An interesting take on the gun-control issues

Randy Cassingham of "This Is True" has a blog, where he posts comments, long essays, and so on related to his "This Is True" feature. I thought this weeks' was especially interesting, since he elaborates on the gun-control issue.
He gives a good (if brief) history of guns in the United States, explains WHY we think the way we do about guns, and what the Constitutionalists (and the Supreme Court) have ruled regarding the Second Amendment to the Constitution. He also gives a few thoughts on "guns in church" and WHY the NRA won't accept gun restrictions. He uses the smoking bans as an excellent parallel to the "slippery slope" of gun-control.

Check it out; it's definitely worth the read.

In The News

In the news today, they discussed the Obama Spending Bill. Apparently, the Senate has given up de-porking the one that came to them from the House, and is now going to vote on one THEY came up with instead, that didn't have Obama pushing it.
Obama has made a statement saying that he's not averse to pruning out the unneeded stuff in the bill, but that his "stimulus package" must be approved soon because after all, his priorities are to quickly get tax relief for the middle class and job creation out there to us, the poor American Sheep.
Scuse me, Mr. Obama, which part of your stimulus package is about "tax relief for the middle class" or "job creation"? Is it the National Endowment for the Arts rider? The global warming research? Carbon-capture demonstration projects? No, it's not about tax relief, job creation or even "economic stimulus" to the American public. It's about railroading a bunch of pet projects through with the TITLE of "economic stimulus" and hoping that the Congress will be so afraid to look bad by not passing a bill labeled "Economic Stimulus" that they'll agree to anything. But, as one Congressman said, "The American People are figuring out what this bill is. It's not a Stimulus Package - it's a Spending Package."
Yes...yes we are.

Also in the news, they're also voting to delay the digital-TV rollout another 4 months. Evidently some people aren't prepared yet, so Congress wishes to give them 4 more months to prepare for it. Because, y'know, the MEDIA BLITZ of "get your digital converter or get cable or a dish by FEBRUARY OF 2009" for the past year and more wasn't enough. Apparently if they have been ignoring the warnings, news reports, and heck text scroll and crawlers plastered all over their favorite shows EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. for the past year, giving them four more months to ignore the crawlers will make a huge difference, they will see the Error Of Their Ways and purchase a converter box.
Two thoughts on this:
1) Television is not a RIGHT. Get over it. If you can't watch your precious precious Oprah and Maury after the switch, then go buy a damn converter. Missed out on the coupons? Tough weasels - you had over a YEAR to apply for one of those, too. Sucks to be you. Listen to the radio. I'm sure Bob and Tom will fill all your intellectual needs.
2) The people who are not prepared by now, absolutely won't get the message in another 4 months. Some people simply won't bother until they are forced to by circumstance. Why screw up the people who are counting on those extra frequencies to be available in two weeks just for the sake of people who have been willfully ignoring the warnings, news stories, crawlers, etc. for the past year? The extra 4 months won't make a difference to them - they'll continue on, fat and happy, until their analog signal goes away. And then they'll either do something about it or learn to live without.

Fashion?

The news this morning had a feature about podiatrists treating people with foot pain - and specifically, heel pain. Overwhelmingly, these people were women who were suffering from chronic foot and heel pain because of their choices in footwear. High, narrow heels with teeny weeny toe-boxes ending in pointy-toed shoes are the culprit, one said.
One woman confessed she had endured years of daily pain - many days so bad she could hardly walk - and still kept right on buying and wearing those idiotic shoes. And now she's got to have special custom orthotics just to walk - in ANY shoe.

This....this is incomprehensible to me. Willingly putting yourself through that much pain just for some stupid fashion? There are perfectly nice-looking flats and low-heeled pumps available! It boggles my mind that people deliberately cripple themselves for fashion. It's not like they need to wear THOSE shoes or else they die - no, it's just to "look good". I don't get it.

Maybe I'd "get it" if my mom had given in to my begging and pleading when I was in my early teens. Oh, I wanted those fashionable shoes too, but she said, "No, your feet are still growing and developing. I'm not going to allow you to permanently deform your feet by buying you those shoes." I got the sensible flats, with lots of room in the toes, and that did not create malformed feet.
Thanks, mom. <3 I get it now. And boy, am I ever glad you didn't let me get those shoes.