Here’s hoping the only whoremongers in D.C. are the ones I disagree with politically.

The first Democratic debate is starting in five minutes. Turn to MSNBC or go here to watch it. I can’t wait to see if Hillary or Obama are able to live up to the hype.

UPDATE : Well, that was fun. Listening to the C-Span feed, here are my thoughts on the candidates so far :

Clinton : She did well, but didn’t wow me. I’ve always gotten the impression that the public thinks they know Hillary, but don’t really know much about her beyond the fact that she was Bill Clinton’s wife. With that in mind, I’m interested to see how her debate appearances help or hurt her.

Obama : Great, but I wasn’t the reincarnation of JFK the hype would have you believe. I look forward to seeing him in more debates as the field narrows. He used one of my favorite lines of the night, noting that “The confederate flag should be put in a museum. That’s where it belongs.”

Edwards : Still my favorite, though he seemed to be caught off-guard by a couple of the questions. His best lines have a tendency to become cliches, but I still love his insistence that Americans should be “patriotic about something other than war.”

Richardson : I was looking forward to hearing more about him, but he didn’t do so well with the question about supporting Gonzales because he’s Latino.

Biden : He’s a blowhard and had some great moments in the debate, but c’mon.

Dodd : I think his audition for VP is going pretty well so far.

Gravel : Wow. I was thinking before the debate started that it wouldn’t be nearly as much fun without Sharpton around this time. I was wrong. He called Biden arrogant to his face? I love this guy.

Kucinich : Oh boy. Here we go again. Damn shame the one guy who can say definitively that he was right when everyone else was wrong is such a douche. Also, note how the “most liberal” candidate danced around the question about whether he’d have a Roe v. Wade litmus test for Supreme Court justices. I’m with Kos on this one. Ugh, indeed.

After seeing the news that Wiccan pentacles are now on the approved symbols for soldier’s headstones, I tracked down the official list of approved symbols on the Department of Veterans Affairs website. Needless to say, none of the thirty eight other symbols can compare to the coolness of the atheist symbol :

Why go with a cross or a star when you can have a gravestone that reminds people of this?

Building on Tom’s latest strip (which perfectly satirizes up every gun control “debate” that I’ve seen in the past week), it’s important to look beyond the conservative talking point that firearm regulations “don’t work” and ask why gun laws failed to prevent the tragedy at Virginia Tech. In the case of Seung-Hui Cho, the murder of 33 people was aided by – cue the passive voice – “legal loopholes” :

When a judge deemed Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho a danger to himself due to mental illness in 2005, that ruling should have disqualified him from buying a handgun under federal law.

It didn’t.

And his slaughter of 32 people last week has raised questions about the efficacy of instant background checks for firearms purchases by the mentally ill.

Under federal law, anyone who has been judged to be a danger to himself or others because of mental illness, as Cho was, should be prohibited from buying a gun.

His status should have been noted in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a database of people disqualified from gun purchases.

But, in Cho’s case, his mental status never went in the system.

That’s because the federal government relied on Virginia to provide the information, and Virginia law disqualifies a person from buying firearms only if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital.

Cho was ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but he was never committed. His appearance before the judge and his evaluation at a mental health facility did not show up when he bought the guns.

To view this disturbing news through the eyes of a second amendment zealot, Cho just slipped through the system. Whoops! There’s no way that anyone could have predicted this particular scenario. Since our best efforts to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people aren’t working, then the only logical answer is to give guns to everybody so they can protect themselves from the psychopaths who are “going to get guns anyways”.

The frustrating thing about all of this is that all of these “loopholes” aren’t accidents. They’re inserted into our laws on purpose as the result of the arduous compromises that go into every piece of gun legislation to appease the NRA. You can bet that the language in Virginia’s gun laws to prohibit gun purchases to people “only if they have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital” was carefully worded and written in such a way that the law would apply to as few people as possible. Cho was able to buy firearms because at some point in the drafting of Virginia’s gun legislation, some gun aficionado writing the ban on selling weapons to the mentally ill decided to make a distinction between “voluntary” and “involuntary” commitment to a mental hospital. And what we saw last week was the direct result of that decision.

