Well, the Supreme Court is >on a roll, isn’t it? (More Info)

This decision, at least, didn’t surprise me. On some level, I even think it’s the right decision. Certainly, if the government is required to completely protect every individual, and it can be held responsible for any failures to do so, we’re welcoming a police state. The problem is, the government that’s now saying local governments have no requirement to protect us is also the government that’s previously said that those same local governments can refuse to allow us to protect ourselves.

Not only can the local government refuse to let you protect yourself by making it nigh-impossible to grant a carry permit (Never mind that the only legal permit you should ever need is a copy of the Second Amendment), they don’t have to protect you or your family even if they’ve issued a restraining order and have been informed that it’s been broken.

The Supreme Court is doing a bang up job of ruining this country, isn’t it? Not only are they systematically destroying the rights of the citizenry, they’re simultaneously denying the added responsibility that this power-grab should put on the government.

( þ The Smallest Minority )

I’m having lots of fun on Fox News today, commenting on a few older news items that didn’t really catch my attention the first time I heard them.

Like the racist treatment that Oprah Winfrey got when trying to shop at a boutique in Paris:

The incident occurred when Winfrey stopped by Hermes on June 14 to buy a watch minutes after the boutique closed. Though she and three friends said they saw shoppers inside, neither a sales clerk nor manager would let them in.

So… she went to a shop after it closed, they didn’t serve her, and that was racist treatment?

I stopped at my bank a few months ago and tried to get in the lobby after it closed (I misread the sign). The security guard came over to the door and glared at me for a minute before pointing at the sign. He was racist!

Look, I get that things aren’t perfect in this world, and that there are idiots who do make decisions with racial motives, but every time a minority feels slighted that isn’t, by itself, proof of racism.

I know a lot of people have a low opinion of Fox News, but they’re usually fairly reliable in their reporting, in my experience, regardless of how you feel about their editorializing.

Still, this just sounds like something out of a tabloid, doesn’t it?

The newly engaged Katie Holmes still has some explaining to do to her friends and family.

There were 16 days in April during which no one seems to know where she was.

…

Sometime that week, her friends say, she flew to Los Angeles for a meeting with Cruise about a role in “Mission: Impossible 3.” The meeting took place after April 11.

The next time anyone heard from Holmes was on April 27, when she appeared in public as Cruise’s girlfriend and love of his life.

Where was she during those 16 days?

Somewhere during that time, she decided to fire both her manager and agent, each of whom she had been with for years and who were devoted to her.

This makes complete sense to me. Heaven forbid that a children’s baseball team should actually be good.

</sarcasm>

I think the better solution to this would be to teach the other teams the valuable lesson that makes it possible for me to play competitive sports (or video games): “If you can’t do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.”

As Iraq stands up, we will stand down. (Full Text Here)

I thought that the President did a good job making the case as to why we were needed to be in Iraq, and why it was important that we stay there. Of course, my interpretation of the speech is likely to be biased, because I already believed that Iraq was a vital part of the War on Terror.

A few thoughts (italics are paraphrased quotes from the President’s speech):

The President said that the war on Terror reached our shores on September 11th. This was the only part of the speech that made me a bit annoyed. In reality, the war reached our shores long before September 11th. There was at least one previous bombing of the World Trade Center, and an attack not on our shores but on one of our ships, the U. S. S. Cole.

He pointed out that the war was difficult and dangerous, that progress was uneven, but we are making progress. That’s probably as close to an admission that mistakes have been made that we’re going to get, and honestly, I never expected anything more than that (though I hoped for it) from any politician.

I admire Bush’s dedication to this cause, his refusal to back down from what he knows is right. He is adamant that we will stay and support the new Iraqi government so that it can stand on its own feet before we leave. To do otherwise would be to invite chaos in the region, and it would ultimately turn Iraq into a carbon copy of Afghanistan when it was under the rule of the Taliban. He knows that the American people want the troops to come home, but he also recognizes that giving a timetable other than “when we’re done” is going to send the wrong message to the American troops, the Iraqi people and our shared enemies.

