new Stargate Universe on Syfy, "Epilogue":
Returning the settlers to their home planet Novus, the Destiny crew discover the planet has been abandoned and on the verge of seismic destruction.
And then at 10 PM, Sanctuary debuts in its new time slot, with "One Night."
A dinner date goes awry for Will and Abby when they are abducted at gunpoint on their way to a restaurant. Magnus puts a halt to the team's rescue operation upon determining the identity of their abductors, leaving Will and Abby's survival in their own hands.
As usual since V and No Ordinary Family went away, Tuesday is a wasteland. But not to worry — National Geographic Explorer has a hard-hitting look at "The Angel Effect!" No, it's not people debating whether the Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoff was as good as the original show — it's about a real-life brush with the supernatural:
A 9/11 survivor, an astronaut and a blue hole diver - all survived dramatically different traumatic events only to tell strikingly similar stories: each felt a mysterious presence that guided them to safety in their time of greatest peril. But what were these strange presences? Can they be explained? The devout call them guardian angels or divine encounters - others encounter a kind stranger. Could they have been angels? Phantoms? Or were their minds just playing tricks on them? EXPLORER delves deep inside this phenomenon to break down the barrier between science and the supernatural. When faced with life and death, the brain flips an "angel switch," and help arrives-at least for some. Dubbed the "Third Man Factor," hundreds have reported this mysterious phenomenon - and now, science is taking a closer look, zeroing in on the location and the mechanism in the brain they believe may be responsible for these visions.
That's on National Geographic at 10 PM.
At 9 PM, Discovery Channel has another new Mythbusters, "Bubble Trouble."
Adam and Jamie test a tall tale that it's impossible to stay afloat in bubbly water, while Kari, Tory and Grant find out if an arrow packed with explosives can split a tree in two.
At 11 PM, SOAPNet has the third season finale of Being Erica.
It's a geek sitcom showdown! NBC has a new Community at 8 PM, at the same time as a new Big Bang Theory on CBS. On Community, the anthropology class gathers for their final exam, and Shirley goes into labor. On Big Bang Theory, Priya uses her lawyer skills to pick apart the roommate agreement, while the girls take Sheldon dancing.
But don't forget — there's also a new Vampire Diaries on The CW at 8 PM, "The Last Day."
Damon (Ian Somerhalder) is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to prevent Elena (Nina Dobrev) from being a victim of Klaus' (guest star Joseph Morgan) plan to break the curse. Damon's actions put him at terrible odds with Stefan (Paul Wesley) and the tension that started brewing between the brothers over their differing opinions of how to help save Elena's life blows up into full-scale conflict. Tyler (Michael Trevino) returns to Mystic Falls after receiving a disturbing phone call. With the full moon marking the arrival of the sacrifice ritual, Stefan and Elena spend a romantic day together — afraid it might be their last.
And for those of us who don't care if Elena lives or dies, thank goodness Alaric is still with us!
And then there's also a new Nikita on The CW at 9 PM, "Glass Houses."
The Cartoon Network once again has a full slate of programs, starting at 6:30 PM with Batman: The Brave and the Bold, "Night of the Batmen!".
Green Arrow, Plastic Man, Aquaman, and Captain Marvel must all don the Caped Crusader's cowl when Batman is injured and the heroes must protect Gotham City during his recuperation.
Then at 7:30, there's a new Ben 10: Ultimate Alien, "Prisoner #775 is Missing." That's followed by a new Generator Rex at 8 PM, "Written in Sand."
Also at 8 PM, there's a new Smallville on The CW, "Dominion."
Tess (Cassidy Freeman) learns that General Slade was found unconscious on a street corner, proof that someone has gained access to the Phantom Zone's escape portal and sent him back. Clark (Tom Welling) decides to return to the exiled land to make sure other phantoms are not fleeing and is furious when Oliver (Justin Hartley) tricks Clark into taking him along. With Clark's powers gone, the two are immediately captured by the Zoners who take them to their new leader, Zod (Callum Blue), who is thirsting for revenge on Clark for banishing him to this Kryptonian jail. Meanwhile, Lois (Erica Durance) learns Clark trusted Tess with a secret, but didn't tell Lois.
And then at 9 PM, Fringe keeps raising the transdimensional stakes on Fox, with "The Last Sam Weiss." And it looks like that bowling alley guy really does know a lot more than he was letting on about. Hopefully his secrets have nothing to do with the importance of the correct Olivia seducing Peter or anything like that. Here's an interesting video about Sam, which may provide some hints. Or not.
There's also a new Supernatural at 9 PM on The CW, "Mommy Dearest."
Sam (Jared Padalecki), Dean (Jensen Ackles), Bobby (Jim Beaver) and Castiel (Misha Collins) track Eve (guest star Julia Maxwell) to a small town in Oregon. The guys discover the townspeople have been converted to demons, but surprisingly, they all appear to be dying. When they finally do meet Eve, she decides to torture the brothers by bringing back their mother, Mary Winchester (guest star Samantha Smith), as a demon.
