otium cum dignitate

More on Guns

It may be a long time before the demise of Roe v. Wade, but conservatives could score a significant victoy on gun rights as early as next fall.  On Tuesday, a federal appeals court here in Washington upheld an earlier ruling by a lower court that invalidated DC's complete ban on guns in the city.  The case should find its way to the Supreme Court before long, and an opinion by the high court could be published as early as next fall (just in time for the elections).  It would be the first Supreme Court opinion on the 2nd Amendment since 1939.

The sudden vulnerability of gun control laws has been influenced by new (or perhaps old, depending how you look at it) interpretations of the 2nd Amendment by a few prominent law scholars.  As the NYT reported on Sunday, these new legal interpretations are considered especially significant because they are coming from scholars and professors who are known to usually espouse a more liberal bent on the law. 

An important point to understand here is that, even if the 2nd Amendment creates a concrete right to "keep and bear arms," the government could restrict that right if it had a compelling reason to do so.  Freedom of speech has historically been restricted in situations where an unrestricted right would create a "clear and present danger" to the public, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

It seems that the government could make out a fairly solid case for why gun rights can and should be restricted.  For instance, if the strict gun control laws in DC can be linked to less violent crime, then laws that impose on the right to own a gun could be constitutionally valid.  Public safety is a legitimate public interest, and, in light of the VT tragedy, we all know that guns often pose significant dangers to the public. 

More on this debate to come...

Disenfranchised

I live in the capitol city of the world's so-called beacon of democracy.  As a Washington, DC resident, I have foregone my right to vote for members of Congress (unless I continue to say that this is my temporary residence).  This is one of the world's great paradoxes, and one that stubbornly seems to persist with little real concern outside of the DC area. 

Things could be changing, though.  Last month, a bill passed the House which would give DC a seat in the House (and would give Utah a seat to counter-balance the assuredly Democrat-filled DC seat).  The Senate should be considering the bill soon.

Haters of DC voting rights challenge that the Constitution technically only creates a seat in Congress for States, and because Washington, DC is not a state, it's residents are therefore denied Congressional representation.  However, these opponents of DC voting rights are also typically fond of the Republican party, and they know that a DC seat in the House basically guarantees an extra Democratic voice in the House forever.  That's where the idea of packaging the DC seat with an extra Utah seat (predictably Republican) comes in.

To me, the legal argument against granting DC a seat in Congress is pretty weak.  The Constitution does not actually prohibit the creation of a seat in Congress for DC, it just fails to prescribe that such a seat is mandatory.  DC may not be a State, but it is certainly higher in status than a territory such as Puerto Rico.  DC residents could not even vote for the President until the passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961. 

It's time to finally end this ridiculous reality of  "taxation without representation" in a city that serves as the home of the most powerful democratic government in history. 

Trying to Understand

The more I read about this Virginia Tech tragedy, the more shocked and saddened I become.  Now there are reports that this lone gunman shot students execution-style in the classroom.

What do we take from this horrible massacre of innocent students and professors?  I rarely quote the NYT editorialists, but today I just have to agree:

"Our hearts and the hearts of all Americans go out to the victims and their families. Sympathy was not enough at the time of Columbine, and eight years later it is not enough. What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss."

I keep trying to figure out how supposedly one gunman with a set of handguns could inflict such a large scale of violence on more than sixty people.  At first, I figured he must have been toting some sort of assault rifle.  But it seems that it only took a madman and a couple of pistols to create the worst shooting massacre in US history. 

Can we please get serious about tougher gun laws?  Here in DC, as some may know, we have a complete ban on guns.  Sure, it hasn't eliminated violence by a long shot, but it certainly has helped.  Unfortunately, a DC court just recently ruled that the district's gun laws are "unconstitutional," despite the fact that these laws have been in existence for decades.  The DC government has appealed the decision, and I can only hope that the higher court remembers this latest gun disaster at Virginia Tech when reviewing their "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment.   

As an aside, has anyone else ever noticed that newspapers and other periodicals only resort to giant bold fonts on their front page when really really terrible things happen?  Why does the most "important" news always have to be so bad?

