Prairie_Scouter

Brent, Kahuna,

Thanks for correcting that information. I appreciate the info. Unfortunately, both sides label the other's information as "propaganda", so it's hard to know what's accurate.

I live in the North, so what I read is colored by that in regards to urban views of gun control. I thought the same was true in the Southern urban areas, but I guess not. Interesting.

It'd be interesting to have some valid data, because I'd bet that there are still 2 sides to the story. I did come across this very interesting site recently, http://www.guncite.com/index.html, and while it's views are decidedly biased, it offers a very good rational behind its views. You know, tho, one thing that stuck out in my mind as I read their statistics and their view of them was, "so many gun-related crimes. you have to wonder where we'd be if we just didn't have access to so many weapons."

Bottom line is, the studies really don't matter. Whether you think you'll be able to defend your family with a gun is largely a personal view, and whether a person could really use a gun effectively in that situation could be a reasonable assumption or wishful thinking.

And, I think that people who think that they could defend their families with a gun have that legal right to do so. As I said, what I'd like is some way of being reasonably sure that the community isn't being put at unnecessary risk at the same time. Some way of assuring that that weapon is being safely stored, that the owner is competent in its usage.

And, of course, none of this addresses the societal cost, in dollars, of a nation that is heavily armed. It would seem that there would be some cost associated with that, perhaps in increase health care, increased litigation, etc. Doesn't seem like it'd be "free". Maybe it's all offset by something else; I really don't know.

Rooster,

BUDDY! It's early in the morning, have another coffee or something. Sheesh.

I don't read anywhere in LongHaul's post that he admired Middle Eastern countries that supposedly hate us, nor do I see anything there where he tried to justify the attacks on 9/11. Those, I think, are conclusions you're reaching based on your reading of his comments. I don't read them that way, but your mileage may vary.

But, he does have a point. We as a nation understand very little about what's going on the Middle East, why things are happening the way they are, the history that led them there, etc. There's no justification for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I believe that we were justified in our invasion of Afghanistan in an effort to capture those who attacked us. I also believe that the invasion of Iraq was misguided, based on a faulty view of intelligence, and diverted us away from the true mission. But, this isn't a tit for tat kind of adventure. Just because somebody does something to us means we can turn around and do the same thing to them. Just because our enemies practice torture and inhumane treatment doesn't mean that we should. What kind of country are we, really, if our government is passing around notes asking what they can get away with in regards to torture, and this from an administration that's notorious for it's black and views of things? So, let's see, if the person doesn't quite die, is that torture? So, if we say that we won't torture people, is it ok for us to take our prisoners and turn them over to "friends" who will torture them on our behalf? Should we be "hiding" prisons where we can keep people for undetermined lengths of time with no benefit of counsel, not charges being brought, just because we "think" they might be somehow associated with our enemies? I'm personally encouraged that the American people aren't walking in lockstep, agreeing with this view of things, and more and more, saying in effect, "hey, wait a minute".

Torture is wrong. Whoever does it is wrong. And that includes us. Create all the moral thought experiments you want; it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. That doesn't mean that in some extreme cases it might come to that, but we shouldn't for a second think that it becomes some sort of noble thing to do in that case.

And let's put this "America, love it or leave it" baloney to bed right now. The fact that there are those who don't agree with what this administration is doing doesn't mean that they love this country any less. Why don't we turn it around? If there are those who think that torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners is an okeedokee thing to do, then maybe you're the ones who should find yourselves a nice place to go live. There are plenty of countries around who think that that behavior is perfectly fine. The U.S. just doesn't happen to be one of them, at least most of the time.

I'm guess I'm asking from the standpoint of both the SM and and MBC. As an MBC, I've never had it come up, so I was curious as to what the policy, if any, was. As you've all commented, you can't sign off someone unless you can verify that he's done the work.

As the SM, I had a Scout come up to me and say that he's lost the cards for both Camping and Hiking (of course, they WOULD be badges that are more difficult and time consuming to complete ). I and a couple of the ASMs can verify that he did complete the tasks he had on his partial because they were done on Troop activities that we were a part of.

As an MBC, personally, I'm thinking that that would be sufficient to reconstruct the partials, but I'm wondering if that's just me, or if that would meet the standards of other MBC's as well in similar situations.

Thanks for the input, by the way. Appreciate it.

What to do about lost, partially completed merit badge cards?