At 10 PM, Camelot is back on Starz, with episode 5. Here's a promo.
Also, the first season finale of the crowd-sourced TV show Bar Karma airs on CurrentTV at 10 PM.
The Hub is having its random grab-bag of Transformers and G.I. Joe cartoons as usual from 7 to 9 PM.
At 8:30 PM, George Takei once again plays the holographic sensei in Supah Ninjas on Nickelodeon. In "Checkmate," the Ninjas go after the menacing Checkmate, following the disappearance of an undercover cop.
At 9 PM, BBC America has the second episode Doctor Who season six, "The Day of the Moon." Here's the official description:
The Doctor is locked in the perfect prison while Amy, Rory and River Song are being hunted down across America by the FBI, as the time-travelling adventure series continues. With the help of new friend and FBI-insider Canton Everett Delaware the Third, our heroes are reunited to share their discoveries, if not their memories. The world is occupied by an alien force that controls humanity through post-hypnotic suggestion, and no one can be trusted. Aided by President Nixon and Neil Armstrong's foot, the Doctor must mount a revolution to drive out the enemy and rescue the missing little girl. No one knows why they took her. Or why they have kidnapped Amy Pond...
And above is a clip.
Syfy, which decided to go up against the season opener of Doctor Who with an original movie last week, has nothing new for anyone who's decided that Doctor Who's not their cup of tea after all. They're showing all the Underworld films this evening.
Fox has its usual animated bloc from 8 to 10, with new episodes of The Simpsons, Cleveland Show, Family Guy and American Dad. The latter three shows have a crossover, in which "a storm hits the towns of Stoolbend, Quahog and Langley Falls."
Also at 8 PM, CNN has its first Larry King special, Unthinkable: The Alzheimer's Experience, in which scientists explain what causes Alzheimer's Disease, and commentators explore the idea that this will be "the disease of the 21st century." Says CNN:
King will be joined by people who have been touched by Alzheimer's disease and will include interviews with former First Lady Laura Bush and California's former First Lady and Alzheimer's activist Maria Shriver; actors Seth Rogen, and Angie Dickinson; TV host Leeza Gibbons; football star Terrell Owens and son of President Ronald Reagan, Ron Reagan. Neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta will explain what Alzheimer's is and how this disease affects the human brain.
Seth Rogen, talks to King about supporting his fiancée and her family as they deal with her mom's early diagnosis at the age of fifty-five. He wants the world to know this is a young person's problem too, "More and more people in our generation are gonna have to deal with it," Rogen said....
In addition to visiting the Mayo Clinic, Larry King will visit the cutting-edge Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health at the Cleveland Clinic in Las Vegas, and he will be joined by Ron Reagan. While there, one of them will take a brain scan that will indicate if he is at risk for Alzheimer's or other memory disorders, and one will opt out. Tune in and as they will share the results with the audience and talk to Dr. Jeffrey Cummings, Director, ClevelandClinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health and Larry Ruvo, philanthropist and visionary, to see how doctors are treating patients and what people can do to diminish their risk for Alzheimer's. Dr. Ronald Petersen, Director, Mayo Clinic Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, who treated President Reagan warned, "If we don't do something about Alzheimer's disease right now, Alzheimer's disease in and of itself may bankrupt the healthcare system."
So it's a pretty intense blend of brain science and futurism — but if you've been hoping to remain in denial about this particular nightmare, then on no account tune into CNN at 8 PM.
HBO's Game of Thrones is back at 9 PM, with episode three, "Lord Snow."
Arriving at King's Landing after his long journey, Ned (Sean Bean) is shocked to learn of the Crown's profligacy from his new advisors. At Castle Black, Jon Snow (Kit Harington) impresses Tyrion (Peter Dinklage) at the expense of greener recruits. Suspicious that the Lannisters had a hand in Bran's fall, Catelyn (Michelle Fairey) covertly follows her husband to King's Landing, where she is intercepted by Petyr Baelish (Aidan Gillen), aka "Littlefinger," a shrewd longtime ally and brothel owner. Cersei (Lena Headey) and Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) ponder the implications of Bran's (Isaac Hempstead-Wright) recovery; Arya (Maisie Williams) studies swordsmanship. On the road to Vaes Dothrak, Daenerys (Emilia Clarke) finds herself at odds with Viserys (Harry Lloyd).
The Science Channel is still re-showing all the original episodes of Joss Whedon's Firefly, with special segments featuring physicist Michio Kaku, at 9 PM and 10 PM.
And then at midnight, there's a new Superjail! on Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, "Gay Wedding."
Sources: Futon Critic, TV Guide, and various TV studio press releases.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
is simply celebrating my birthday hehehe
is simply celebrating my birthday hehehe
for new years we have sour kraut and pork with mashed potatoes. we watch the ball drop on tv and enjoy sprakling grape juice to toast the new year!