Remember all the controversy caused Nightline devoted an entire program to honoring Americans who had been killed in the Iraq war? (A tribute that was only controversial among conservatives, by the way.) Well, it’s hard to believe that was almost three years ago now. If that same program were to be run tonight, Nightline would have to run for 2 hours and 41 minues.

Good lord, I was hoping this week would go by without finding myself being sucked into a conversation about the Second Amendment, but the temptation is too great. Rather than quote a right-wing gun nut, however, let me point to an article from the left that I find ridiculous :

Fifteen unambiguous words are all that would be required to quell the American-as-apple-pie cycle of gun violence that has now tearfully enshrined Virginia Tech in the record book of mass murder. Here are the 15 words that would deliver a mortal wound to our bang-bang culture of death: “The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.”
. . .
Since the NRA would probably claim that legislation to ban private possession of atomic weapons is part of a plot to destroy the Second Amendment, maybe it is time for liberals to stop denying the charge. Authenticity and truth-telling often work better in politics than weaselly and palpably insincere statements like, “No one is more dedicated a hunter and lover of the Second Amendment than I am, but…” If gun-control advocates are going to be hanged in effigy for their views, they should at least have the momentary enjoyment of making a speech from the scaffold expressing their true sentiments. Without having to endlessly fret about the constitutionality of any regulatory effort to reduce gun-related deaths, liberals might be able to directly discuss the benefits of such legislation in terms that even open-minded members of the NRA might appreciate.

Uhhh…what? Even when I find myself sorta agreeing with Walter Shapiro here, the article’s tone and unfortunate use of the second person is just going to cause more problems than it solves. This article will be quoted by NRA members for the next decade as “proof” that liberals really want to take away their guns. Thanks a lot, buddy.

The biggest flaw with Shapiro’s article is that he concedes the rhetorical ground to the NRA by seeming to agree that the Second Amendment prohibits gun control :

Without the Second Amendment, firearms could be regulated by the federal government in the same fashion as any other potentially dangerous devices, from coal-mine elevators to single-engine planes.
. . .
When even the most modest reforms — such as regulating gun sales between private individuals — are ridiculed as radical nostrums, it is hard for politicians to justify squandering their political capital on a seemingly hopeless cause. Frustrated by the constraints imposed by the right-to-bear-arms language in the Second Amendment, proponents of gun-control legislation have always worked on the margins. “Close the gun-show loophole” is not likely to be remembered as one of the most stirring slogans in political history.

Okay, how’s this for a “stirring slogan”? The Second Amendment was designed to protect America, not your violent hobby.

The modern understanding of the Second Amendment is completely divorced from the original meaning of the constitution (I guess this makes me a “strict constructionist”). I know I’m not the first to point this out, but anyone with a moderate understanding of the English language would recognize this as a conditional statement :

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Those commas are there for a reason. The Second Amendment wasn’t added for the benefit of hunters or gun collectors or stressed-out businessmen who need to “let off some steam” at the shooting range or the terrified citizen who only feels safe with a pistol under his pillow. The Second Amendment was added to ensure “the security of a free state”. As far as I’m concerned, if you want a gun so bad, join the Army and become part of the “well regulated Mlitia”. They’re hiring.

My nomination for the dumbest thing written in response to the Virgina Tech shootings is from, of course, Fox News :

Dr. Richard Roberts, president of Oral Roberts University, shouts an unequivocal “Yes!”

“Based on what I’ve seen in the news,” Roberts said in an interview, “there’s no doubt that this act was Satanic in origin.”

Roberts added that he doesn’t know if it was Satanic “possession” or “oppression.” Possession, he said, occurs when Satan takes over a person’s life, and the person’s actions are dictated by demonic possession within. Roberts says he’s seen this type and has seen the Devil cast out of a person.