I think the demographics on the desire for gun control are pretty clear. People living in urban areas are by and large in favor of gun control. People living in rural areas are by and large against gun control. And, that sort of makes sense. Guns in the cities are mostly used to harm other people, or cause people to be harmed accidentally. Guns in rural areas are mostly used for hunting, a perfectly fine use of a firearm if that's your interest.

The 2nd Amendment says, well, "something", and that debate will continue on here and elsewhere.

All I really care about is, if someone wants to own a gun, fine, I just want a requirement that they know how to use that firearm safely, and be able to prove it, or collect non-operational guns. That's my wish.

The rest of this is all conjecture and opinion. Based on everything I've read and found out on this, the idea that people can expect to protect themselves in a home invasion, with a gun, is pretty far fetched. I think that the statistics bear this out. A gun in a home is a lot more likely to end up accidentally harming someone than it is to be used to protect a family member. Something like 43 to 1 if I remember correctly. But, if you want to think that you're the "1", more power to you.

I just don't see much credibility in the argument that we need to be armed to defend ourselves on the off chance that the U.S. military turns around and invades Kentucky, or Michigan, or someplace. You might think that the citizenry could rise up and deflect such an invasion, ala "Wolverines"; I think reality says that that ain't gonna happen.

All in all, I'm of the opinion that the problems with violence in this country aren't going to be solved by having everyone run around with a gun.

Well, I don't know that I'd agree with the idea that "Like all other gun laws, the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 did nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, it merely made criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.", Torveaux.

I'm of the opinion that some common sense limitations on gun ownership and use are acceptable in order to provide for the overall safety of the citizenry. Whether a person thinks that the Constitution allows a right for weapons ownership or not, it should just be common sense that you have to take into account the safety of the citizenry. Maybe the right to bear arms need to be broken into two pieces, gun ownership and gun use. I don't care if a person has 20 guns of all kinds, as long as they can't fire them. Collectors, I suppose. Once a person starts to USE firearms, tho, I think it makes sense to require some sort of licensing based on a knowledge of gun use and safety, or if not licensing, just some sort of proof of training required to make a gun purchase.

There's a cost that goes along with having an armed citizenry. I choose not to be armed, primarily because I have children and think the risk of accident FAR ourweighs the protective advantages, and so I don't think I should be required to contribute to that cost. And yet, part of the national health care cost consists of health care required to repair the damage done by weapons, whether intentionally or not. We all end up paying for that. I'm sure that there are other indirect costs as well that contribute to the overall cost of having guns freely available.

What about that "militia" thing the Constitution talks about? Do all the gun owners belong to this militia, and who's paying for that?

There's plenty of room for leeway, I think, and it's a double-edged sword. I've seen some really rational interpretations of the rules to suit individual needs, and I've seen some pretty wacky interpretations as well. And, probably an equal share of both.

As you say, Hunt, some things are pretty clear. A unit simply cannot add their own requirements to an advancement list. The problem always comes in interpreting things like "Scout Spirit", and "active", just as you commented.

So, let me take a moment on "active". I don't think it's defined anywhere, for one thing, so it's really left up to the units to decide. What I've decided to do in our troop is to ask the Scout whether they think they've been active. Let them think about it a bit. I might think that 30% attendance might not be enough, but if I ask the Scout, I get to hear his view on why he might not have been there more. Maybe 30% in my mind was actually 90% of the meetings he could have attended, for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, they know if they've been "active", and will usually say so, truthfully, if given the chance in a conference. If I think that they're trying to "get one past me", I just ask them to explain why they think they've been active if, for example, they never attend troop meetings. We've just started doing this, so it's kind of early to tell if it's an effective way of measuring "active" or not. But I do think that, for the most part, arbitrary activity requirements are just that, arbitrary. You can have Scouts attending 100% of the meetings but never really participating, and others coming to 25% but doing more than anyone else while they're there.

The one place where I have been a bit of a stickler is for the youth leaders. There, I basically have a "3 strikes" rules, that is, 3 unexcused absences and you can't be a leader anymore. For awhile, our elections were mostly popularity contests. Because our troop was small, we didn't utilize the troop method as effectively as we might have, and so our patrol leaders were more "for show". More recently, as the troop has grown a bit, we've gone to much more extensive use of the patrol method, so missing leaders are a lot more obvious (as are leaders who don't "lead"). I make the point repeatedly at PLC that a big part of leading is showing up and being there. You can't lead if you're not there. This has led some of our Scouts who are active in other things to start to think about whether they can be leaders if they're tied up in a sport for 4 months and don't attend meetings. These would be "excused" absences, really, but it gets them thinking a bit more about what leadership is about.

