I mentioned earlier that Obama has redefined NASA's mission, so that the ex-space-agency is now focused on making Moslem nations feel better about themselves.  This is bad enough as it is, but I'm worried that it may well mean we will be helping Iran build ICBMs to deliver the results of their "peaceful nuclear reactor project".

Today's news cycle includes NASA's new mission, direct from President Obama.  It's a three-point plan:

1. Re-inspire children
2. Expand our international relationships
   
3. Reach out to the Muslim world

Notably missing from this list of goals is the exploration of space.

I admit to having a certain amount of ambivalence about NASA funding.  I believe very strongly that exploration of space is necessary and vital.  Yet, I also believe strongly that for that to happen, it must be both possible and profitable for private industry to go into space.  Governments may be the only institutions capable of mustering the initial investment in technology and capital to get us into space, but only private industry can make it self-sustaining.  So, when Obama announced that he was changing NASA's mission to deemphasize things like keeping the shuttle flying and sending expeditions to Mars, I was hopeful that private industry would be able to figure out how to turn a profit keeping the International Space Station in food, water, air, and tourists.

But now that NASA's administrator has revealed the goals that Obama set for him, I can say emphatically that it is wrong.  NASA is supposed to be about space exploration, not making other countries feel good or improving international relations.  The best way to inspire children is to give them something inspiring to be a part of.  Rocket scientists and astronauts join NASA to boldly go where no man has gone before, not to "inspire children."  Inspiring children is a side effect.

We have lots of other agencies that are dedicated to inspiring children and improving international relations.  If Obama thinks those other agencies are more important than NASA, he should be honest about his belief and submit a budget to Congress that reflects those priorities.  Instead, he's playing a dishonest shell game with our money.

Lengthier analysis later.  For now, be happy we won.  Reports say 5-4 in favor of incorporation, with 4 votes for due process and 1 vote for privileges and immunities by Justice Thomas.

... and why we don't have it anymore, spelled out by the washington times.

... appears to involve a swat team ready to kill you if you don't agree to surrender voluntarily.

This particular incident wasn't even prompted by a crime.  Someone with a clean criminal record happened to buy guns with his tax refund after being put on administrative leave over a work dispute; someone brought this to the attention of the police, who felt it warranted a pre-emptive mental health evaluation.  Well, if you can use "warranted" for cases where the police don't bother to get a warrant.

The man has been released, his guns have been returned, and he has not been charged with anything.  I hope he sues.

See Orin Kerr's take on the Volokh Conspiracy.  One of the reasons I've been so quiet lately is that I'm spending a lot of time working on something that will fix this.

Of course, some would argue that we don't have any 4th Amendment protection left in our homes, either.

The transcript is available here (PDF format).  Early takes on the argument indicate that incorporation through the due process clause is almost certain, but incorporation through privileges and immunities clause (Gura's main argument) is unlikely.  This is a somewhat disappointing result, since the Slaughterhouse Cases which originally denied the privileges and immunities route are generally accepted to be bad law.  But it's not unexpected.

I may have more to say when I've read the transcript.

Remember when Nazi Germany insisted that members of a particular religion wear identifying symbols so they could be ostracized and oppressed by everyone else? 

You may find that situation uncomfortably close to reality if you live in Maryland.  Legislation introduced in both the state House and state Senate will require that gun owners have a special license to purchase handguns, and will mark their status as a license holder with a "scarlet G for gun owner" on their existing drivers license. 

UPDATE: SaysUncle notes that he can't find that language in the bill.  I looked, and I can't find it either; in my original post I was relying on the summary at Ammoland, specifically this language:

It is uncertain whether or not a "gun owner" designation on a driver?s license will constitute "probable cause" to search a vehicle during a routine traffic stop.

It could be I jumped the gun a bit by not checking the language myself. 

The Supreme Court has issued a decision striking down the vast majority of the Campaign Finance Reform Act, normally termed McCain-Feingold for its two primary authors.  This is a good decision that restores the right to free political speech.  But our politicians are already promising to ensure that new restrictions on political speech are enacted.  Why can't we have politicians who respect free speech and seek to advance it, rather than pass laws that are offensive to the Constitution and the First Amendment?

It's worth noting that the decision was 5-4.  The 4 dissenting votes came from the so-called liberal wing of the court.  It used to be that the rule of thumb was "vote Republican for economic freedom, and Democrat for social freedom."  That's clearly changed.  The new rule seems to be, "vote Democrat for tyranny now, vote Republican for slightly less tyranny."  But occasionally they do get it right.

