Enter your photo in the Ultimate Fan contest by midnight to win a suite night at a Salem Red Sox game and a chance at a trip to Fenway Park.
Shot by Dan
“The fellow that can only see a week ahead is always the popular fellow, for he is looking with the crowd. But the one that can see years ahead, he has a telescope but he can’t make anybody believe that he has it.”
Will Rogers
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
50 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Well, at least in bars...
Probably best sums up why the Republicans aren’t very popular right now. They are the only ones with the telescope on our long term problems, pushing needed entitlement reforms. But our “it’s all about me society” doesn’t have an appetite for that.
Will Rogers also said:
“Lord, the money we do spend on Government and it’s not one bit better than the government we got for one-third the money twenty years ago.”
As not to get lost on the Thursday OPEN thread:
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-homicides-and-injuries-down-as-firearm-sales-soar/article_f573c648-2e22-5534-a2a8-56fa0fef0fdb.html
Excellent letter to the editor today:
Twenty years ago, on Jan. 23, 1993, Matthew Lee Hancock died of a ruptured cerebral aneurysm. Matt was a senior at Virginia Tech. He was features editor of the Collegiate Times and was becoming a fine journalist and poet.
Matt was an organ donor. Beth Macy of your paper wrote a piece about Matt, his life and his gifts (“Matt’s legacy: words by which to live, die,” Feb. 18, 1993). Because of his donation of major organs, corneas and other tissue, Matt saved and improved the lives of many recipients.
Macy’s story of Matt and organ donation was read by thousands across this country. In 1993, 35,000 people were waiting for a transplant. Today, in 2013, that number has increased to more than 100,000 people waiting for a donor.
Folks need to make organ donation part of family planning discussions. For information about how you and your family can give the gift of life, go to http://www.donatelifevirginia.org.
BUNNY HANCOCK
Matt’s Mom
ROANOKE
Hey Debbie…I’m giving that curry recipe a shot today. I changed a few things….used diced stew meat instead of ground, and I’m cooking it in the crockpot because we’ll be out most of the afternoon. Totally agreed with you about the rice/potatoes, so I’m going to steam a head of cauliflower and mash it coarsely, and serve the stew on that.
Just in case some don’t feel like reading the story for which John Wilburn posted a link, here is a good excerpt:
**
What’s more, “the increased availability of guns does not seem to correlate with an increase in the proportion of suicides and homicides by gun,” said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who in an analysis compared state vital records data on homicides and suicides with Virginia gun dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
“It’s actually quite surprising and the opposite of what I would have hypothesized,” Baker said. “I would have thought that aggregate increases in gun sales would directly correlate to aggregate increases in the proportion of suicides and homicides by gun. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.”
**
Apologies for the “hey Debbie”. Sheesh.
LOL Kristen, no problem.
I hope you’ll like the recipe. I added a little more curry powder than the recipe called for, when I made it. I love curry flavor, I didn’t measure the amount of onions either, just chopped up a small one.
Thanks for sharing that, gdad. Good info. If anyone reading this is not an organ donor, please reconsider. You can’t take it with you. As Jim Carrey’s character said in “Bruce Almighty,” “The life you save could be mine.”
If you haven’t seen Silver Linings Playbook yet, consider it.
My wife and I both loved Silver Linings Playbook, Kristen.
Three notable s from the just concluded Ausralian Open Tennis Championships. Victoria Azarenka solidified her #1 ranking with a gritty win over Li Na, and Novak Djokovic made history by becoming the first man in the modern era of tennis to win three Australian Open titles in a row. Djokovic is some kind of fun to watch. He wills himself to play better than his opponent in a way only rivaled by Tiger Woods in his prime. I love to watch Djoko play!
Most interesting to me, however, was the play of 19-year old American woman Sloane Stephens. She ousted Serena Williams to reach her first major semi-final. I saw Sloane play in person at the 2012 Wimbledon Championships, and she is very impressive. If she continues on this trajectory, expect years of victories from this engaging teen.
Gdad, I want to go see it again. Maybe tomorrow.
A question my grandson asked his mom this evening, “What do you call something that’s weird and disappointing and kinda funny?”