Every year someone else is hosting the party. Therefore the served food varies but everytime we have the fireworks and dancing the Waltz at midnight.
We usually have a oyster/ low country stew & have beer/wine/cocktails at my sister's house. We also have raffle games/trivia for prizes.
Love is what's in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen. Merry Christmas from my home to yours.
Theresa, Ron & Nolan & Misty the cat
sounds like a lot fo fun. we don't go anywhere on new years eve. we stay home and celebrate together.
And I love it, cause we gather a lot of people and celebrate!!
Actually, its not really a smart move to go out that night cause usually, you have to pay everyhting double, so I prefer stay home with my family and friends and have fun!!
What better than that??
And so, as Tiny Tim observed, "God Bless us!! Everyone!!''
A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens (1843)
Now wait a minute, Susie. Just because every child can't get his wish that doesn't mean there isn't a Santa Claus.
We eat oilballs(a sort of donuts,) applebeignets(a sort of apple fritters) with powdered sugar, of course we open the champagne at midnight. Afterwards we go outside to light fireworks and look over the city at other peoples fireworks. Then we either go back inside and have a nice night with friends or we go clubbing.


text:
Just minutes from Uptown, Plaza-Midwood is a hip area of funky urban dwellings. The neighborhood is known for restored bungalows, thrift shops, local pubs and diners. Cruising down Central Avenue, you'll be sure to smell the aroma of hickory smoked barbeque from Midwood Smokehouse, find tattoo parlors, antique shops, unique boutiques and the neighborhood's library.
Plaza-Midwood, is a neighborhood located approximately one mile to the northeast of Uptown in Charlotte, North Carolina. The neighborhood is roughly bound by Hawthorne Lane to the west, The Plaza to the north, Briar Creek Road and the Charlotte Country Club to the east and Central Avenue to the south.
Locally known as one of Charlotte's most diverse and eclectic neighborhoods, Plaza Midwood is filled with art galleries, funky stores, and restaurants with fantastic outdoor dining. Have a cocktail at sunset on Whiskey Warehouse's rooftop bar or enjoy the weather and brunch while playing shuffle board at Zada Jane's outdoor dining area.
Don't miss: The homemade bread at Nova's Bakery or outdoor ping pong at Thomas Street Tavern. Try a late night "Kitchen Sink" burger with fried pickles at The Penguin or delicious small plates and sushi at Soul Gastrolounge. In the mood for pizza? Don't pass up New York style pizza at Fuel Pizza Café, in a restored 1936 filling station or the newly renovated Pizza Peel with the best pizza crust in town.


text:
FRITZ!Box 7590 Service - Knowledge Base
AVM Content
- FRITZ!Box 6820 LTE
- FRITZ!Box 6660 Cable
- FRITZ!Box 6591 Cable
- FRITZ!Box 6590 Cable
- FRITZ!Box 6490 Cable
- FRITZ!Box 5491
Supported VPN providers
VPN (Virtual Private Network) technology allows you to establish secure network connections over the internet between several FRITZ!Boxes or computers using FRITZ!VPN, Android devices, iOS devices, and a FRITZ!Box. Since the FRITZ!Box supports the standardized IPSec method, it can also be used with numerous VPN solutions from other manufacturers.
However, the FRITZ!Box does not support methods such as OpenVPN or the IKEv2 protocol used by internet anonymization services. Therefore, it is currently not possible to establish a VPN connection to an internet anonymization service with the FRITZ!Box. Instead, set up the connection on the respective devices as described by the provider.
Note:As a rule, while a connection to a VPN provider is active, you cannot open the FRITZ!Box user interface by entering fritz.box. In this case, use the FRITZ!Box's IP address (factory setting: 192.168.178.1) to open the user interface.
AVM Section Navigation


text:
|5' 10"
|Ornskoldsvik, Sweden
|Celsiusskolan HS
2010-11: Went 5-6 overall in singles competition, going 4-1 in dual play and 3-0 in A-Sun play... recorded a 2-0 mark at the No. 4 singles position and 2-1 record when playing at No. 6... put together a 19-12 doubles record, while teaming with Juan Ramirez to go 16-12 in doubles play, the second-highest win total among any ETSU duo... earned doubles victories over then-No. 50 Binghamton and then-No. 1 Virginia in consecutive days (Jan. 28-29)... went 2-3 overall against doubles opponents from ITA ranked teams... earned A-Sun All-Academic honors.
2009-10: Finished the season with a 15-6 overall singles mark including an impressive 9-1 record in A-Sun play...Teamed with Daniel Isaza to earn a 19-9 overall doubles record including a perfect 10-0 in A-Sun play...The duo had an 11 match winning streak towards the end of spring play.
