Interesting:

After the bill's passage, the US went on a worldwide hunt to buy up MANPADs. Unable to get the MANPADs out of the hands of real enemies, we twisted the arms of allies to give up air defense stockpiles we deemed superfluous. One of the easiest targets? Georgia. We browbeat Georgia into giving us its MANPAD stockpile, which was their only air defense. We all know the rest of the story. Georgia was smart enough to go buy a few new MANPADs from places like Poland (against our loud protestations), but when Russia invaded last month they didn't have nearly enough to protect themselves against Russia's onslaught.

Obama shouldn't be allowed to get away with this.

Fortunately, the press is up in Alaska right now examining Trig Palin's alien paternity or some other MAJOR ISSUE of GREAT IMPORT. So we'll never hear any more about this.

I enjoy reading Jeff Goldstein. I have a really hard time understanding those who bash him for making no sense. Most of the time, when he's writing about meaning, I follow him perfectly. Like this little bit of schadenfreude, on the whole New Yorker cover kerfuffle:

this is a bit like taking Swift to the woodshed over “A Modest Proposal,” or Christopher Guest to the woodshed over This is Spinal Tap.

What the progressive worriers should be doing is gleefully and full-throatedly noting the satire, then preparing to laugh at anyone who sees this as an accurate depiction of Obama. What they should be doing is enjoying a wry smile at their next cocktail party over the (presumed) idiocy of the rightwingers who might take this cover at face value, so shallow is their understanding of the literary arts.

But the real irony here is they can’t do that — and that’s precisely because their worldview is predicated on being able to control “meaning” by consensus. And one of the problems with such an incoherent method for determining meaning (by way of reliance on a given interpretive community’s ability to shout down competing interpretations), is that, at least in theory, another interpretive community can come along and claim another, diametrically opposed meaning, and — if their will to power is stronger — control the narrative by way of severing any ties to original intent.

In short, the left fears being hoist by its own incoherent linguistic petard.

Is that really so hard to understand? The left, having for years battled against any sort of concept of absolute truth in favor of an interpretive scheme that allows each individual or group to determine for themselves what "truth" is, is now running up against the logical consequence of their own cultural campaign. It's delicious to watch, although sad in that the whole project has even been allowed to happen.

Scalia writes for the majority. Meanwhile, John Paul Stevens demonstrates that he has absolutely no clue:

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Really? There is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution "made a choice to limit the tools available" to government to intrude into the lives of citizens?

Really?

Justice Stevens: THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CONSTITUTION. To LIMIT the power of government. That's why we have the government we have: divided into different branches on multiple levels, so that too much power can't accumulate in any one area. LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Perhaps you've heard that phrase before, somewhere, back in the mists of history.

It'd be really cool if the more left-leaning members of the Court (and Congress, and various state offices, etc) could at least make some sort of effort to be informed of basic facts and principles of American governance and history.

32 shot in Chicago this weekend. Seems like they could use some gun control down there...