Regards your example, Hunt, how the leader words things could define whether something is an activity or not. If I say, "The troop is going to get together Saturday to help Joe with his Eagle project; stop by if you're able", that, to me, is clearly a troop activity. If I say, "Joe is going to be working on his Eagle project this Saturday. Stop by if you're able.", I'm thinking that that's not a troop activity. But, I'll be honest and say that because we are always thinking about ways to help Scouts advance, it's pretty normal for us to state the activity however we might, and then add, "and remember, this will count towards......". Or, we'll say it's not a troop activity, but come if you want. Etc.

Last thought. Anybody who thinks that summer camp isn't a troop activity is just being, well, "silly". Wasn't there a thread in the last couple of days where somebody said that they don't count summer camp because everybody wants to go to summer camp? What does that mean? Activities that count are the ones people don't want to go to?

kittle,

I'm in Illinois outside of Chicago. We do quite a bit of camping up in Wisconsin and have gone as far south as central Illinois. Our troop has used the Eureka Timberline Outfitter 4 man (for 2 scouts and gear) for some time and have had very good results with them. Participating in Klondikes in January, these have worked just fine with some modifications to the sleeping system to provide a bit more warmth (pm me if you want some details on how you can use some building materials to provide extra insulation at low cost ) Anarchist is right on on the self-inflators; they're more expensive, of course, but worth it in the long run. If you can't afford that, tho, the open cell pad will do (or a couple of them). And yes, be careful about ventilation; you can lose a bit of heat that way, but you need to vent out the moisture, and besides, the tents aren't really there to provide warmth in winter, more protection from the wind.

Know that a "winter" tent is going to cost quit a bit more. You can usually get by just fine with a 3 season tent if you pick a good one and apply some cold weather modifications when you go out in winter. If you really plan on doing a lot of winter camping, tho, a real winter tent is worth the investment, as would be a cold weather sleeping system, ie, a multi-bag system.

anarchist,

As a fellow gearhead, I've gotten ahold of a couple of "unknown" tents that work really well for me. I've got a Walrus tent that I've been really happy with; unfortunately, they went out of business and got absorbed by someone else, so their product line doesn't exist anymore. I've been out in it in some really nasty weather, which it pretty much just shrugs off. And, in my "tent archive", I have Jansport Traildome serial #78, a real antique that we finally retired last year after almost 35 years of great service. I still use my REI sleeping bag, that's only a year younger than my Jansport tent

Well, I think one thing to remember is that the SPL is in charge of the troop. The SM's job is to help the SPL be successful. Sometimes that does mean having the SM step in a bit at times, but mostly it means having the SM stand in the background and provide helpful hints to the SPL, as needed. I'm wondering if the SPL really feels like he's in charge; he wasn't even mentioned in the original post. Maybe what you need isn't for the SM to provide more discipline; maybe what you need is for the SM to provide more guidance to the SPL on getting his troop under control.

This does come up occasionally. As the CC of my pack until last year, I had one school principal tell me that their boys HAD to join the pack in their school or couldn't be Scouts. She wouldn't believe otherwise, as wrong as she was.

Bottom line is, any Scout and Scouter are welcome to participate in Scouting wherever they want.

Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

I'm sorry that things have worked out so badly for you kramr1. I agree with most of what has been said, but if it were me (and it's not, of course), I don't think I'd back down on this, for sake of your son in Scouting. It sounds like you have the right idea for how a den should be run. Your CC is, well, I'm not sure what you're CC is doing. If you're CC doesn't appreciate the effort you've already put in, I'm sure that there are other packs that would. Your son would probably also appreciate a new view of Scouting from a new pack. If you can get your CC to get "with the program", as it were, you might have a chance to recover the Scouts who have left as well. But if you can't get his committment to support you, you're in for a tough haul. Remember, Scouting is supposed to be FUN; better to find a pack that is fun if your current pack isn't working out.

Hi mjengels,

Yeah, Pinewood Derby can get kind of hairy when the parents get involved too much, unfortunately. I was involved in them for about 5 years before my sons both moved to Boy Scouts, but I can tell you what I know/think....

I don't know that there are "National" rules. We always got our annual set of rules from our District, but it's possible that they're actually getting them from the National Office. Since they're usually aren't any races beyond the District level, it could be that what's provided are "guidelines", but once again, not sure. As far as I know, there are no rules dictating how you manage the actual race, beyond the specifications for the cars.