Satanic “oppression,” on the other hand, is “that which comes against.” “It’s not in a person, but is coming against them, trying to put evil thoughts in their minds,” Roberts said.

He said that the evil thoughts in Satanic oppression can be fairly innocuous, or they can be harmful. And the oppression can be in the form of fear, depression or discouragement, he said, because “Satan comes to kill, steal and destroy.”

Roberts says we’ll never know whether Cho was “possessed” or “oppressed,” because the killer has died. But he did leave a note blasting everyone around him, calling them “rich kids,” and “deceitful charlatans,” and then blaming them, saying “you made me do this.”

Roberts describes Cho’s writings as “just words,” and says words are one of Satan’s tools to bring about Man’s destruction.

Speaking of Richard Roberts, when I was living in Tulsa and working at one of the local movie theaters, one of my coworkers loved to tell the story about the time Roberts came to a matinee alone and bought a ticket to see City Slickers. Between rushes as the movies were playing, my coworker rushed to tell everyone else working that day about the local celebrity who had come in, but when they went into the theater to get a peek at Rev. Roberts, he wasn’t there. Just to prove that he wasn’t lying, my coworker searched every corner of the building before finally finding Roberts watching Terminator 2. I don’t know if sneaking into a movie to avoid being seen buying a ticket to a rated-R movie counts as demonic “possession” or “oppression”, but it’s funny as hell nonetheless.

Was anyone really surprised by today’s Supreme Court decision? When the American people reelected George Bush in 2004, this is what they asked for. I personally think it sucks that Roe v. Wade is being slowly chipped away, but this is what we’re stuck with. We lost this battle two and a half years ago.

What’s stunning to me about today’s decision is, as Talk Left points out, the stunning level of wingnuttery in the majority opinion. From the dissent :

The Court’s hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label “abortion doctor.” A fetus is described as an “unborn child,” and as a “baby,”; second-trimester, previability abortions are referred to as “late-term,” ; and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as “preferences” motivated by “mere convenience,”. Instead of the heightened scrutiny we have previously applied, the Court determines that a “rational” ground is enough to uphold the Act. And, most troubling, Casey’s principles, confirming the continuing vitality of “the essential holding of Roe,” are merely “assume[d]” for the moment, rather than “retained” or “reaffirmed,” Casey.

Also worth noting, again from the dissenting opinion, is the incredibly sexist nature of the court’s ruling :

Revealing in this regard, the Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence: Women who have abortions come to regret their choices, and consequently suffer from “[s]evere depression and loss of esteem.” Because of women’s fragile emotional state and because of the “bond of love the mother has for her child,” the Court worries, doctors may withhold information about the nature of the intact D&E procedure. The solution the Court approves, then, is not to require doctors to inform women, accurately and adequately, of the different procedures and their attendant risks. Cf. Casey, (plurality opinion) (“States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound and lasting meaning.”). Instead, the Court deprives women of the right to make an autonomous choice, even at the expense of their safety.

This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution–ideas that have long since been discredited. Compare, e.g., Muller v. Oregon, (1908) (“protective” legislation imposing hours-of-work limitations on women only held permissible in view of women’s “physical structure and a proper discharge of her maternal funct[ion]“); Bradwell v. State, (1873) (Bradley, J., concurring) (“Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. … The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil[l] the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.”), with United States v. Virginia, (1996) (State may not rely on “overbroad generalizations” about the “talents, capacities, or preferences” of women; “[s]uch judgments have … impeded … women’s progress toward full citizenship stature throughout our Nation’s history”); Califano v. Goldfarb, (1977) (gender-based Social Security classification rejected because it rested on “archaic and overbroad generalizations” “such as assumptions as to [women's] dependency” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Congratulations Mr. Rove, the Bushification of the Judicial branch is now complete.

Media : Excuse me, but as a person from the same ethnic background of someone who just murdered almost three dozen people, do you have a comment for the people at home?

Token : Well…um..it’s obviously a horrible tragedy. Our hearts go out to the victims and their families.

Media : (surprised) Oh. Tell me, how has this vicious bloodbath affected your community?