Nappy-Headed Hullaballoo

What a week for the topic of race relations in the U.S.  First, charges of racial hate-inspired rape against the Duke lacrosse players are dropped, then Don Imus is fired for uttering a phrase that has now entered the public lexicon of buzz-words, and finally tonight, baseball celebrated the 60th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's first game in the major leagues.

While the Duke case exposed the irresponsibility of jumping to race-based conclusions, and baseball's Jackie Robinson celebration has been tempered by the reality that only 8 % of MLB's players are currently Black, the impact and meaning of the Imus conflagration is a bit harder to flesh out.

First, to be clear, Imus' remarks regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team were not only offensive, they were obviously stupid and untrue.  You would think that Imus' extensive experience as a broadcaster would lead to a little bit more common sense. 

Imus' words were derogatory and ridiculous.  But it was just  silly to hear the now infamous phrase repeated ad nauseam on every major radio and tv broadcast over the last two weeks.  I mean, do we really need to keep repeating it?  The more I hear it, the funnier and more ridiculous it becomes!

Anyways, let's take a moment to call out the hypocrisy so obviously mixed in with the moralizing rabble rousers.  The NYT ran an interesting piece today pointing out that so-called "comedians" like Sacha Baron Cohen, Larry David, and Sarah Silverman often get away with ridiculously insensitive remarks that pale in comparison to Imus' flap.  And what about South Park, which, by the way, is overseen by CBS's good friend Viacom?  Should humor always excuse insensitivity?  Did Don Imus fall because his joke failed?

My biggest issue of all, though, is the ongoing lack of an uproar over the most public displays of violence, misogyny, and racism: mainstream hip-hop and rap.  In an editorial this week, the Washington Post really hit the mark:

Today, the lyrics of the songs on [Prince's 1985 album "Purple Rain] would seem quaint compared with the raunchy rhymes of rappers like 50 Cent ("P.I.M.P."), DMX ("My Niggas") Lil' Kim ("Shut Up Bitch") and Ludacris ("Ho").

Imus' mistake is nowhere NEAR as offensive and detrimental as the lurid display of violence and female objectification in rap videos and music.  And, sorry Al Sharpton, but far more young people -- the ones you claim to be protecting -- are listening to Ludacris rather than Don Imus.

Imus definitely deserved some sort of rebuke for his bout of on-air idiocy.  But he'll surely be back before too long.  And no one will care.  America's black "leaders" will be out fighting another "symbolic" war while the poor black kids in the ghetto will be rapping to Snoop Dogg and Akon rather than going to school. 

Splenda v. Equal

When the vending machine on the 3rd floor of the law school spit out a coke zero last week rather than the regular coke that I had requested, I spent the subsequent class looking up Wikipedia articles about the artificial sweeteners in Coke's newest zero-calorie product.  My conclusions?  Coke zero is basically the same thing as Diet Coke, but with a more "manly" image thanks to relentless advertising strategies.

Anyways, today's story detailing a lawsuit brought by Equal against artificial sweetener newcomer, Splenda, again drew my attention to the fake-sugar industry.

It seems that Equal isn't taking too kindly to Splenda's sudden dominance of the artificial sweetener market over the last few years.  At the heart of the dispute is another ad campaign, this one by Splenda.  As many may know, packets of Splenda proudly proclaim that the product is "made from sugar" and thus "tastes like sugar."  In reality, Splenda has exactly the same amount of Sugar in it as Equal does: absolutely none.  But Equal claims that Splenda's advertising ploy has mislead consumers into believing that Splenda is somehow a no-calorie form of sugar rather than a true artificial sweetener.

Unfortunately for Equal, Splenda actually is created from a few molecules of sugar (they dissolve in the manufacturing process).  So the "made from sugar" claim is technically correct.  I'm not sure what kind of case Equal has after conceding this point.

Which brings us back to diet coke.  Coca-cola products have now begun incorporating Splenda into its products, surely part of the reason that Splenda has captured 62 percent of the artificial sweetener market.  My hypochondriacal question: is Splenda any better for you than Equal, which has been prone to rumors of brain cancers and other strange ailments in lab tests?