In our races, once a car is checked in, we don't let anyone touch them except for the race judges. There are some packs that have the boys put the cars on the track, but we found that to be too much hassle. By having the judges handle the cars, the boys can concentrate on watching the races, and there's less time being spent "herding cats". We mark off the spectator area, and the Scouts and parents have to stay within that, and stay away from the track and the cars. Part of it is safety because our track is computerized, so you have a lot of cables lying around, but, honestly, part of it is just to keep people away from the judges so that they can run the races and not get caught up in any debates.

Parents are encouraged to participate with their son's in supporting their efforts. Parents will usually do any work requiring power tools. Everything else should be the work of the Scout. Clearly, this doesn't always happen, but unless you're willing to accuse a parent of building the car, there's not a lot you can do. I've heard of some packs doing that, but I don't know how you'd prove such a thing.

As a race organizer, my 1st rule was always to try and run a fair race. My 2nd rule was to ignore the adults as much as possible. If there was a problem, I'd pull together the Scouts from that race and talk with them about what would be the fair thing to do (while pointedly ignoring the adults). They usually came up with a fair solution.

I found that at the local pack race, the parents were mostly pretty cool, because they all knew each other. At the district level, I got so disgusted with the behavior of some parents that after a couple of years, I just stopped participating. I've had dads come up to me and tell me the race computer was wrong and that they had instant replay from their camcorders to prove it. (they were wrong). I've had parents cross the lines marking the spectator area to complain about something or another.

Mostly, Pinewood Derby is just a lot of fun. A very small number of parents can ruin the enjoyment for the race officials, tho, and that's a shame because of the amount of effort that's needed to have a successful race.

So, OGE, do you understand now why it is that illegal aliens can get driver's licenses?

Yes, Brent.

Bush is the anti-Christ. So was Clinton. They're, like, step-brothers.

And, as we all know, Democrat are all bottom feeders, while Republicans always rise to the top.

Nixon wasn't a crook, he was just misunderstood.

Reagan didn't illegally trade arms, they were just early holiday presents.

The Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. Your check is in the mail.

And yes, studies show that most people who describe themselves as "independent" in fact vote Democratic more often than not. So what?

Neither party has done much to be proud of over the past few decades. Why is it so hard to see that?

Aloha Kahuna!

The 2nd Amendment is one of those things that I've seen people debate to death in regards to the exact wording, what they mean, even the punctuation I don't pretend to understand it and will gladly bow to your expertise. I just know that my own feelings are that I wish we didn't have such a pre-occupation with firearms as the most suitable solution to problems with violence. It's predictable, tho, when you consider that over the past 25 years or so our government has gone more and more to military solutions when diplomatic solutions might have been more suitable, albeit more time consuming.

I don't know that the events of 9/11 were an "invasion" per se; I think I'd probably describe it more as an "attack", thinking invasion in my mind denotes something involving troops "on the ground" for some extended period. I suppose, tho, that that's really playing semantics. Usually when I read people debating the 2nd Amendment, they're talking about the possibility of an "internal invasion" by government forces and the need to be able to defend ourselves against something like that. Although I have to question the sanity of people who think that the citizenry could realistically repulse the U.S. military were it to be used against us. And I still think the political reality of today is that it's not going to happen.

I wonder also if in today's world "tyranny" is limited to military force. Look at how basic freedoms, and privacy rights, are being infringed in the name of security. I know people who think that the theoretical abuse of information is every bit as burdensome as a military occupation might be. I might even be one of them if the so-called Patriot Act grows as some would like.

Rooster,

I would suppose that the Democrats have more wacky types in their midsts because they are a more inclusive party. That doesn't mean that those people necessarily get elected, but they are free to have their say. I'd measure their effectiveness as a force within their party by how much of their agenda ends up in the party planks of their platform. The answer is, not much. On the other hand, didn't the far right of the Republican party get much of their agenda included in the party platform? Asking; I don't really know.

Now, I'll agree that the Democrats, at this time, are more likely to jump on perceived wrongdoings by the Republicans, and I think that this is strictly a matter of them not being the party in power at this time. The Republicans did the same kind of thing during the Clinton Administration. And the strategy is the same, and that is, to keep the party in power distracted in order to, in effect, slow them down. It's a political art perfected by both parties. Unfortunately, and I mean this sincerely because I hate to see any administration cause harm to the world's perception of the U.S., this administration has given us so much for the opposing party, and the world, to have serious problems with. From my side of the fence, I think it'll take at least 20 years to fix the damage with our allies, and my kids and their kids will probably be paying for the economic damage that this administration has done.

