Can You Hear Me Now?

Senator Robert Byrd, longest serving member of the United State Senate, passed away on Monday at the age of 92.  He was in his 51st year of Senate service to the people of West Virginia.  Since nobody who has lived eight years shy of a century could be fairly eulogized in a paragraph, I won’t bother to attempt it.  Legislatively, he was remarkably effective at directing federal funding to his State, managing - among other things - to get Coast Guard offices stationed in West Virginia, which is nowhere near the coast of anything.  Personally, He was a reformed segregationist with a love of poetry whom some people liked and some people didn’t.  The Senate will certainly be different without him.

Nearly two years after the triggering events of the financial collapse and subsequent recession, Congress has finally reached agreement on legislation to reform the financial system.  Maybe.  Chances for passage seems pretty good after Democratic negotiators bought the vote of Senator Scott Brown by carving out exceptions to the bank tax for several Massachusetts institutions.  Then, the wheels started to come off.  First, Senator Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia passed away.  Then, in a move that is fast becoming a pattern for him, Scott Brown pulled his support for the bill, claiming he had additional concerns that weren’t addressed during the previous negotiations, the outcome of which he previously supported.  Following that, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe decided that if Brown could score a windfall by weakening the bill and still not voting for it, they wanted in on that jackpot as well.  By Wednesday morning the Democrats had caved and dropped the entire bank tax from the bill.  This seems to have appeased Brown and company for the moment.  But it is only Wednesday.  Since the Senate won’t vote on the bill until after the Independence Day recess, Brown and company will have another week to fabricate additional objections and withdraw their support yet again.  The most moronic part of all this is that the Scott Brown appeasement could largely have been avoided if the two Democratic holdouts had learned not to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good and agreed to vote for the damn bill to begin with.  But I guess hoping for Democratic unity on ANYTHING is a little like hoping the Cubs will win the World Series.  There’s always next year, right?

As an aside however, let’s give credit where credit is due.  It didn’t take Scott Brown very long to the formula of how to roll over the Democrats and get what he wants, without having to give up anything in return.  Of course, it’s not that complex of a formula.  Feign interest in bipartisanship, demand concessions in exchange for vote, receive said concessions, then deny vote citing “additional concerns.”  Lather, rinse, repeat.  It’s brilliant strategy really.  If the weakened bill eventually passes without his support, he claims to his base that his involvement in the process removed all the “egregious” elements from the legislation.  And if the bill goes down in flames, he claims to moderates that he tried to work with Democrats, they just weren’t interested in addressing his concerns.  I envy that sort of genius.

Among the many decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on the final day of the term Monday morning was the decision to overturn Chicago’s ban on the ownership of handguns within the city limits.  The ruling effectively nullifies - at least for the time being - any restriction on the ownership of firearms anywhere in the country.  While it surprised absolutely no one in the wake of a similar court decision regarding the handgun ban in Washington D.C. over a year ago, it does set up an interesting set of circumstances for the upcoming deluge of gun rights-related lawsuits.  Up to this point, all the other amendments comprising the Bill of Rights have been subject to time place and manner restrictions.  You have the right to speak freely, but you cannot yell fire in a crowed theater is there is in fact, no fire.  In striking down the Chicago law, the Court essentially struck down the long-standing presiding view of the right to “bear arms” as a collective right, instead asserting that right to be an individual one.  Under this new interpretation, there are no such time, place and manner restrictions.  The Second Amendment is freer than the First.  The people have the right to “bear arms.”  Does that mean, all people?  Including persons convicted of crimes?  What about those who are mentally ill?  Where can said arms be borne?  In the office?  In the classroom?  In stadiums at sporting events?  And what exactly are these “arms” anyway?  Automatic weapons?  Grenades?  Mortars?  Surface-to-air missiles perhaps?  (Will the Constitutional originalists on the court argue that the right of the people to bear flint-lock rifles and pistols shall not be infringed?)  We’re starting from scratch on this one people.

I know I’ve asked this before, but I still haven’t received an answer. Could someone please explain to me the American fascination with guns and shooting people? Immediately following the Second Amendment decision, several of the plaintiffs in the case found some television cameras to inform the rest of us that “open season on the citizens of Chicago is over.” They served notice that now that Chicagoans will be allowed to have handguns in their homes, crime in the city will soon be a thing of the past. If I recall correctly, the ban only applied to handguns. Rifles and shotguns were still legal. That didn’t seem to deter the criminals? Why would the addition of a handgun to the inventory make a significant difference? If the number of handguns present in a city was some sort of indication of its relative safety, the city of Houston, and by extension the State of Texas, would, by far, be the safest in the Union. They are not. Handguns have one purpose, and one purpose only; to shoot people. Again. What is the American fascination with shooting people?

In an interview last week, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona (again?) made the following statement:

Well, we all know that the majority of the people that are coming to Arizona and trespassing are now becoming drug mules," Brewer said. "They're coming across our borders in huge numbers. The drug cartels have taken control of the immigration. … So they are criminals. They're breaking the law when they are trespassing and they're criminals when they pack the marijuana and the drugs on their backs.

I believe today and in the circumstances that we are facing, that the majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming in the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels, and they are bringing drugs in.

If the Governor of the State of Arizona has no qualms about making such a ridiculous statement - completely devoid of any factual basis, let alone common sense - and still enjoy 70%+ support for her anti-immigration policies, then I certainly feel comfortable saying this.  It’s blatantly obvious that the majority of Arizonans are morons at best, paranoid fear-mongering racist xenophobes at worst. Everybody knows that.

Apple officially released the newest version of its iPhone last week. They have since sold almost two million phones. There is however, one slight problem. If someone actually decides to use their iPhone to, say, make a phone call, (can you believe people still do that with their cellphones?), holding said phone the way most human beings would hold a phone, significantly decreases reception quality. Oops. The issue appears to be the design of the integrated antenna in the metal band surrounding the phone. Touching the band at any two points on the lower half of the phone seems to disrupt its ability to receive a signal. Thus far, Apple’s response to consumer complaints has been, “Well, don’t hold it that way.” Hmm. Not sure that’s going to fly. For a company that typically introduces advanced, reliable, quality products to market, this hardware issue is a major problem. But even more problematic has been their lackluster, somewhat condescending refusal to even acknowledge that there is indeed an issue. Typically, consumers would reward such a non-response by refusing to purchase the products of said company. It remains to be seen whether of not that fate will befall Apple in this case.

Finally, Pampers is set to introduce a new line of laid, striped and ruffled designer diapers, to be sold exclusively at Target stores. They are designed to compete with a new line of Huggies denim printed designer diapers that cost about 40% more than “regular” diapers. In an interview with NPR, marketing consultant Amy Colton explained that diapers have always been kid-oriented.

...It was really more about them. But this is more about mom, to have a little more fun and infuse a little fashion into their mominess.

You know, because your child is really little more than a high-priced fashion accessory. Sigh.