Ok. Here is a test to see who is paying attention. We had our 17 week ultrasound today and it looks like we are having a boy. Any name suggestions?
~A
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
State Cold Wars
Since Arizona's recent passing of their infamous immigration law there have been quite alot of unexpected responses. In my own state of Colorado there are at least 2 organizations I have heard of who have tried to ban their members from travelling to Arizona in protest of the law. Who are these radical groups? The City of Boulder, and Denver Public Schools. ??? Arizona beware...your tourism dollars are at risk!
At any rate, I'm not posting this simply to air my incredulity at the actions of a few of my fellow Coloradans. Mom sent around a forward attributed to Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen which I traced to an online journal. I wanted to post our conversation and get all of your feedback. So, here it is:
_
_
Mom:
I looked at Snopes and found no rebuttal of this information. <>
Ammon:
Here is the original article on TucsonCitizen.com: http://tucsoncitizen.com/the-cholla-jumps/2010/05/01/state-senator-sylvia-allen-responds-to-sb1070/. I always like to read the comments of readers to get some more varied opinions on articles.
Mom:
Thanks, Ammon. It was interesting to read the comments of others. What do you think about her message?
Ammon:
I do wish she would have been a little more specific about what the law said. It seemed like most of the article was taken up in why a law was needed and the objections of the opposition rather than what the law is trying to do and why that will solve the problems they are facing. There seemed to be somewhat of a disconnect between what she was saying about illegal crossings hurting those living on the borders and what the law would actually do (empowering law enforcement to verify legal status during routine traffic stops?) It seemed to me that if some rancher was having thousands of people move through his land every day that law enforcement could go to his ranch and verify this and do something about those people as they are entering, or follow them and see where they are getting help to transition into society. Also the same thing where ranchers are saying there are military operations, or clear and regular drug activity, that could be verified and those people could be treated like any other criminal organization rather than well meaning immigrants who sees no other way to improve their life.
_
_
So, anyone else want to chime in? Jay, are you perhaps more tuned into the border issues that the rest of us?
~A
At any rate, I'm not posting this simply to air my incredulity at the actions of a few of my fellow Coloradans. Mom sent around a forward attributed to Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen which I traced to an online journal. I wanted to post our conversation and get all of your feedback. So, here it is:
_
_
Mom:
I looked at Snopes and found no rebuttal of this information. <
Ammon:
Here is the original article on TucsonCitizen.com: http://tucsoncitizen.com/the-cholla-jumps/2010/05/01/state-senator-sylvia-allen-responds-to-sb1070/. I always like to read the comments of readers to get some more varied opinions on articles.
Mom:
Thanks, Ammon. It was interesting to read the comments of others. What do you think about her message?
Ammon:
I do wish she would have been a little more specific about what the law said. It seemed like most of the article was taken up in why a law was needed and the objections of the opposition rather than what the law is trying to do and why that will solve the problems they are facing. There seemed to be somewhat of a disconnect between what she was saying about illegal crossings hurting those living on the borders and what the law would actually do (empowering law enforcement to verify legal status during routine traffic stops?) It seemed to me that if some rancher was having thousands of people move through his land every day that law enforcement could go to his ranch and verify this and do something about those people as they are entering, or follow them and see where they are getting help to transition into society. Also the same thing where ranchers are saying there are military operations, or clear and regular drug activity, that could be verified and those people could be treated like any other criminal organization rather than well meaning immigrants who sees no other way to improve their life.
_
_
So, anyone else want to chime in? Jay, are you perhaps more tuned into the border issues that the rest of us?
~A
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Domestic Terror
I heard a snippet of comment today on the radio. I think it was from an FBI guy and it was relating to the second amendment and the legal purchasing of guns, probably motivated by the recent bombing attempt in Times Square. The basic gist was that he thought that any person on a terrorist watch list, or the like, ought to be prohibited from legally purchasing firearms. I am really not sure how I feel about the issue...
Currently, the second amendment guarantees the right to purchase arms for anyone who has not been convicted of a crime, or something like that. When I first heard the comment I was inclined to agree with him, but then I got to thinking about the intent behind the amendment, and wasn't sure we ought spread such a wide net. There is no constitutional definition of a suspected terrorist. I suppose that if the government were to go corrupt to a point that good people were motivated to rise up against it, those people would be considered terrorists by that government. So how do you word a law that will protect the rights of good, moral people trying to defend their moral existence, and still prevent evil people from obtaining weapons?
I do not believe that our representative government is broken. I don't think that anyone who were to engage in violent acts against our current government system would be justified in doing so, but as a student of history I can conceive of such a time. Our forefathers lived through such a time, and gave us the second amendment so that hopefully we would never again fall into such a state. I think that needs to be seriously considered before any changes be made to our laws. On the other hand, I'm all for making it difficult for people to hurt us.
Any thoughts on how to resolve the two sides?
~A
Currently, the second amendment guarantees the right to purchase arms for anyone who has not been convicted of a crime, or something like that. When I first heard the comment I was inclined to agree with him, but then I got to thinking about the intent behind the amendment, and wasn't sure we ought spread such a wide net. There is no constitutional definition of a suspected terrorist. I suppose that if the government were to go corrupt to a point that good people were motivated to rise up against it, those people would be considered terrorists by that government. So how do you word a law that will protect the rights of good, moral people trying to defend their moral existence, and still prevent evil people from obtaining weapons?
I do not believe that our representative government is broken. I don't think that anyone who were to engage in violent acts against our current government system would be justified in doing so, but as a student of history I can conceive of such a time. Our forefathers lived through such a time, and gave us the second amendment so that hopefully we would never again fall into such a state. I think that needs to be seriously considered before any changes be made to our laws. On the other hand, I'm all for making it difficult for people to hurt us.
Any thoughts on how to resolve the two sides?
~A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)