A free, democratic Iraq is vital to our nation’s security because it will, in theory, provide an inspiration for other Middle Eastern countries in their own moves toward a democratic system of government. In addition, it provides us with an ally in the area that is the source of the largest portion of the terrorist groups. As these countries move toward free societies, the breeding grounds for these terrorist groups will ultimately dry up, because the terrorist mindset feeds on the feeling of hopelessness and oppression that is much less prevalent in any free society.

Ultimately, I doubt that President Bush’s words will convince anyone who wasn’t already supportive of this war to become supportive of it. He may bring back some of those whose support had fallen away (primarily because they only get their news from the mainstream press, and therefore don’t hear any of the Good News from Iraq), but that’s probably about it.

Still, I enjoyed the speech, though it served as a reminder that this man that I respect so much when it comes to our dealings with foreign countries is a big disappointment in a lot of his domestic policies.

I assume President Bush’s speech tonight is going to focus primarily on Iraq, but I’d like to hear him talk about a little more than that. The following items are mostly Terror War related, but you’ll see a few things that are tangential or not related at all.

Here’s what I’d like to hear:

• An admission that some mistakes have been made, preferably with a note that “No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.” Prior to the election, there was value in not publically saying, “We made mistakes,” because there were undeniably dishonest people who would use that soundbite out of context. There are still those people, of course, but since Bush doesn’t have to worry about an election again, he doesn’t need to worry about that. Honesty would serve him better.
• Some truthful information about what goes on at Gitmo. Something along the lines of: “Hey, I’ll admit that there’s some distasteful stuff that goes on down there, and it pains me to know it’s happening, but it’s an unfortunate fact that these people aren’t going to talk to us if we treat them with kid gloves. We welcome members of Congress and independent observers. While we strive to avoid crossing the line from ‘distasteful but necessary’ to ‘unacceptable’, we understand that the line is pretty fuzzy, and getting input from outsiders who’re willing to actually come down, see what’s going on and form a real opinion about it. Those of you who’ve already decided that you’re coming back to yell about Bushitler, well, you need to read a history book sometime.” The reminders that former prisoners (and some observers) have ulterior motives to report (or lie about) Very Bad Things are all very likely true, but they come across as little more than excuses. Be honest, and the people will respect you more.
• A real commitment to doing something about the threat of terrorism here at home. The War is important, but the fact that the southern border of this country is completely unsecure worries me. I’d like to see Bush authorize the National Guard to stand on the border and stop people crossing. Make the INS crack down on businesses that take advantage of illegal immigrants. For those who want to come in legally from Mexico, create an Immigrant Worker program. Make them prove their Mexican citizenship, do a background check, and let them work legally. This helps them out, because they can get some legal protections with workplace safety and whatnot, and it helps us because we’re safer.
• Apologize for spending increases, and promise to do better. I won’t believe this, even if he says it, but he’s got to get this spending under control. I’d start with dissolving the Department of Education and getting very solidly behind school vouchers. Introduce education to the free market, so that we might get our money’s worth.

If I were advising the President, this would be my strategy:

Tell the truth, even if it reflects poorly. Mention good things and bad things. Describe some of the steps being taken to fix what’s wrong and reinforce what’s right. Admit that things aren’t perfect, that this administration, like every administration before it, has made mistakes. This is true in general for every administration since the dawn of time, and true of every administration since at least the late seventies in regards to the War on Terror.

Gently remind everyone that “Bush is doing it wrong” isn’t an alternative strategy, and while it is important that we allow dissent in this country, it’s also important that dissenters come up with some ideas of their own.

After Bush’s speech, I’ll be writing up my initial reactions, which will no doubt be improved upon after I’ve read criticisms from both Bush’s supporters and his detractors in the next few days.

The State of West Virginia has found itself in dire straits, financially, and rather than cut spending elsewhere to pay for its pension benefits, the governor wants the state to borrow a ton of money and invest it in the internet.

The Bond Amendment failed miserably, and the governor is now wondering why. It seems to me that should be pretty obvious. The governor is a Democrat. When you tell the state’s citizens that they should borrow money and invest it (in hopes of making enough to pay for pensions and the interest on the bonds) in something you’ve been telling them is too risky for the money that they’re giving you for their own futures, it’s not surprising they don’t want to risk borrowed cash.

Politicians amuse me sometimes.