2008-09: Posted a 14-7 overall singles record…Went 9-3 in dual match action…Played the majority of his dual matches at the No. 5 singles position, for a 7-3 record…Record a 17-11 mark in doubles action…Competed in most of his doubles matches with teammate Daniel Isaza…Akser and Isaza combined for a 13-10 doubles record, including a 10-7 dual match mark…Went 8-1 in A-Sun singles action…Picked up ranked wins at No. 32 North Carolina and No. 68 Nebraska.
Prior to ETSU: Competed in the Sweden F4 Features... won first-round match of F4 agains Jeffery Mira Svennsoon in straight sets (6-2, 6-1)... had 11 singles and 13 doubles during his ITF career.
Personal: Born April 10, 1988... majoring is business... son of Tore and Marie Akser.Honors-2011 Atlantic Sun All-Academic Team-2010 Atlantic Sun All-Conference Second-Team-2010 Atlantic Sun All-Academic Team-2010 Atlantic Sun Player of the Week (2/6)-2009 Atlantic Sun All-Conference Second-Team-2009 Atlantic Sun All-Tournament Team-2009 Atlantic Sun All-Freshman Team-2009 Atlantic Sun All-Academic Team


text:
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
In the "old days" (relatively speaking, of course), beta tests in games were literally to help developers find and squash bugs. Any more, beta tests seem to mainly be about generating hype. In today's Devil's Advocate, we take a look at beta testing and offer a few thoughts. See what we've got to say before chronicling your beta experiences in the comments.
While general play is alright for an MMO beta test, you can do so much more if you're willing to engage in erratic in-game behavior. The premise of a beta test is to find ways to break the game, so that the issue you've found can be remedied prior to release. I am, of course, assuming the developer isn't going to saddle you with a horribly unfinished mess and then leave you to stumble madly in ignorance.
Read more of Victor Barreiro Jr.'s The Devil's Advocate: Beta Do It Right.
The problem is that once you've been in a few betas you realise that your feedback is almost certainly going to be ignored.
The devs know better. The testers are just plain wrong (or ignored). Players don't know what they really want. Any one of a million other nonsense responses that I've seen devs post on beta forums.
Those 50 bugs you reported - still there at release. In some cases they're still there months into release.
As a tester, sooner or later, you realise that the devs are too far down whatever path they've taken to turn back now.
UNLESS you get invited into the very early stages of beta, preferably into alpha, your opinion is practically worthless. You are basically there to stress test the system. At least that's the feeling I've been left with.
Alphas tend to be populated with 'friends & family'. People who quite often aren't even the target audience and so any feedback that they give may as well be ignored. Unfortunately devs don't want to be seen to ignore their friends & family (who does?) and so the only non-dev people that get into the 'dev process' early enough to actually make a difference are quite possibly the worst people to be put in such a situation: Friends and family that seemingly know nothing about games. By the time most people get into a beta all the design decisions are so set in stone that they are not going change.
I test business software as part of my job. I know how mind numbingly dull true testing is. I know who to find, replicate and document bugs. But when I've managed to get into game betas, even at fairly early stages, I make reports. I wait. I know fixes don't happen over night. I know the devs have 2, 3 or more builds already squirrelled away before my bugs even have a chance of being squashed. So I wait. 8 weeks, 12 weeks later and they're still there. Sometimes they've even spread.
You offer (I think) well rounded suggestions on how to improve sub-system X or activity Y. You get mostly agreement on the beta forums. The devs do the opposite because some super secret 'focus group' disagreed with you and all the other testers.
Honestly, what's the point?
So now, the devs don't care what I have to say, I don't care enough to bother saying it in the first place.
Originally posted by SBFord
In the "old days" (relatively speaking, of course), beta tests in games were literally to help developers find and squash bugs. Any more, beta tests seem to mainly be about generating hype.
I couldnt agree with this statement more
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
Playing: Skyrim
Following: The Repopulation
I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
I disagree with Beta's not being the final product. Based on experience, practically no significant changes are made to the game during Beta testing. You can have the entire beta community telling the dev's that something isn't good, or that a missing feature *needs* to be added, and they'll just release the game anyway.
You make me like charity
Originally posted by asmkm22
I disagree with Beta's not being the final product. Based on experience, practically no significant changes are made to the game during Beta testing. You can have the entire beta community telling the dev's that something isn't good, or that a missing feature *needs* to be added, and they'll just release the game anyway.
+1, so true... i don't remember last beta which was significantly different than released products... and im betatesting since .... umm i even remember ... September 1997 .... last day of the original beta test of UO!
So many direct ports of korean games and the like end up being EXACTLY the same, beta or not.
Seems to me that growing perception isn't that far off the mark. Have companies not been using betas to fuel hype in recent years?
I have been beta testing games, mostly mmo's, for almost 10 years. And in the last 3 to 5 years the true testing is done in the alpha betas in which the developers learn and listen to the testers.
Once you hit closed beta its more of the developer testing hardware and server capabilities on there end and the testers are just there to have a population to help stress the server. On occasion if enough people run into that game breaking bug that was missed in alpha, it gets looked into.
