@Randem

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of gun ownership today in the matter of District of Columbia v. Dick Heller, saying “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

This has Chicago politicians all in a huff, because this will inevitably spawn challenges against a similar handgun ban that has been in place here for the past 26 years. Well I say “quit your fucking whining.”

As the old saying goes, if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. It’s hard to argue with that. Making it illegal to own a gun only means that people who follow the law will stop owning guns. But for those who regularly scoff the law, a ban means nothing.

The Chicago Tribune quotes a related legal brief:

“Chicago, like other big cities, has a compelling interest in reducing crime related to firearms,” the brief states. ” Chicago Police Department statistics show that from 2004 to November 2007 there were 43,685 firearms-related violent crimes in the city.”

So by the city’s own police statistics admit that over an (admittedly ambiguous) period of approximately 3-4 years, there were 43,685 gun-related crimes committed in a city where gun ownership has been illegal for a two-and-one-half decades! We’re talking about somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 per year!

This quotation mentions nothing of whether or not the victims in these crimes also owned firearms, but I’m willing to assert that they probably did not. Why? Because it’s usually the law-abiding citizen who is a victim, while it is criminals (by definition) who commit crimes.

Isn’t it easy to think that these criminals might have an inflated sense of bravado, knowing how strongly the odds suggest that whomever they point a gun at will probably be unarmed? And isn’t it also easy to imagine that they might think twice if they knew there was a good chance of their intended victim being armed and capable of defending him- or herself?

The way to reduce crime is not to ban guns, it’s to encourage them. Admittedly, this may initially result in some fatal escalations. But when the gang-bangers and the burglars realize that they don’t just have to be faster than the cops (they have to be faster than a speeding bullet!), they might reconsider their activities.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?

This is the kind of spam I’d like to get more of:

Subject: FW: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American’s duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.

Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, “WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.” Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.

A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.

Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It’s upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

There’s only one artist on Barack Obama’s iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.

Barack Obama’s new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama’s skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.

Big kudos to the creators of Budget Hero, the awesome federal budget simulator. One quick round of Budget Hero has a tendency to demystify all that federal budget deficit blather we hear all the time.

But here’s the thing: my biggest success came on taxes. Specifically, it came by repealing the Bush tax cuts, by capping and limiting greenhouse emissions, and by adding $0.50 to the federal gas tax. The first two are no-brainers, but that last item might bother some people.

Raising the gas tax, however, is something I strongly believe in. It would be better for the economy, better for national security, better for the budget, even better for business.

First, by making it more painful for consumers to burn gasoline, we discourage it, which reduces our dependency on foreign oil. Hummers and Escalades and other enormous SUVs will be traded, sold, converted, or sit and rust.

The second effect of increasing the pain at the pump is increased motivation for investment in alternative energy sources. Look, it’s not a search — solar power, electric power, ethanol, and natural gas are already here, but far too few people are switching. It’s still easier for people to come up with the money for gasoline than it is for them to change to a new fuel system.

A third result of increased gas tax is increased competition. This doesn’t really matter much to me, but there are a lot of people who hate the idea of Exxon-Mobil making a profit when they sell you gasoline. A $0.50 hike in prices across the board would put pressure on gas stations to keep prices lower, lest they lose business.

Fourth, it adds incentives for cities to develop or improve mass transit systems. There are too many cities where people would love to commute, but there are no options for doing so.

Oh, and let’s not forget the environmental impact of burning less gasoline.

The real issue for me, however, is competitive advantage. The economic position of the US has been slipping. We’re sinking from our position as the global leader. Raising gas tax changes that. Increased federal revenue means less borrowing. Increased innovation means industrial leadership. Oh, and a big one for me: new jobs working in these alternative energies — jobs right here in our country, rather than in India or China or Mexico.

But enough of my argument for increased gas tax. Go play the game. See what you can learn about our economy. Get a real feel for the tragic impact George Bush has had on our country, and get an idea of some of the easy and innovative things that can be done to fix it.

John McCain’s tax return statement became public last Friday, and the details raise some interesting questions in my mind. Actually, it’s one detail in particular: McCain receives a 100-percent disability pension, amounting to almost $60,000 tax-free.

The first, most obvious question is this: Is a man who is 100% disabled fit to lead our country? If elected, McCain would be the oldest man ever to enter the Presidency. Shouldn’t that fact alone require an exceptional bill of health?

I would never belittle the heroism of a man who suffered the way he did in the service of our country. There should never be any question of my respect for who he has been, but while the way in which he acquired his disability is admirable, that shouldn’t make for exceptions for his physical ability to lead this nation.

Sure, it’s not as if you need to bench-press your body weight or run a six-minute mile in order to pick up red phones or shake the hands of diplomats. But with major disabilities come increased risks for other health problems. One has to assume that McCain’s choice of running-mate would have increased likeliness of being called to fill the role of President.

The next question this brings to mind is: What does this say about his financial policy? At the rate at which he was taxed, McCain would have had to pay an extra $18,000 on this income if this income were taxed.

This is the same guy whose campaign platform includes reforming the tax code; the same guy who said, “Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes - what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands from the IRS.”

Considering how anxious he is to cut everybody’s tax rates — even as our national debt reaches new, unimaginable heights — McCain openly exploits a “100% disability” loophole to save money and not pay taxes. What does that say about him? Apparently, Americans do not resent paying taxes, but he does.

