Florida law regarding use of deadly force

Florida governer Jeb Bush signed into law a bill that would allow citizens to shoot someone who threatened them, even in public places. Link to article. Previously, citizens were allowed to use deadly force with a firearm if they could not safely get away. But now, if a person feels threatened in a mall, for example, and they can safely get away, they are justified to begin shooting.
The NRA, who lobbied heavily for this law, plans to introduce the bill all around the country.
I'm trying to understand why this is necessary. Any thoughts?

I'm Rubber and You're Glue...

The Washington Post had a short piece this morning about Howard Dean and his attacks on the Republican Party since taking over as chairman of the DNC. Apparently, his current tactics include name-calling--"evil," "corrupt," "brain-dead," "liar"--and impersonations--mimicking Rush Limbaugh doing drugs.

The GOP's response: "It's odd that Howard Dean says he wants to earn the respect of those who live in the red states, but chooses to not only attack their views but attack them personally," RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said. "Americans want to hear an agenda, rather than name calling."

I understand that maybe the Dem's feel they have to stick up for themselves, especially after taking the high road failed so miserably for Kerry's campaign (in terms of the Swift Boat ads.) But, I find myself agreeing with the Ms. Schmitt. Personal attacks and name-calling is not the way to do it. I think it's time for the Dems to define themselves in terms of their political philosophy and vision for America, and not just as anti-Republicans. I would have more respect for a party and platform that presented a well-rounded, well-thought out vision for moving America forward; one that sought to find common ground with Republicans and ways to work together, instead of highlighting their differences and creating further division.

I, Camelbot

Dear Westerner:

If at some future time you imagine yourself relating to an issue or experiencing a comfortable understanding of the mind or culture of the Middle East, please read this article or this one and reconsider your position.

"I [heart] my Vagina"?

Two female high school students in Minnesota have gotten themselves in hot water with school officials for refusing to remove buttons that read "I [heart] my vagina". The two were inspired to wear the buttons after seeing The Vagina Monologues.

Effect of Blogs on Politics

Reading the article linked to from Shanan's post on the "news" reported from the campaign trail has me wondering what effect, if any, blogs will have on the nature of political discourse going forward. Will they enable us to get a more accurate view of what's really going on in America and the world, outside of the filtered perspectives of the organized media and allow for a free exchange of ideas and discussion? Or will the media co-opt blogs into their vast machines (as many organizations are already doing--see The Washington Post and USA Today) and degrade them into just another outlet for controlled information?

Ann Coulter on cover of Time magazine

Ann Coulter's on the cover of Time magazine. I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

America's Technological Standstill

I read a distressing editorial in The Times this morning about our recent lack of advances in the area of technology compared to other countries. I work in the IT industry, and have felt like we weren't moving ahead as quickly in last few years as we had in the late 90's, but it was just a general feeling. This article seems to confirm this, but I was wondering (for any of you who work in or with technology) what your thoughts were. This is the article.

Taxman

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

George Harrison
The Beatles
Revolver, 1966

Republican Backlash?

This past weekend was a bad one for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX.) In a speech on Saturday, Rep. Shays (R-CT) called for Rep. DeLay to step down as House Majority Leader, going so far as to call him "an absolute embarrassment to me and to the Republican Party." In another interview, Sen. Santorum (R-PA) called for Rep. DeLay to explain his actions, specifically the alleged ethics violation that have recently surfaced.

Reading about the attacks on Rep. DeLay, most notably from members of his own Republican party, has me wondering if we’re beginning to see a backlash to the recent, ultra-conservative behavior of some Republican Congressmen.

For example, Rep. DeLay was the one who spearheaded the effort to pass the bill moving the Schiavo case to federal jurisdiction--—something with which 70% of Americans disagreed. DeLay has also been publicly criticized for stating that the judges in the Schiavo case who refused to order the reinsertion of the feeding tube would have to “answer for their behavior,” a statement that Vice President Cheney himself later disputed in an attempt to distance the Bush administration from DeLay’s comments.