Open beta today is just a way for them to help hype the game through community advertising and get those last minute pre-orders as NDA is usually lifted at that point.
Dont get me wrong, not all developers follow the formula above. But more and more as time goes on look for that quick buck in which usually the game suffers because of it. But then there is also the Publishers who are to blame since they hold the funding for the developers in there hand. But thats another story.
Originally posted by PyrateLVOriginally posted by SBFord
In the "old days" (relatively speaking, of course), beta tests in games were literally to help developers find and squash bugs. Any more, beta tests seem to mainly be about generating hype.
I couldnt agree with this statement more
I second that... Despite rabid fanboism that always pulls the "but it's beta" card the truth is (specially for the "limited betas" you are playing a release candidate and there isn't going to be much more changed except for maybe some stabillity optimization.
All this hype crap has to stop...
Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...
I've been in at least a dozen MMO betas, and probably closer to 2 dozen.
The state of the game in beta is the state of the game at release. I am honestly surprised you listed this as a myth.
The game will be buggy in beta, and the devs will fix some of the bugs, but then at release they will at the last minute modify something or other and there will be the general server stress.
So, after having been in beta for all of these games AND continued actually to play the games (since I am bored and what else am I going to do) I have to say: State of the game at beta (either open or closed) = state of the game at release (more or less.)
From the F2P perspective:
Open and closed Betas are more for stress testing servers than for "bug quashing". Yes closed betas are more for bug quashing but I've been in many closed and bugs that were there in closed are still there a year (or more) after release; and are sometimes considered "features"! lol
I've also been in one alpha, I was honored and that game has yet to come to beta yet. The devs are seriously reworking the game, changing some aspects of game play. I understand that a major overhaul takes time.
Lastly, +1 on the bit about non disclosure. It's about integrety. If you seriously think the game is junk based on how bad the beta was, say so. But giving out details of what was wrong and how to do replecate bug X somewhere other than the official forum is wrong.
Betas used as hype machines? I would tend to agree. I know a few 'Betas' I participated in, and it felt like I was punching clouds. Almost all of the feedback of the testers (judging from forum posts and 'stories swapped') seemed to be ignored for months, testers belittled, and you know... devs just didn't seem to give a shoot that there were thousands of unpaid players testing their game out, trying to be valuable beta testers. Even very glaring bugs were not fixed. Yeah, I get production cycles and that some things take time. But when a bug persists that locks everyone in the starting zone into release... that's plain lazy.
Thankfully I've had other Betas as well, where feedback was indeed heard, where the devs even said "mechanic X has often been mentioned by testers. We're going to test it this build - please leave your feedback if the new or the old system worked better, and why".
You felt like your time spent at Beta was not time spent in vain, but that you really did your part to improve the game.
When I beta test, I work. Sure, it's fun work (which is why I do it on my own time), but I am not gaming in that time. I am testing. And I am sinking a lot of man-hours into that testing. And yeah, for me as voluntary and unpaid Beta tester it is important to know that I am not just burning time when I fill out bug reports, feedback questionnaires or write forum posts.
And that is why I have come to disdain 'PR Betas'. Because they are nothing to do with testing, only with generating buzz. I don't do buzz. We have editors for that.
Well how about charging people to play beta like sooooooooo many devs are doing these days 69$ to get into the beta for neverwinter noo way in hell.
That being said I did buy a founders pack for both defience and firefall. Loving firefall at the moment can play when I want !!! And it only cost me 19$.
But I agree for the most part beta,s have lost there way and it's because people and company's are greedy and the company's will charge asking as the people pay.
Current games;
Star treck online
Eve online
Originally posted by cyrician
Well how about charging people to play beta like sooooooooo many devs are doing these days 69$ to get into the beta for neverwinter noo way in hell.
That being said I did buy a founders pack for both defience and firefall. Loving firefall at the moment can play when I want !!! And it only cost me 19$.
So...you hate that they did it with Neverwinter but not Defience? Wut? Dont know about anyone else but I paid with Neverwinter for the Drow, Mount and shop currency, beta access made NO difference at all.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/users/thetroublmaker
Most of the betas that mass audiences are getting access to are in the final stages, and become available to let folks get a glimpse, fix a few bugs, and stress test. By this stage, games aren't going to change that much, so what you're getting basically IS the finished product. It's unfortunate that those who stop playing because the game isn't fun annoy you.