Token : It’s clearly a difficult time for all Americans right now. The people of our ethnic group share in the nation’s collective grief.

Media : Were you or any of the members of your ethnic group familiar with the person who committed the massacre?

Token : Not really, it was on the other side of the country, so…

Media : (interrupting) Well, thank you for joining us. Next up, we’ll have an expert on to discuss why these murders validate his political opinions.

Hmmmm….who should get the blame for today’s massacre at Virginia Tech? Should it be video games? A lack of guns? Not enough Jesus?

I blame the shooter.

He seemed like a normal kid…

The oldest of three brothers raised on South L Street in Lake Worth, Florida, [Charles] Whitman attended St. Ann’s High School in Palm Beach, where he was a pitcher on the school’s baseball team. Charles and his brothers all served as altar boys at Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church, and he chose the Confirmation name “Joseph” for himself.

At the age of 6, he had scored 138 on an IQ test. Six years later, he was among the youngest to ever achieve Eagle Scout, to his father’s delight. He took five years of piano lessons.

When Whitman was 14, and still serving as an altar boy, his Scout leader Joseph Leduc completed seminary and served as the priest of Sacred Heart for a month. Leduc was a family friend, who had accompanied Whitman and his father on several hunting trips. This was also the year that he finally overcame his habit of nervously biting his nails. At the age of 16, Whitman underwent a routine appendectomy. The same year, he was hospitalized following a motorcycle accident.

When he graduated high school, he joined the Marines…

At first Whitman did quite well in the Corps, earning a Good Conduct Medal and the Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal at Guantanomo Naval Base in Cuba. He also scored an eye opening 215 out of a possible 250 points on the shooting range, receiving a Sharpshooters Badge. Trying to prove his father wrong and be successful, Whitman applied for a Naval Enlisted Science Education Program scholarship, which would help him earn an engineering degree at a selected school. Whitman got the award, and was expected to enter Officer’s Candidate School upon the completion of his degree. In September of 1961 he enrolled at the University of Texas.

But despite all that promise, something awful happened five years later :

It’s a story that’s too familiar. Someone disturbed through emotional or physical trauma loses control and acts out a violent fantasy. It’s not because they play video games or listen to aggressive music or watch violent movies or don’t go to church. Oppressive security measures and an obsessive push to rid our culture of unpleasant imagery won’t make us safer. Despite what those desperate to finding an easy fix to a complicated (and probably unsolvable) problem would have you believe, sometimes people just snap.

Since moving to WordPress, I’ve played with the font size, adjusted a few margins, and fixed the RSS feed (I think). How’s everything looking? I’m looking into bringing back the comments pop-up, but I’ll need to dig a little deeper into the PHP. Also, click on the link in the header to see the new “About” page. I think you’ll like it.

I was called in for jury duty yesterday and was placed in the jury pool for a class action lawsuit against AAA. Based on what both sides said, it looks like our friends at the Auto Club are pulling the “exempt/non-exempt” trick to screw their employees out of overtime pay. As I was hearing the charges of employees being forced to work late nights and weekends without even as much as a meal break, I couldn’t help but think to myself “I hope they take those bastards down”. Unlike the last time I got called in to do my civic duty, it’s probably for the best that I wasn’t chosen for this trial.

If I were a presidential candidate, I would be doing everything I could to get American troops out of Iraq before Nov. 2008. Binding resolutions that demand withdrawal, cutting off funding, you name it. Because whoever ends up taking over the presidency from Junior is going to end up getting blamed for this damnned thing. The Bushies are trying to pass the buck to the next “decider” and the natural result of that will be every war supporter (not just the neocons) will insist that the war could have been won if we’d just stayed just a little longer. If you’re afraid of being branded a “defeatist” now, it’s nothing compared to the insults you’ll face being the first commander in chief in recent memory with enough humility and honesty to admit a mistake. Or to put things another way, if you win next year’s election and get stuck cleaning up George Bush’s mess, don’t kid yourself into thinking you’ll get a second term.