I don’t know why the thought, a few people on Dan Casey’s blog popped in my head.
I had a different impression of Silver Linings Playbook. Good acting on a problematic script, because the characters, as written, were all stupid, mean, or unbelievable, this last adjective a deal-breaker for any film posing as a real “slice of life”. The “double or nothing” bet involving a dance competition and football bet was asinine to the point of farcical.
How could it be that the Virginia 2011 State Police reports that only one “assault rifle” death — ruled a homicide — was recorded statewide for that year (the only year to date that that data was collected & reported, to date)?
Sounds as if some folk are way off base as to the scope of the alleged problem.
Could some folk be championing a solution/agenda in search of a problem?
See: http://tinyurl.com/ajrbxx8
What’s next? Tracking car crashes by black vs non-black cars?
Dave Hicks – how many times in the last year has someone been charged with yelling “Fire” in a movie theater? Yet perversely there is a law against that form of “free speech”. What is the difference between your statistical data from the state police on assault weapons, and the number of times “Fire”! may have been shouted out?
Citizens in this country have a Constitutional right to free speech – but it too is regulated. For example, a death threat is not “free speech”.
All “rights” are regulated to some degree. Guns… Are… Not… Special.
Dave, you must not know much about Philly sports fans if you think no one in the movie’s believable.
Yeah, the dance thing was a little hokey, but at least they didn’t suddenly win it. And it was billed as a romantic comedy, not a documentary, so I wasn’t looking for realism. I don’t personally see it as the best movie of the year, but I’ll watch it again.
BTW, if you haven’t seen Beasts of the Southern Wild, I recommend that one.
Re: Hillary @ 8:52 pm
The restrictions to 1A are not prior-restraints type prohibitions on every one because someone might do something that is already illegal. They don’t tape your mouth shut as a condition of entering into crowded public place, because you might yell “fire.” The limits on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil. The limits on 1A are enforced through adjudication of the individual.
There are already many similar post-violation restrictions/penalties, either criminal or civil, on the law books — e.g., murder, maiming, armed robbery, etc.
What we need to focus on is removing the prior-restraints type of prohibitions on the RKBA of law-abiding folk, IMHO. An analogy or comparison between 1A & 2A might be valid, once the 2A is actually on a par with the 1A. If you really want to see them as the same, please work to remove the prior-restraints type prohibitions on the RKBA.
For the record, I’m on the side of “There should be no prior restraints prohibitions on ANY constitutional Right — including the RKBA and to defend yourself with a firearm.”
Dave Hicks, should I be able to post online accusing you of being a monger of child pornography? Prostitution? How many posts should I be allowed to publish in this vein?
If this wouldn’t bother you, then I retract the question.
From juancole.com; Top ten Republican myths on Benghazi. (Be sure and read the comments for some interesting theories on why Stevens was there.)
Dave Hicks:
“For the record, I’m on the side of “There should be no prior restraints prohibitions on ANY constitutional Right — including the RKBA and to defend yourself with a firearm.”
Applause in order!
For the record, I’m on the side of “There should be no prior restraints prohibitions on ANY constitutional Right — including the RKBA and to defend yourself with a firearm.”
Comment by Dave Hicks
The RKBA does not include a specific automatic right to defend yourself by using a firearm. To argue that it automatically does, one must argue that any arm of any type is granted such an automatic right by virtue of being a type of arm. Is that where you are, Dave Hicks?
Anyone think that there is any chance of us following Germany’s lead on this issue?
http://tinyurl.com/b2he54m
**
Anti-terror laws face increased scrutiny
Security versus privacy – it’s a dilemma that all anti-terror legislation must address. A new commission has only six months to examine Germany’s anti-terror laws.
“Since September 11, around the world and in Germany we’ve had a plethora of new laws that were introduced at the highest speed,” Burkhard Hirsch, a civil liberties advocate who is a member of Germany’s classical liberal Free Democratic Party, told DW. “This has significantly changed what is euphemistically known as the security architecture.”
