An Individual Right

Every press report that I am seeing on the United States Supreme Court hearing on the Washington, DC gun ban echoes what the Los Angeles Times report is saying: There appears to be solid support on the court for upholding that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to keep and bear arms.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices, hearing a historic argument on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, signaled they are likely to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and rule that homeowners have a right to keep a gun for self-defense.

But if the oral arguments are any guide, the outcome will not be unanimous. Several justices said they believed the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the state's right to maintain a "well-regulated militia," not to give gun rights to individuals.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is the swing vote in close cases, said he believed the 2nd Amendment did more than bolster the state militia. "In my view, there is a general right to bear arms" that goes beyond serving in the militia, Kennedy said.

Most Americans believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding persons to "keep and bear arms." But the legal meaning of this provision remains in doubt. The high court has never invoked this right to strike down a gun law nor has it ruled that it protects a personal right to own a gun.

The LA Times seems to think the impact of such an outcome will be minor. I rather suspect that it might be more far-reaching than they do. States like Illinois which do not grant carry permits could find themselves in court, as might states like New York which have a virtually impossible to get carry permits. I've been a bit worried about this case for a while. Today's news is encouraging.

Arthur Charles Clarke, 1917-2008, Rest In Peace

Arthur C. Clarke, the writer of so many science fiction and science books, has died . A visionary, Clark foresaw the geosynchronous orbit used by communication satellites - the orbits are still known as 'Clarke Orbits'. 

Born in Minehead, western England, on Dec. 16, 1917, the son of a farmer, Arthur Charles Clark became addicted to science-fiction after buying his first copies of the pulp magazine "Amazing Stories" at Woolworth's. He devoured English writers H.G. Wells and Olaf Stapledon and began writing for his school magazine in his teens.

Clarke went to work as a clerk in Her Majesty's Exchequer and Audit Department in London, where he joined the British Interplanetary Society and wrote his first short stories and scientific articles on space travel.

It was not until after the World War II that Clarke received a bachelor of science degree in physics and mathematics from King's College in London.

In the wartime Royal Air Force, he was put in charge of a new radar blind-landing system.

But it was an RAF memo he wrote in 1945 about the future of communications that led him to fame. It was about the possibility of using satellites to revolutionize communications — an idea whose time had decidedly not come.

Clarke later sent it to a publication called Wireless World, which almost rejected it as too far-fetched.  

Clarke's science education made him one of the premier "hard science" science fiction writers. Rest in peace. 

The Big Speech

Well, Obama gave his big speech today to try to make the Wright problem go away. I have not heard it since I was kind of busy today. I have only skimmed the text at this point and read a couple of takes on it from bloggers I respect. McQ at QandO has some serious issues with the speech:

Essentially this will satisfy those who are pro-Obama and not satisfy those who are not for Obama (that would include me, but for reasons ideological, not race.). My question is, how will the big middle, the great undecided, see it?

So, to the speech. I was immediately turned off by this:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Of course the highlighted sentence directly contradicts his statement made in his Huff Po post just a few days ago:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.

One of those is a lie. I rarely use that word, and, in fact, have a real problem with those who misuse it routinely. When I use it I mean saying something you know to be untrue. So Obama either never heard him say controversial things about domestic and foreign policy while he sat in church or he did. Two days ago the answer was he hadn't. Today he has? I can only believe the reason the answers are different is he is aware of some proof that will expose his first statement as untrue.

Paul at Powerline points out what he calls the big evasion of the speech: 

But here's the problem. If Reverend Wright was so profoundly mistaken about this key issue — the "genius," of America and its capacity to change — why did Obama embrace Wright's church? Why did Wright become his spiritual adviser and "uncle" figure? Why was it Wright who was able to lead Obama to Christ? Why not some other religious figure who understood the full vision Obama is now presenting — America as "bound to a tragic past," but having already changed profoundly for the better and capable of furher positive change? Why not someone in the mold of Martin Luther King, who even prior to America's profound change for the better understood the country's greatness and capacity for redemption?

I'll point out one of Obama's sweeping generalities that is completely, flat wrong:

Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation. . .came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted….

I grew up in Rochester, New York and I can assure you, in no uncertain terms, that all of my schools from kindergarten through high school were fully integrated. I lived in a mixed race neighborhood where many of the black families at that time were somewhat better off than my family was - many of them owned their homes while we were renters.