Obamamania

This morning, I attended the DNC Winter Meeting at the Hilton here in Washington and left feeling more convinced than ever that Obama will be our next President in 2008.

I had to tolerate a fair amount of Democratic Party hooplah before finally hearing Obama speak.  I stood in line for about an hour just to receive the "credentials" pictured here.  All the while, Hillary supporters hounded me with offers of Hillary '08 stickers and placards.  I turned them all down, of course.

Finally, I entered the giant ballroom where the event was taking place.  Howard Dean opened the session in his usual goofy manner, and Harry Reid offered a short and fairly uninspiring speech to the throngs of spectators waiting for the real Democratic leaders to step forth.  Unfortunately, I had to sit through a speech by Chris Dodd as well, and became downright annoyed when he idiotically proclaimed "bipartisanship means getting Republicans to agree with Democratic principles!!"  As senseless as that line was, the crowd loved it.

Finally, Obama arrived, and the room erupted.  He began his speech by remarking that all the photographers and glitz made him feel like a contestant on American Idol.  But what seemed like a typical "break-the-ice" type joke employed by many speakers as they begin, actually served as an engaging intro to Obama's central message.  Obama declared that despite the incessant punditry, frantic score-keeping, and overly "strategized" campaigns of contemporary American Politics, we must remember that this isn't just some "game." 

Obama set the theme of his speech when he warned, "Our biggest rival in 2008 isn't the other party, it's cynicism."  He went on to decry the state of American politics, and the fact that cynicism has replaced hope, and gamesmanship has replaced serious discussions about real issues. 

I have to say that I have never seen a person command the podium as Obama does.  His speaking style is extremely effective in the way that it oscillates between hushed seriousness and dramatically intense calls to action.  By the end, the crowd was in a feverish uproar.  I had goosebumps.  OBAMA '08!

Getting Ready for 2008

Just to get the ball rolling, here are the results from some interesting polls that asked Americans whether they thought the country was ready for a Black, Female, or Mormon President.   Suffice it to say, Mitt Romney is in trouble:

Is America ready for a black president?

CNN (All respondents)
Yes: 62%
No: 34%

Newsweek (All)
Yes: 56
No: 30

Gallup (All)
Yes: 58
No: 40

Is America ready for a female president?

CNN (All)
Yes: 60
No: 37

Newsweek (All)
Yes: 55
No: 35

Is America ready for a Mormon president?

Newsweek (All)
Yes: 34
No: 48

Gallup (All)
Yes: 29
No: 66 

Post-Grads Flocking to the Southeast?

I know my readers are frustrated with my lack of posts this fall,  so here's one to  get things started again.  People who know me  are probably aware of my interest in urban policy, suburbia, city management, etc.  It's one of my favorite topics.  An article somewhat related to these issues in today's NYT caught my eye.

The article, titled "Cities Compete in Hipness Battle to Attract Young," discusses how cities are making an effort to attract today's post-grads by appealing to our social, artistic, and living interests.  According to a recent study, Atlanta is leading the charge among big cities in attracting the "young and restless" from traditional hubs such as New York City, Washington, and Chicago.  Other gainers include Charlotte, Austin, and Portland. 

Austin and Portland make sense to me.  Both cities are known to have progressive local legislatures that put a prerogrative on keeping their cities liveable and dynamic.  Austin is considered a top venue for live music, and residents wear shirts that famously read "Keep Austin Weird."  Portland features one of the most efficient mass-transit systems in the United States, and "smart-growth" policies assure that the evils of suburbia, along with it's mushrooming highways, won't turn the city into a tangle of asphalt, cars, and finely-mowed front lawns. 

Atlanta and Charlotte, on the other hand, are case-studies for disorganized city planning.  Highways dominate the landscape in both cities, and neither locations have viable downtowns as growth has been allowed to expand outwards in all directions.  The article claims that Atlanta is gaining in popularity among young people because of its diversity, 45 universities, and major airport.  Young people are supposedly flocking to Charlotte because of a "new Nascar museum," "frisbee golf," and a "new articifical river for whitewater sports."  Yeah right.