So, even though they didn't propagate these allegations—--the lobbyist-funded trips, putting his wife and daughter on his campaign payroll, etc.--—do you think the Republican Party is using them as a smokescreen to distance themselves from DeLay’'s ultra-conservatism and move back towards the more moderate center (I hope)?

Nomenklatura

Down with Gerrymandering. Check out another RTD homerun editorial:

Watch California

Richmond Times-Dispatch
Apr 11, 2005

The Senate considers itself the world's most exclusive deliberative body. The House of Representatives takes pride in its status as "the people's house."

Every state sends two Senators to Washington; House delegations reflect population. South Dakota has one Congressman, for instance, while California has 53. Senators originally were selected not by citizens but by state legislators. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, stipulated the election of Senators by direct popular vote. House terms run for two years, Senate for six. More frequent elections supposedly ensure that the House reflects the immediacy of popular opinion; longer terms allow the Senate to cool the passions. The entire House membership faces re-election every two years. Only one-third of the Senate is up in any given campaign. The differences suggest the House experiences greater turnover than the Senate.

Facts:
Democrats controlled the House for 40 years. Republicans have not lost the House since their 1994 breakthrough.

Republicans took the Senate in 1980; Democrats reclaimed it in 1986; Republicans regained a majority in 1994; Democrats pulled to a tie (broken by a GOP Vice President) in 2000 and took control in 2001 when a Republican became an independent and caucused with the Democrats; Republicans moved back into a majority in 2002; the GOP widened its margin in 2004.

Since the early 1950s the House has seen one partisan shift (several elections saw significant numerical movement without changes in partisan control); during the past 25 years, the Senate has witnessed several shifts with profound implications for legislation and policy. The Senate has become an electoral battleground. The House resembles fortresses in the rear. Fighting can break out there, especially when the enemy stages raids, but the protracted combat occurs at the front.

Gerrymandering helps to explain the situation. Senate seats correspond to states. Politicians cannot alter the maps. Every decade, however, they redraw congressional lines. Although gerrymandering dates almost to the beginning (Elbridge Gerry, the Massachusetts governor who lent his name to the practice, signed the Declaration of Independence), it has grown more sophisticated. Computers reduce the guesswork. It does not stretch the truth to suggest operatives know the partisan preferences of almost every house on almost every block. Republicans and Democrats alike disregard communal interest and geographical compactness when they create districts to maximize their performance. Such maps distort political preferences. States such as California, Texas, and Florida produce House delegations that are more lopsided than their statewide returns would indicate.

The proliferation of safe seats also has implications for intra-party relations. When the vast majority of districts lack competitive elections in November, parties lose an incentive to cultivate the mainstream. The edge in nomination contests slips to the hardcore. Democratic activists are more liberal than grassroots Democrats; Republican activists are more conservative than grassroots Republicans. The bitterness heard today reflects in part the infantile partisanship fueled by gerrymandering.

This must stop.

. . .

Here comes Arnold!

Arnold Schwarzenegger not only is cleaning up California's fiscal mess but is putting gerrymandering on his reform agenda. Californians will vote on his referendum to transfer redistricting from politicians to independent commissions authorized to draw lines without regard to partisan advantage. The political establishment is appalled (and afraid). A Schwarzenegger win would deprive it of one of its most potent weapons.

Gerrymandering allows politicians to turn the tables. They decide which voters they will represent. Voters no longer make the picks.

Progressives everywhere are rooting for Schwarzenegger.

Indeed, numerous states have redistricting reforms on their slates. A sweep in California could make the cause irresistible.

Virginia would benefit from a push. For many years the Commonwealth's Democrats gleefully gerrymandered maps for the General Assembly and the U.S. Congress. For many years the Commonwealth's Republicans expressed their outrage at Democratic perfidy. GOP Assembly majorities produced schemes that were as gerrymandered as the Democratic maps. Democrats had no institutional standing to complain. Although both parties have members who support reform, neither party's collective record deserves respect.

The Times-Dispatch blasted gerrymandering during the Democratic era. Republican gerrymandering is every bit as egregious. Virginians should root for the success of Schwarzenegger's Golden State anti-gerrymandering referendum -- with aftershocks that reach the Old Dominion.