I, for one, won't keep playing a released game if I'm not having fun with it. Why continue in a beta if it's not fun?
very few of the games Ive "beta tested" have been actual beta´s, but somehow 5 years ago people would get annoyed when pointing it out, but have seen alot say this and that game sux during beta and because of that wont ever buy the game, and I believe this to be the main reason general players wont be allowed to test games anymore before it is 95%+ done....
would even go as far as claim RIFT intentionally left useless systems in the game, to let people say they wanted it changed, but then that is the place Ive been the most amazed how pigheaded people can be though, in RIFT "beta" there were huuge flaws afew months before release, but people would actually defend them and claim they wanted them there, still the developers corrected them, and people afterwards can claim TRION listened to their beta testers and you could actually see the huge improvements afterwards.
think the last game Ive been in a real beta for, without having to pay, were the chronicles of spellborn...ofc there were FFXIV as well, but dont think they actually had thought they needed to change anything, just needed to test the servers during heavy use, which ofc is important too
Considering companies push their betas now as marketing tools it isn't a real surprise players are following this trend.
You market something that way and use it as a mechanism to try and get people to preorder your game this is what you get. Not real fucking surprising nor can I blame some for feeling that way.
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
simple fix : Alpha test > Beta test > Foundation Release (for those that pre-order and yada yada)
Companies need to differentiate beta from foundation and use the Beta stage for what it is


text:
Did Rihanna Get Dreads?
Rihanna has changed her hair so many times in the past several months, going from fire engine red to shaggy blonde to long, black and straight, that it would not shock us if the Bajan beauty went for another bold look.
She shared a photo that has us wondering: Did Rihanna get dreads?
She tweeted a photo of her bad self with the caption: "Wake bake shake dem dreads." Her beautiful eyes were framed by thick, round dreads.
Obviously, it's some sort of wig, since actual dreading takes months and starts out with knotted, unwashed locks. RiRi is an island girl, so dreads would be a flattering look for her and a nod to her region of origin.
If RiRi does rock dreads for a few days or months, we pretty much demand that she sing Bob Marley songs while doing so. The fact that she mentioned waking and baking is further indication that RiRi is embracing the 420 culture, which is closely tied to reggae and dread wearers.
Tell us what you think of RiRi with dreads. Is it a cool, temporary look? Should she commit and do real dreads? Do they overwhelm her delicate, pretty features? We think she looks, as usual, fashion-forward and fine.
Watch the Rihanna 'Man Down' Video


text:
FunStuff: Charlottesville events June 20 and beyond
Adams and Jefferson sing
What could be more lively than hearing Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (not to mention Ben Franklin) singing about their big break from England? You'll get that and more in 1776, the classic musical that won a bunch of Tonys after its 1969 Broadway debut. Here, it's directed by the well-known drama department leader Robert Chapel. Please note that, due to construction of a major addition to the UVA drama building, this is the only production put on this summer by the Heritage Theatre Festival, that professional group that stages crowd-pleasers at UVA. Opening night is Thursday the 21st, but it continues evenings through the 30th of June when there's also a 2pm matinee.
June 21, Culbreth Theater, 7:30, $15-40
Slash and learn
The Students for Creative Anachronism are those folks who practice armored combat using techniques from the Middle Ages, and they're happy to teach others how to fight "using sword and shield just like the knights of medieval times." All this Thursday-evening pugilism happens at the Dell, that grassy area by UVA's Curry School of Education along Emmet Street. Rain location: the bottom of the Scott Stadium Parking Garage.
June 27, The Dell, 6-7:30pm, free
Learn girl secrets
LiveArts has invited DeeDee Stewart to give her secret and comedic oral history entitled, Dirty Barbie and Other Girlhood Tales, a show that her publicist has described thusly: "It's like David Sedaris...with boobs!" It's a one-woman monologue about the secret lives of little girls, "the way we play and the unsupervised side of childhood." Stewart, who grew up in a small Southern town, will give three consecutive nightly performances beginning Wednesday, June 20. "I wanted to shape my stories into a one-hour wild ride," says the monologist, who provides a "talkbalk" after each show. (An additional performance on Saturday the 23rd includes the normal 60-minute show plus 15 minutes of "exclusive" new material– for $100 including drinks and catered pre- and post-show receptions.)
June 20-22, LiveArts, 8pm, $20
Meet the Batteau-ers
You've long heard about the James River Batteau Festival, but you've always wondered how you're supposed to watch something that moves along the James River from way west of here to way east of here. Well, now's your chance to see the boats that carried tobacco and other goods down the river at Batteau Night. The Batteau that launched in Lynchburg will begin arriving in Scottsville mid-afternoon on Wednesday, June 20 to tie up at Scottsville's Ferry Street public boat landing for the night. Not only will the Scottsville Museum be open that day from 1-8pm, but Canal Basin Square– located just a block east of Valley Street on Main– will fill with food, craft vendors, and live bands. And those nimble boats will be hanging out nearby.
June 20, Scottsville, bands begin at 4:30pm, free
Meet the Bypass man
Love it or hate it, the U.S. 29 Western Bypass appears to be heading this way, due in no small part to the keynote speaker at this upcoming lunch event. Invited by the North Charlottesville Business Council, the Virginia Secretary of Transportation, Sean Connaughton will speak. "Sean has been a champion for improved and safer transportation in our region and throughout the Commonwealth and a tireless advocate to advance the US29 Western Bypass project and many other needed projects in our community," says Council Chair Lloyd F. Wood. The mid-day Wednesday event appears to require pre-registration, so call the Chamber at 295-3141 or register online.