Charlotte and Atlanta are popular among post-grads for one reason: money.  It's just becoming too expensive for young people to afford to live the city-life in places like NYC and Washington.  As an example, in Davidson, NC, a suburb of Charlotte, I paid $275/month for an entire house that I shared with two friends.  In Washington, I pay $1300+/month for a two-bedroom apartment. 

My contention all along is that Atlanta and Charlotte can only maintain this level of growth for so long.  With a transportation system reliant on cars, both cities are facing an impending crisis when oil prices soar again and highways finally reach their capacity.  Charlotte is in a little better shape because it's still a young city and much can be done to steer growth in a more organized direction.  But Atlanta is in trouble.  Young people will be fleeing Atlanta before long when they realize that their commutes to work suck hours from their day, and their gas bills resemble a night of drinks at an expensive bar. 

Republicans Succomb to the Blues

On the surface, the Democrats victoriously "thumped" the Republicans in last week's midterm elections and surprisingly regained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in over 12 years.  But it's going to be a while before we know what this really means for a rejuvenated, and yet divided Democratic party that has lacked a coherent message and direction since the Clinton years.

To me, the most interesting story over the last week has been Joe Lieberman's resounding defeat over Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate race.  I wrote a rather impassioned post in August decrying the downfall of Lieberman at the hands of the "netroots" liberals in the Connecticut Democratic primary.    I was happy to see that, as I predicted, Lieberman rode bipartisan support to victory in the general election.

Lieberman's success symbolizes how the "divided" nature of American politics that everyone always talks about doesn't really represent the nation as a whole.  I've been frustrated for years now about the way that social issues and "moral values" have hijacked the U.S. political process.  These pervasive topics mask the real political issues we should be discussing, and falsely depict the American electorate as a bipolar mix of Christian Evangelicals and anti-war super-liberal hippies. 

In reality, swing independent voters made up 26 percent of the electorate in last Tuesday's elections.  They voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats, but this doesn't necessarily indicate a new-found public affinity for liberal ideology.  In Pennsylvania, Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. neutralized the never-ending abortion imbroglio with his pro-life stance and easily defeated Republican Rick Santorum, a former heavyweight in the Senate.  And then there's Montana's new Senator, John Tester (D), who the NYT described as "a pro-gun, anti-big-business prairie pragmatist whose life is defined by the treeless patch of hard Montana dirt that has been in the family since 1916."   

As I mentioned in my prior post on Lieberman, the Democrats cannot win with thinkers like Howard Dean leading the party strategy.  Lieberman's defeat of Democrat-supported Ned Lamont struck a resounding defeat for the internet liberals and made it obvious that the country is not in the mood for a 1960's revival of idealistic liberalism. 

I'm interested to see exactly what the Democrats are going to do over the next two years.  We haven't seen the Democrats with any type of meaningful political control in six years now.  But over that time we have heard a lot of Bush-hating.  Now it's time for the Dems to make good on their promises that they can do better, both in Iraq and at home. 

Now that Mark Warner pulled out, I'm certain about this one:  Obama '08!

   

Election Night 2006

What a perfect time to return to Otium?  Election night 2006.  I've been on a news hiatus for the last few months so it's taken some work over the last few days getting up to speed on the state of American politics.  But i'm feeling somewhat educated now, and I'm ready to fulfill my role as a DC blogger and post my own election night prognosis.

I don't think there's much of a question that the Democrats will, in fact, take the House back tonight.  But Republicans need not completely despair.  Historically, in the sixth year of a two-term presidency, the majority party loses an average of 30+ seats.  The Democrats need only 15  seats to take the House this year.  So if the Republicans only lose 20 or so seats, as is expected, it should be seen as somewhat of a moderate victory, considering how tough this election has been traditionally for the majority party.

The Senate situation is much less clear, although it seems the Republicans will hold the majority, especially considering that a 50-50 situation goes to the GOP with Cheney's tiebreaker.  Here in DC, we've been bombarded with political ads from the Virginia and Maryland Senate races, both of which are hotly contested.  It would be quite the choke for George Allen to lose to Jim Webb in Virginia after being considered a 2008 presidential contender only a few months ago. 

I'll post again tomorrow with my observations and conclusions.  Right now, i'm heading over to Lounge 201 with some friends to watch the returns.