It would not be surprising if this first attempt failed. The nomenklatura elite, reinforced by special interests thriving on the system as it is, will counterattack with all its might. Yet thanks to Schwarzenegger, the nation's most politically important state has joined the battle. Eventually the war will be won.

Genius

From the editorial page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch April 8, 2005:

Genius

The late Daniel Boorstin's The Genius of American Politics remains one of the finest studies of the American experiment. It complements Democracy in America and The Federalist.

Boorstin holds that Americans are not a particularly ideological people and that their system discourages the rise of rigid parties. There have been exceptions to the rule, of course, but Americans have been far more likely to apply common sense to problems than schemes dictated by ideologies.

Conservatives long have prided themselves as the non-ideological party. Conservatism described a state of mind, a temperament, a perspective, a quality of the imagination. Conservatives honored tradition, while recognizing that society is not static. Although principles informed their policies, they rejected automatic answers to public problems. They professed skepticism of power for the sake of partisan power. And they understood the tragic sense of life among men and nations.

Recent years have seen a conundrum. On the one hand, an administration and a Congress identified as conservative have pushed items that would have shocked Tories of yesteryear (the No Child Left Behind Act, for instance); on the other hand, behavior on both sides of the aisle has grown more contentious, more partisan, more ideological. Howard Dean says he hates Republicans. Numerous Republicans return the compliment. The two parties seemingly have adopted the tactics of "take no prisoners!" Evidence of their duplicity is supplied by the transparently hypocritical positions Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives take on procedural questions ranging from gerrymandering to filibusters.

From time to time exasperated Congressmen propose retreats to restore civility. Freshmen legislators attend orientation sessions where they learn the ropes. Why not require all members -- veterans and newcomers -- to read Boorstin and to write term papers on his implications for contemporary debate? Conservatives in particular might want to ask if they are paying proper respect to the virtues that once explained America's political genius.

Sinn Féin Pleads with IRA?

Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin today told the IRA to drop its violent revolutionary tactics and pursue a "political solution".

What do you think of what's going on in Northern Ireland? I find myself less supportive, over time, of Irish Nationalism in the way it has been historically defined and envisioned by the IRA and Sinn Féin.

Look out judges - they're coming for you.

Last week, Tom DeLay made the following comment in reference to the Schiavo decisions, "This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change...[t]he time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Federal judges are appointed for life, so what is he referring to?
This week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)in a speech given on the Senate floor, wondered "whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds and builds to the point where some people engage in violence, certainly without any justification."
Remember that one judge (along with a court reporter) was murdered in his courtroom in Atlanta by a rapist, and another had her husband and mother murdered because she was forced by an appeals court to rule against an obviously deranged plaintiff.
Cronyn has since tried to back-pedal, clarifying that he did not mean the attacks on these judges were justified. But, what I got from his comments is not that the attacks were justified, just understandable.
This is all leading up to to an attempt to scrap the filibuster to ensure the confirmation of President Bush's most extremist judicial nominees.
If it sounds like intimidation, looks like intimidation, smells like intimidation...

An Arm and a Leg... No, Make that 2 Legs

Since when did gas cost $2.15/gallon? I could swear I paid under $2 the last time I filled up. And this was at a CitGo in Manassas--usually one of the cheaper places to buy gas. I checked around at some of the other stations in Manassas (BP, Hess, Exxon, Shell, even Sheetz) and they were all in the $2.10-$2.17 range. I obviously haven't been paying enough attention to oil prices, but it still seems like one of the biggest single spikes we've seen in awhile. Anyone have any insight into what's causing this price increase (or, in other words, WTF)?

Pope John Paul II Dies

Pope John Paul II, head of the Roman Catholic Church, has died at age 84, reports the Vatican. Currently the College of Cardinals serves as the leadership of the Catholic Church during a period known as sede vacante. Since the year 1059, the College of Cardinals has served as the sole body charged with the election of the Pope. Since 1378 the College of Cardinals has chosen one of its members during conclave, or the papal election, as the new pontiff.

John Paul II served as Pope for 26 years, from 1978-2005.