June 27, DoubleTree hotel, 11:30am, $37.50
Keen at the Jeff
One of the bigger names in the alt-country music scene is coming to downtown's rockingest big venue. Robert Earl Keen, a Texas boy and friend o' Lyle Lovett, runs the gamut between sensitive vignettes ("Corpus Christi Bay"), raucous barroom fun ("That Buckin' Song"), and sheer silly satire ("Copenhagen"). Still Texas-based, Keen's touring in support of his 11th studio album, last summer's Ready for Confetti. The opener for this Tuesday-night twofer is an earnest and serious-sounding one-man acoustic powerhouse who calls himself The White Buffalo.
June 26, Jefferson Theater, 7pm doors, $25-30
Bike thru JPA
Although pedestrians may claim their way is #1, one really powerful way to get to know a neighborhood is on a bicycle because it affords such a mix of human scale and wide range. As part of Charlottesville's Celebrate250 "Where I Live" events, there'll be a Sunday afternoon bike ride through the Fry's Spring area. Although the ride launches from a venerable swim club, organizers urge anyone arriving by car to park at the nearby JPA Baptist Church. They plan to hit a few well-know streets like JPA itself, along with Robertson and Stribling Avenues, but also back roads and paths that you may not know.
June 24, Fry's Spring Beach Club, 1:30pm, free
Get Waivey
The Southern Charlottesville says it's excited to have Jim Waive and the Young Divorcees coming to The Southern for a Saturday night show– even though the smoky-voiced Waive didn't have to go far to reach to this hip underground (and perfectly legal) music venue. He makes Americana/country and sounds like a woodcutter with a kind of haunting innocence. With his regular Wednesday night solo acoustic gigs at The Blue Moon Diner, Waive is already a Charlottesville institution– and this is a chance to have his full band, The Young Divorcees, playing. Openers are Sally Rose, an up-and-coming Nelson native who'll duo with her mother, Cathy Monnes. But perhaps the biggest name on this triple bill though is the Honeycutters, who recently sold out the 550-person Grey Eagle in Asheville for a hometown CD release show.
June 23, The Southern, 7pm doors, $10
Tales of internal terror
You'll definitely want to break up with this ED– because ED means Eating Disorders. UVA-educated actress named Angela Pirko, who plans to donate all proceeds from this event to the National Eating Disorders Association, developed Breaking Up With ED, by interviewing eating disorder survivors and turning the real-life stories into an ensemble piece played by five actors. This show– assisted by the Kickstarter crowd-funding source– will be going to Washington DC's Capital Fringe Festival this summer, but Pirko is bringing it to Charlottesville for an early preview. "Many of the survivors interviewed came from the area," says Pirko, "and I wanted to do a special showing for them." And it's being held at a venue at 315 West Main Street that may not survive due to the impending construction of a new hotel, so check it out.
June 23, Random Row Books, 7pm, $10
Just like the record
That promise keeps echoing in our brain: "just like the record – just like the record." This band was formed in 2001 for one purpose: to authentically recreates rock and pop from the mid '60s to the mid '70s British Invasion. "That's all we do, but that's plenty," they say. The band is The English Channel, and they'll soon invade Fridays After Five with the songs of Rolling Stones, The Dave Clark 5, The Kinks, Dusty Springfield, Moody Blues, The Animals, The Zombies, The Yardbirds, and many more. Warning: they don't sport zany moptops and Nehru jackets; they just look like ordinary blokes, so keep remembering: "just like the record."
June 22, nTelos Wireless Pavilion, 5:30pm, free
This week's "FunStuff" was compiled by Hawes Spencer, and next week's "FunStuff" will be compiled by another newsroom staffer. To get your event considered, send a press release and photo to firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
These days when I fleetingly look in the mirror, consciously or not I look out for very different signs as compared to a few years ago. I'm not so much checking for neat eyebrows, tidy make up or how large my eyes appear (yes that indeed used to be a consideration a lifetime ago), but the checklist is wearily composed of; do I look tired, how many grey hairs are peeping through, do I spot any facial hairs and mostly…do I look healthy?
Pre-child I had promised myself that I wouldn't let myself go. As I geared up for motherhood my husband heard reaffirmations from me a million times or more that I would continue to shop at my favourite boutiques, wear make-up, go to the gym and still have time for a facemask. It wasn't until in recent months, when well intending friends pointed out how lovely it was to see the 'old me' back that it dawned on me, that I had faded quite a lot…into dark holes of formless, halfway-house and never-ending leggings. I have thrown them all away now, the leggings I mean.