And, I'm sorry, but there's just no way that I'm going to agree that conservatives have gotten some right to the moral high ground here. It just isn't so.

But, in the meantime, there's a certain entertainment value that goes along with all this as it plays out. Soon, we'll have dueling commercials on the appoinment of the next Supreme Court justice. Side one, Alito as the best candidate ever to be put forward for any court at any time in any universe. Side two, Alito as the candidate allied with the forces of pure evil. And the ongoing story of "Scooter" Libby. Will he "take one for the team"? Will Rove be dragged down as well? Will we enjoy more tax cuts that we have no money to pay for? These stories, and others, will continue to play out as we head into the mid-term elections. There's enough mud for everybody to sling, I think.

Hey, Brent, I live to entertain

Well, Brent, I grew up in inner city of Chicago, so I don't think I need to bow to anyone in regards to how to survive in a harsh urban environment. But, those are isolated areas, and the vast majority of the spaces in our cities and rural areas are safe to travel in. That's just reality. So, not ignoring anything, just trying to keep it in perspective.

And Rooster, like you, I'm tired of stating the obvious. If you guys want to think that conservatives all walk around in white suits with a heavenly glow about them, you go right ahead. My thinking is that both sides are decidedly "grey", and both sides are perfectly capable of playing the political game very dirty. I don't get surprised by either side very easily any more (although "outing" a CIA agent as political revenge seems to be really "out there", if true). I don't see a lot to be proud of from either party these days. Frankly, I don't see a lot to be gained by counting how many wackos there are on either side of the aisle. There's enough on both sides to make the matter kind of moot, don't you think?

So, we have lots and lots of folks who are getting all kinds of weapons, most of whom have no clue how to safely use them. How does that fit into the "well regulated militia"?

A sign saying "Gun-free Home"? I think an awful lot of people would like to see signs with something to the effect of "Got a gun; can shoot it, otherwise, don't have a clue". You'd not only keep away the bad guys, but most of your neighbors, too.

Would the NRA be in favor of gun ownership providing that the owner is required to be licensed and complete a standard safety course, with regular updates? We ask no less of people who drive cars.

Those are nice quotes from Jefferson and Washington, but we no longer live in that time. The country is no longer in its formative stages and vulnerable to attack by other nations. The times are different, and the needs are different. I don't have a particular problem with people who want to have guns in their homes, but they are deadly weapons, and I think if a person is going to have one, the community at large should be able to feel comfortable that gun owners are properly trained and licensed to own those weapons.

And Brent, I'm not sure how you think your gun is really protecting your home. Home invasions where the intent is to harm the residents are a very, very small percentage of domestic crime. Most people wanting to get into your home don't even want you there; they just want your stuff. Across the nation, I would bet that if there is a gun in the home, it is a LOT more likely to be used in a domestic dispute or to harm someone accidentally then it is that the weapon would be used to protect the home's inhabitants. I don't know that for a fact, but I'd bet that it's true.

And out on a shooting range is exactly the place where a gun enthusiast should be able to use something like an AR-15, not in the hands of somebody running around their backyard shooting at an intruder. In the former, you have a controlled environment with a weapon in the hands of somebody who knows how to safely use it. In the latter, all bets are off.

Brent, the problem is, gun enthusiasts are sometimes their own worst enemy. How many stories do we have to see about morons shooting off their guns on the 4th, killing somebody a 1/2 a mile away, and having them tell the police, "gee, I didn't know it would go that far". Take a ride up to Wisconsin during hunting season and see the hunters, drunk, riding around shooting at street signs. See the stories about some guy opening up his front door, being scared by the person there, and shooting them because they didn't speak English. Are those the norm? Heck no. I'd bet for every idiot, there are 1,000 shooters who responsibly use their weapons. But perception is everything, and those 1,000 safe shooters aren't the ones that make the evening news.

I gotta think that when the framers talked about a right to bear arms, they probably were assuming that the "bearer" at least knew what he was doing when he "bore" it. Maybe the 2nd Amendment should have included the phrase "unless you're a total moron......

I dunno, but it sounds to me like they're not doing anything. Adding new rules, but not adding any way to enforce them. Why bother?