With elections coming, there’s a lot of discussion about The War Against Terror (TWAT). TWAT is going to be a big issue when you go to the poll, so I think it’s important to understand all the ins and outs.

First, it comes as no surprised that TWAT was first proposed during the Clinton administration. It was well known that Bin Laden wanted to blow our towers. (He had already tried to do it once in the garage.) The proposal, however, came at the end of Clinton’s term, so it was decided that the next administration should be given the reigns in deciding how to proceed, so TWAT was handed to Bush, whose was debriefed early in his term.

Bush dropped the ball. Bush and Dick didn’t take TWAT seriously, so they didn’t use protection. The end result: a 19-man mile-high club blew our towers. That got Bush hot and bothered, and he responded by shooting his load in Afghanistan.

The real problems started, though, when Bush and Dick got bent, and decide to go after Iraq in search of lubrication. The oval office thought the Iraqis would welcome us openly, so they just charged right in to the dry climate, without any foreplay.

As it turns out, the Iraqis didn’t really want it, they were just caught up in the moment. And then it got out that Bush and Dick were lying, saying whatever they had to just to get some action. At one point, they changed positions and Colin got irritated.

Nobody was prepared. Our guys were inserted without adequate protection and they’ve been pounding away at TWAT for quite some time. The friction has been intense, and lately they’re even experiencing surges. The whole thing seems ready to blow, and now the question is whether we should pull out, or stay in and make a long-term commitment.

If our guys pull out, they can come home and get some rest, and be ready to party next weekend. But Bush wants to stay in, because he wants to give birth to a new democracy. But the problem is, we were never committed to Iraq, we just wanted to get in their plants, and if you give birth without commitment you end up paying for it for the next 20 years.

As far as I can tell, the real issue is that Bush thinks he’s already sown the seeds of democracy, and he’s against aborting, so he thinks there’s only one thing left to do. But other people disagree; they think that we haven’t climaxed yet, and that we can avoid a big mistake before it’s too late.

It comes down to this: Bush tried to date-rape the middle east, knock them up, and then leave us paying child support… but our country can’t even afford our own children. Sometimes, it’s better to pull out.

Hillary Clinton may have won three of the big states last Tuesday, but it’s not states that count, it’s delgates. She continues to lag in delegates, and now it’s mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination by the agreed rules. Nevertheless she continues to keep the drama rolling.

So now we have Clinton and Obama clawing and scratching at each other while McCain sits pat. McCain now has the luxury of proactively winning more support while the Democratic contenders do all his dirty work for him. For the Democratic Party, this is a horrible strategic mistake.

This draws a nice parallel to another of history’s big rivalries: that between the Chicago Bears and the Green Bay Packers. Let me elaborate…

Just like two parties, both the Packers and the Bears are hoping to find the new leader. On one side you have the Packers who, like the Republicans, have picked out the person who they want to be the leader, and have begun to prepare him for the task. On the other hand you have the Bears who, like the Democrats, can’t commit to a leader, and the candidates for the role have to fight each other to win it.

The Packers will go into training camp committed to one guy — Aaron Rogers — and no matter what else has to be worked out for the team, the quarterback will spend his time preparing to lead his team and win games. Meanwhile, the Bears will spend the majority of their off-season distracted by multiple quarterbacks competing; whoever wins out will be underprepared, and he will be second-guessed all season.

So what’s my point? If the Democrats or the Bears want to have a chance of winning, they need to make a commitment to one person, stop the in-fighting, and start preparing to win because their opponents — the Republicans and the Packers — are already formulating their strategies to win.

I happened to come upon this illustration of President Bush’s entourage. I think the reality of this information speaks for itself.

I saw a clip on CNN while I was at lunch yesterday saying that President Dubya had vetoed a bill that would have given healthcare to 10 million poor children in America.

I really want to believe that there’s more to it. I want to believe that there was some pork in the bill that Bush was trying to prevent. I always doubt that anything is as cut-and-dried hateful as the media makes it out to be, so I can’t really imagine that he’s just some evil tryant who want to prevent poor kids from going to the hospital.

But then I read this:

Bush stated that “this legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction. Under this bill government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children.”

And it really was that clear to me. This douche-bag has spent his entire presidency looking out for the best interest of the healthcare industry (in his free time, when he wasn’t busy making new terrorist enemies) at the cost of actual health care for real people. He’s been fighting to protect the bottom line for a big industry rather than looking out for the good of the American people. And this is no different.

This bill was not vetoed because it was bad for Americans… it was vetoed because it might encourage some of the affected families to take the free government healthcare instead of paying for the overpriced insurance plans they have now. In other words, it would have actually been good for Americans, but at a cost to the evil corporate empire.

Not on his watch. No way.

Federal Judge Ann Aiken thinks so.

In a ruling released yesterday, Judge Aiken found sections 1804 and 1823 in violation of our constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Now, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the government can conduct surveillance to gather evidence for use in a criminal case without a traditional warrant, as long as it presents a non-reviewable assertion that it also has a significant interest in the targeted person for foreign intelligence purposes,” wrote Judge Aiken in her opinion.

In addition to finding the relevant sections of the Patriot Act unconstitutional, the judge also ordered the government to destroy all the illegally-obtained evidence.

You can read more about it at Ars Technica.