2003 + 2001

Two news items caught my eye...well, I guess my ear, since I was listening to the radio...on the way into work this morning. One relates to the year 2003, one to 2001.

First the 2003 story...today marks the 5th anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. I was going to say 'the war with Iraq', but that's not really accurate. We're not fighting the country itself, but against an ideology. So how do you know when you've won?

Last year on this date, when I wrote this post, I had a strong feeling we'd still be stuck in this quagmire a year later. The facts and figures I quoted in that post are relevant but now out-of-date...but the bottom line is we're still pouring too much time, money, and too many precious lives of our young men and women into a mess we created, a battle we shouldn't be fighting, and an ideological war we'll never win. How long will we be there? Who knows...maybe our next President will find a way out of this mess. It's clear the current President won't.

Onto our next story...writer Arthur C. Clarke died March 18th at the age of 90 (CNN.com obituary is here). Clarke's most famous work was 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but he had many other significant contributions. He was also an early proponent of telecommunications satellites, served as chairman of the British Interplanetary Society, and was a prolific fiction- and non-fiction writer. Last night I heard an excerpt from one of his speeches, and he talked about how when he wrote 2001 he had no idea how many of the concepts in it would end up becoming reality. What an interesting man...we've lost a great visionary and thinker.

That's all for now, folks...more later...

Lawyers, Guns, and Money

"Send lawyers, guns, and money...
the sh*t has hit the fan..." - Warren Zevon

Listening to the news this morning, I realized it was all about lawyers, guns, and money at the US Supreme Court today. Allow me to explain...

The Court hears oral arguments today on a case called District of Columbia v. Heller. The case centers around the constitutionality of DC's law which bans the posession of handguns by all except current and retired law enforcement officials. The Court has decided the key question in Heller is this: "Whether the [DC handgun ban], violate[s] the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

Interestingly, the Supreme has only addressed the 2nd Amendment question one other time, in United States v. Miller in 1939. That case, however, did not decide whether the right to bear arms is a right granted to an individual citizen or to a group (a "well-organized militia", as the amendment states).

This case could affect handgun bans in other cities like Chicago. It could also have a far-reaching impact on legislation designed to control and regulate the use of guns--assault weapons bans, laws which prevent felons or the mentally disabled from owning firearms, etc.

I'll come right out and say that I am a gun control advocate--that those who use guns should register them, and should be subjected to reasonable limits on their posession and use. I've heard all the arguments in favor of unrestricted gun acess, and I don't buy any of them. There are plenty of statistics both for and against unrestricted gun ownership, but I'm betting those stats do nothing to change the argument one way or the other. They just help you dig yourself into an even more firmly entrenched position.

Either way this plays out, I expect this case will affect us for a long time to come. As news comes out on the case, I'll post updates and opinions.

More later...