It was going pretty well, I was eating more fruit and I felt light and springy as did my hair. Since then there has been a bit of dip in the bounce partly due to a fatigue induced ravenous appetite. My appetite has been as relentless as my schedule of work and toddler and I caught a flash of self-assessment whilst shopping today. Along with more sleep, it is time to behave well again on the food front but I can't entertain the thought of any of these juice diets or carb-cycling thingies. I am a temperamental when hungry and I cannot and will not eat beans on toasts and when my husband suggests cereal for dinner after a long night and train journey home at 10pm, I just cannot. Eating cereal for dinner would be just hitting rock bottom.
I am satiated with bold colours and spice, deep texture and might. I crave vegetarian fast food. I tell myself that I must eat healthy recipes, whilst I am gratified by aromas that invite my fingers into the food and draw moisture to my mouth. And this vegetarian recipe for roasted cauliflower Manchurian (or Gobi Manchurian) cuts it. It's a take on a popular indo-Chinese recipe, but I haven't fried the cauliflower. It still hits the spot.
Ingredients to serve 2-3
A medium head of cauliflower cut into large florets
1 ½ tbsp. soy sauce
1 tsp. minced ginger
1 tsp. minced garlic
A generous pinch of Chinese 5 spice powder
6 tsp. of corn flour
For the sauce
2 tbsp. tomato ketchup
1 tbsp. soy sauce
1 tbsp. siracha sauce
1 tbsp. agave nectar
1 tbsp. freshly chopped coriander
3 spring onions, finely chopped
- Heat the oven to 180 degrees and line a baking tray with baking paper.
- Coat the washed cauliflower with the Chinese 5 spice powder, garlic and ginger paste, soy sauce and then finally the corn flour.
- Place each of the florets in the oven and roast them until they are crisp and lightly browned. This should take 45 minutes.
- Once cooked, remove the cauliflower florets and place them in a large bowl. Combine the cauliflower florets with the sauce and toss them until they are evenly coated.
- Serve the cauliflower Manchurian hot. I served with wholemeal tortilla and beansprouts, as a wrap.


text:
This is our Focus' Odometer. Everyone wave. It's friendly.
This is our Explorer's Odometer. It's easier to photograph. Kinda.
I'm going to try to top whatever miles that my wife and I accumulate on these two vehicles combined. I'll post periodic updates. And I suppose I need to update my spreadsheet to track month-to-month how much driving we've managed to do.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Prime Directive 2009
This is our Focus' Odometer. Everyone wave. It's friendly.
6 comments:
Happy New Year Noah! Here's a prognostication for 2009: I forsee no summer road trips by automobile in your future :)
- January 01, 2009 9:17 AM
- Noah said...
Actually, we kind of want to go to the Ozarks, about a 300 mile round trip.
- January 01, 2009 10:22 AM
- Jason said...
hahaha I like it!! Can't wait to see what happens :)
Happy New Year!
- January 01, 2009 7:53 PM
- kG said...
GET IT ON!!!! Happy New Year, man.... Good goal!!!
- January 01, 2009 8:19 PM
- Tim O said...
I cheat and live less than a mile from my house....but I want to get 3000 in this yr. Only 2984 left to go after today!
I read CDude's brief account on the 200k and will be fun to hear about his adventure. May need to get up to speed on 200k's in '09 so I can make that goal. Only got to just under 2000 again this yr.
BTW - we need to plan a 2-3 day overnight adventure into KS for this summer!!
- January 01, 2009 9:35 PM
- Tim O said...
Sorry, I meant WORK less than a mile from my house. Most people DO live less than a mile from their house, unless the house has wheels :)
- January 01, 2009 9:36 PM
Privacy Policy
By leaving a link or e-mail address in my comments (including your blogger profile or website URL), you acknowledge that the published comment and associated links will be available to the public and that they will likely be clicked on.


text:
At least Franklin Gutierrez now knows what caused all of his stomach problems for nearly a full year. Gutierrez visited the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota earlier this week, where he was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome as the cause of his stomach issues that first popped up last summer.
"It's basically a confirmation of what our guys here thought he had and now it is matter of treatment," said Eric Wedge.
"The first step will be one, lets hope this initial treatment does work. It is not just a clear cut treatment, everyone's chemical balance is different obviously so it is dependent on that."
Gutierrez missed a chunk of Spring Training and has been on the 15-day disabled list with stomach gastritis. He missed all but six spring training games, and has lost weight, stamina and time to his condition. Gutierrez was scratched on March 17 after his stomach discomfort flared up. Gutierrez said he was ready to join his team for pre game work and that has put on additional pounds in the last week. Being able to eat is key for him and although he has only just started treatment he said he does feel better and his goal is to wipe out the bad days.
One of the biggest things for Gutierrez is the relief that comes with the firm diagnosis. He sat at his locker before the Mariners' game against Oakland and had a look of relief mixed with the lingering frustration that comes with being kept off the field.
(Nearly one in five American adults has irritable bowel syndrome. In most cases, the disease can be managed with treatment.)