Place the blame for the oil crisis on George Bush

We all remember back to 2001, when George Bush spoke to the nation after 9/11. We were a united nation with the backbone to pursue al qaeda to punish them for the attack. At that moment, if George Bush had told the nation we were going on a crash diet and cutting the use of oil by 90% in ten years, the resources would have been there and the country would have been united.

Oil has always been a national security issue. It is one of the many failings of George Bush... He could have had class, he could have been a contender. He could have been somebody. Instead of a bum, which is what he is...

2nd Amendment Decision and why it probably matters little

I don't want to take anything away from the hard fought victory that gun advocates won in the Supreme Court last week, but here is why it is not likely to matter much.

I ran across this article on the Huffington Post today. Here is the problem for gun advocates, most rights are covered by a couple of legal standards, such as "a compelling government interest" and least restrictive means (BTW -- The Supremes did not define a standard). This basically means that the government will likely have to prove in most cases that they have a compelling interest in curtailing your rights and that they are using the least restrictive means for doing it.

Fighting terrorism and securing air travel are pretty compelling government interests. The only chance that 2nd Amendment advocates will likely have is based on least restrictive means. I think ultimately the Supreme Court decision will not cause a huge ripple-affect. I suspect many governments will have to alter their laws and a lot of them will be challenged.

Free speech may hurt people feelings or sensibilities, but rarely (ever?) does speech kill or injure people. It is simple much easier for the government to have a legitimate reason for regulation when it comes to guns. There is also an unknown about where this newly incorporated right will begin and end. Do you have the right to a rocket propelled grenade launcher? An M-16 (fully automatic or semi)? Sawed off shotgun? How about the right to concealed carry? I suspect common sense would dictate that you have the right to own semi-automatic hand guns or rifles (shot guns included). You probably would not have concealed carry rights and you would probably be restricted about where you can carry them (no airports, bars, government buildings, schools, etc). Having said that, I think the government will have to provide reasonable procedures for owning automatic weapons or concealed carry.

Just for the record (as a gun owner), guns don't kill people, but they do make killing people a lot more efficient which is why the government seeks to regulate them. After all nuclear warheads don't kill people either, people in the silos who fire them do, but I digress.

One last note: This decision was clearly not based on strict constructionist principles. Reading the 2nd Amendment clearly defines the right as being related to militias. They had to reach to make this decision.

Finally, a good initiative for 2008

The Arizona Republic has this story about a "homeowners bill of rights" initiative being put on the ballot by the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association.

I think even conservatives and Republicans will find this largely non-controversial. It gives homeowners a 10 year warranty on a new home, allows the homeowner to choose who does repair work, the ability to sue the home builder without paying attorney's fees and requiring model homes to (gasp) reflect the houses being sold.

As far as I am concerned this is overdue... Kudos to the Sheet Metal Workers.