These laws are the reason for the expert commission scheduled to begin its work on Monday (28.01.13), led by Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. Its role is to assess the anti-terrorism legislation passed since September 11, 2001 and to draw conclusions from the failure to catch the killers from the National Socialist Underground neo-Nazi cell responsible for 10 murders in Germany.
The far-reaching “proactive enhancement of control and intervention options in order to identify and eradicate terrorist and extremist threat in time” has great sociopolitical relevance, Hirsch said. “It has affected police and intelligence operations – and it’s high time to take stock of the situation and ask whether everything has been done in accordance with the rule of law, or if we’re heading in the direction of a surveillance state.”
SNIP
**
“BTW, if you haven’t seen Beasts of the Southern Wild, I recommend that one.”
–Comment by gdad
gdad, is that about animals, or people?
“…is that about animals, or people?”
Both. It’s the story of a dying father teaching his young daughter to survive in the swamps. Great movie, and an Oscar nod for the actress.
Dan, it’s about people, but involves an allegorical beast.
Re: Kristen @ 10:09 pm
That is why we have laws against defamation, which are enforced through adjudication of the individual — after the violation. We don’t have prohibitions on every one (such a banning blogs) simply because someone might do something that is already illegal in the eyes of the law.
Defamation is a common law tort, often governed by state law, in which if an individual makes a “publication” of a defamatory statement of and concerning the plaintiff that damages the reputation of the plaintiff they can be sued.
As I said, the limits on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil. The limits on 1A are enforced through adjudication of the individual who violates a common or statutory law — NOT a prohibition on everyone.
Well, well, well.
There goes Warren sliding down a slippery slope while embracing a straw-man and clutching for an elusive red herring.
Dave Hicks:
“Well, well, well.
There goes Warren sliding down a slippery slope while embracing a straw-man and clutching for an elusive red herring.”
Did you expect anything less?
Resort to cliches much, Dave Hicks?
And it seems you’re not much of a snow skier, either; many slippery slopes are quite controllable, even advantageous, to those agile and balanced enough to do so, as the Finns showed the heavily armed and rigid Third Reich.
I mus add, Well, Well, Well, there goes Dave Hicks avoiding another question posed of him about 2A absolutism.
Re: Warren @ 12:08 am
The Finns were “embracing a straw-man and clutching for an elusive red herring”?
Who knew?
Got a citation to back that up?
.
.
The best citations for “embracing a straw-man and clutching for an elusive red herring” (to use your beloved cliches) are the frequent appeals to emotion in “they want to take away all your guns” (straw man) and “cars and guns are analogous in public safety discussions” (red herring).
It is ironic that this is one of the “advertisers” whose ad is featured on this sand other Roanoke.com blogs today.
http://www.nextgeneration.tv/?gclid=CK7z79-6irUCFQ_hQgod4iAAnw
Warren’s arguments need Kevlar.
Dave Gresham, it seems as likely as your screed on 9/11. I think we have different definitions of “unbelievable”.
And the truth is spreading:
http://tinyurl.com/a4yszc2
**
Firearm-related homicides, injuries decline in Virginia
The Associated Press
8:33 a.m. EST, January 28, 2013
RICHMOND, Va. (AP)—
State figures show firearm-related homicides and injuries are declining in Virginia.
Figures from the state’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner show firearms-related homicides fell 32 percent, from 357 in 2005 to 242 in 2011.
Virginia Department of Health figures show firearm-related injuries requiring hospitalization declined 28 percent, from 392 to 283, during the same period.
SNIP
Forensic epidemiologist Dr. Anna Noller says one of the staff’s pathologists thought assault rifles were different enough that they should be placed in a separate category.
The report lists one assault rifle homicide in 2011.
[Emphasis added]
**
Sorry for having a different opinion than you Kristin? You’re right to try to personally attack me for daring to do so?
The report lists one assault rifle homicide in 2011.
[Emphasis added]
**
Comment by Dave Hicks — January 28, 2013 @ 10:04 am
This one case, I believe, involved a deputy sheriff from Franklin County.
Wonder where he obtained the assualt rifle?