Some of text sounds a bit like the time before the Wilderness Act went into effect. The rules were based on areas being roadless, so some forestry companies went on a mad dash with bulldozers to push roads into areas that never had them before, just to get them exempt from wilderness designation.

Mixed use is supposed to allow access to all interested parties to some extent. It's a difficult balance. Off-roaders want access to wide swaths of area, but their vehicles inflict the most damage on the land, causing erosion in some areas and soil compaction in others, neither of which is good for the forest. Backpackers and cross country skiiers want pristeen wilderness to travel through, but you can hear the engines of vehicles in the forests from miles away. I'm all for balanced use, but if an activity damages the landscape, it should be limited to areas that we're willing to sacrifice for their use. Those who inflict the least damage should have the most access, I think. From a dollars and sense perspective, it's cheaper to have them using the areas because they require less maintenance.

So, Brent, you use the local nightly news to get your view of how safe your neighborhood is? That's, um, interesting. Have you heard the old TV news saying, "if it bleeds, it leads"? If you want to use that as your guide, you must also believe that all blacks are murdering gang members and all Latinos are drug addicts. My, what a wonderful view of the world you must have. I bet there aren't enough weapons on the planet for you to feel safe.

The real problem with our political parties today isn't a debate over who's got the most idiots to trot out. They both have WAY more than they should. The problem is that you can't come up with a list of true statesmen from either party that would make you proud.

Since somebody brought up the political conventions, who was that guy, a Senator, I think, who the Republicans trotted out at the last convention that proceeded to pretty much go balistic? Can't remember his name, but I have to admit that that was the highlight of both conventions for me. I was surprised his brain didn't come blasting out of the top of his head before he was done.(This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

I agree, Hunt. It's going to be a mess of a fight, and the whole time, both sides will be dancing around the idea that it's all about ideology, as you say.

I kinda liked it better when the ABA was vetting the candidates. At least it had some sense of rhyme and reason to it then, whether you agreed with them or not.

Rooster, when you say that the left takes advantage of every political situation to try and get the advantage, are you implying that the right doesn't do the same thing?

Wasn't it candidate Bush who's supporters spread misinformation about John McCain during the 2000 compaign in one of the southern states in an effort to stop his growing campaign, and after they won the primary in that state, just kinda said "oops"? If not for that, we could very well have a McCain presidency right now.

I don't think anyone will say that Carter was a great president, but I would defy anyone to name a president in the past 40 years who was a better individual of character in the presidency. He was, and is, a very good man. He lost the presidency because he frankly didn't play the election game as well as Reagan, who had mastered the media and its use. Whether Reagan's presidency was a success is for history to determine. He did make American feel good about itself again after years of Watergate "mourning".

Our council has always worked with the open cases and managed to balance everything out. As I understand it, they have no obligation to do so because our supplier will only deal with full cases. Our council does it as a courtesy, I guess. On the other hand, my daughter's Girl Scout unit is forced to handle only full cases, so you almost have to manage your sales so you don't end up just going a little way into the next case during their cookie sale. I guess it depends on how much extra work the managing unit wants to take on.

I listen to what some of the Senators on both sides of the aisle are saying, and I wonder how some of them can say things with a straight face. Kennedy was practically beside himself yesterday trying NOT to say that it was going to be a really dirty fight on all sides. One of the Republicans, can't remember who, spent his sound bite talking about how they should be talking about Alito's qualifications for the Court. I wonder if he went into his office and started laughing out loud.

I feel badly for Miers in all this. We'll never know if she would have made a good Justice because the conservatives blew her away before she even had a chance to express herself in hearings. NOT because she wasn't qualified; that wasn't even an issue; it was solely because they couldn't count on her as a solid conservative vote on the Court. The President shouldn't have backed down; now the conservatives know that they are "the tail wagging the dog". One small step to unify conservatives, one giant leap to further divide the country.

Yeah, but I kind of doubt that the framers thought it would a good idea for everyone to have a nuclear weapon in their basement. Too expreme? Ok, how about howitzers? Still too much? Grenade launchers? Hmmmm, ok, then where do you draw the line on what the framers intended? How do we know? And that's the rub. We don't always know what they intended, and so it's very often a matter of interpretation as to what they had in mind.

Justices should not be creating new law from the bench; I think everyone should be able to agree on that. Problem is, unless you go with the exact wording of the Constitution using definitions of the words as used in the times of the framers, the justices are bound to be doing some interpretation. The question is how much is ok. And the political answer to that us usually "whatever amount meets our agenda".