I am not sure where you get the idea that no one has their “free speech” rights violated by prior restraint but many do. When the courts bar someone from owning a computer or being online for instance. Prior restraints against previous criminals is par for the course every Halloween in many, many places. There is some level of prior restraint on the privilege to drive a car and fly on a plane as well. This is not some concept anyone dreamed up to harm you poor innocent law abiding gun owners. “Madam, we already established what you are, we are merely haggling over the price.” Prior restraint is the reason Class III firearms dealers exist. It is the reason that there are arms you cannot buy or have legally. Stop whining over a boat that has sailed and a much deserved consideration of either reclassifying these assault weapons or banning them altogether. The slippery slope was long, long ago. It was OK as long as it kept black people from getting guns and it was OK as long as it kept black radicals from getting guns so save the sanctimony.
Movies hit people they way they hit people. No real rhyme or reason to it. I saw the Gérard Depardieu version of “Les Miserables” and “The Artist” over the weekend (Netflix). I liked both, the rest of the group…not so much. I doubt I will get to pick next time.
I hardly attacked you, Dave Gresham. You’re being a little sensitive.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 12:51 pm
I am not sure where you get the idea that no one has their “free speech” rights violated by prior restraint but many do. When the courts bar someone from owning a computer or being online for instance.
————-
Please reread my comment.
I was talking about, “The restrictions to 1A are not prior-restraints type prohibitions on every one because someone might do something that is already illegal.
….
The limits on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil. The limits on 1A are enforced through adjudication of the individual.”
Your example (send from your unrestrained computer) about “When the courts bar someone from owning a computer or being online for instance” only demonstrates my point.
An individual adjudicated in a court of law being barred is not the same as every one being restricted because someone might do something that is already illegal.
Sorry about the bolding not closing in my last comment.
Should have been:
**
Please reread my comment.
I was talking about, “The restrictions to 1A are not prior-restraints type prohibitions on every one because someone might do something that is already illegal.
….
The limits on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil. The limits on 1A are enforced through adjudication of the individual.”
Your example (send from your unrestrained computer) about “When the courts bar someone from owning a computer or being online for instance” only demonstrates my point.
An individual adjudicated in a court of law being barred is not the same as every one being restricted because someone might do something that is already illegal.
I disagree that the prohibitions are not “prior restraint”, we all know the crimes that can result in our “punishment”. That is a prior restraint whether you call it that or not. It may not stop everyone from doing something like downloading and swapping pornography but it is well known that the restraint is expected. The same is true for many types of arms and you know it.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 1:30 pm
The point is that they don’t ban your computer or everyone’s computer because you or someone might download and swap pornography.
Individual adjudicated and punished in a court of law after they break the law.
Yes well, “adjudicated and punished in a court of law after they break the law” is not working real well as a deterrent to mass shootings, so we are going with the Plan B which has existed almost as long as the Constitution.
Dave Hicks @19 – “There are already many similar post-violation restrictions/penalties, either criminal or civil, on the law books — e.g., murder, maiming, armed robbery, etc.’
None of the above are constitutional issues and referring to them will only act to cloud the proverbial waters.
Your comment: “The limits on 1A are post-violation penalties, either criminal or civil. The limits on 1A are enforced through adjudication of the individual.”
That’s the old which came first the chicken or the egg – the act or the law? Before laws were made restricting “free speech” [1st Amendment] – someone yelled FIRE in a movie theater. Prior to making it a criminal act, there were no restrictions on what you “yelled”. The law, ever evolving, recognized the public danger when the “free speech” defense was used in this type of case, and so, the exception to free speech was made.
Anticipating a possibility of others’ “bad behavior” [yelling "Fire!"] is how and why the 1st Amendment’s “right of free speech” was limited [regulated]. Eventually “hate speech” was also codified as not protected speech in the same way.The law [and I hope humans] is ever evolving.
As I said in my original post to you – the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not unlimited rights – there have been many instances when these rights were regulated. The 2nd Amendment is not a special Amemdment nor different – the government may regulate or limit one’s “right-to-bear-arms”.
Even Justice Scalia recognized that fact in the Heller ruling.
Heller is inevitably cited as the response to any discussion of gun control measures, when in fact most readings of it that I’ve found widely acknowledge that it left plenty of room for gun control laws.