... then it becomes very tempting to invent a crisis.  Governments do this a lot, because it works.  That explicitly includes our present government (as admitted by Rahm "Never waste a crisis").  It explains global warming and gun control; both are artificial (and inflated) crises designed to transfer political power and money to those seeking to "solve" them. 

See also, swine flu, avian flu, and the World Health Organization.

If you haven't already seen Sebastian's scoop on the secret plans of the Mayors Against Guns to implement stealth gun control, go read it now.  The short version is that they plan to lobby a friendly administration for whatever gun control measures they can get by implementing rules changes, policy changes, or other administrative hurdles.  They won't try for new legislation, because they are (correctly) afraid of the political backlash, but they will do their best behind the scenes to mess things up.

Remember when Bush's White House allegedly fired Department of Justice career prosecutors for political reasons, and how that was a huge scandal?

Obama's White House has allegedly transferred a Department of Justice career prosecutor in order to stifle criminal charges against the New Black Panther Party voting rights incident.  You may remember that case as the one where two individuals in uniform and with police batons intimidated voters outside a polling place.

It's not conclusive proof of any wrongdoing, but it sure is suspicious.

I got the tip from John Lott's blog.

UPDATE: Big Lizards has a detailed post with the complete timeline.

... in any context other than advising more hearing protection, I would find a new doctor.  Thankfully, I've never had any issues with doctors trying to pry into my personal affairs like that.  Presumably, it's one of the advantages of living in Texas.

However, I do occasionally see articles by misinformed physicians encouraging other doctors to ask their patients about guns, and try to give advice about gun safety.  Such articles never fail to annoy me, but usually they are from doctors, to doctors, and heavily reliant on the arrogance of doctors who believe their expertise in one field extends to every area of human endeavor. 

This is the first time I've seen a physician's assistant try to give advice about gun safety to other physician's assistants.  I suppose that having no success with doctors capable of recognizing their lack of expertise means that the gun bigots have to try the next level down. 

I would fisk the whole thing, but Bitter already has.

Remote controlled zombie deer fight poachers?  Sure, people should follow the laws regulating hunting and only hunt deer in season.  Not being much of a hunter myself I am not sure how much of a problem poaching usually is.  But this sort of stunt strikes me as a waste of time and money if conducted by lawful authorities, and ... to be blunt... criminally insane if conducted by the sort of anti-hunting zealots I suspect are hiding behind the nice, friendly exterior of this operation.

Hunters wear the highly-human-visible orange for a reason, and if you're trying to hide from (never mind tackle!) a hunter, you're just asking for something tragic to happen by mistake.

I figure that this article has hit on something that explains a lot.  The basic idea is that the level of trust held by a populace in its government influences the murder rate in that society.  When people trust their government and feel justice and respect can be obtained through the system without resorting to violence, murder rates are low.  When the government is not responsive to the people, and is not trusted to deliver justice for its citizens, murder rates increase:

In his analysis, Roth found four factors that relate to the homicide rate in parts of the United States and western Europe throughout the past four centuries: the belief that one's government is stable and its justice and legal systems are unbiased and effective; a feeling of trust in government officials and a belief in their legitimacy; a sense of patriotism and solidarity with fellow citizens; and a belief that one's position is society is satisfactory and that one can command respect without resorting to violence.

When those feelings and beliefs are strong, homicide rates are generally low, regardless of the time or place, Roth said. But when people are unsure about their government leaders, don't feel connected to the rest of society, and feel they don't have opportunity to command respect in the community, homicide rates go up.

America has always distrusted its political leaders; we practically founded our nation on that principle.  It's not likely to be something that can be fixed -- if it even should be -- by just electing the right person.  Instead, what needs to happen is to elect leaders who will respect the rights of the people rather than advancing their own beliefs while disparaging the beliefs of others.  That gives people confidence that their own lives are safe and won't be arbitrarily interfered with by government.  That's a judgement not necessarily based on the system of government, but having a government that explicitly lacks the power to destroy its political opponents certainly helps a lot.

If you've been following the news (not necessarily the mainstream news) then you may have heard of a recent package of damaging data liberated from one of the major climate science research centers.  I say "liberated" because it was supposedly released by a team of hackers who broke into the computer systems and collected the data.  There are arguments about whether it may have been an internal leak trying to disguise the source.  While the provenance of the data is somewhat questionable, official sources have confirmed that there was a data leak and so far have said there's too much data to verify whether or not it is real.  That's a careful avoidance of saying it's faked, and it's a treasure trove of information about so-called scientists' efforts to stifle investigation and debate into the anthropogenic global warming myth.

So, without vouching for the data, or condoning the means by which it was obtained, I've put together a few links to sites that have done some careful examination of the data:

• Power Line
• Bishop Hill
• Pajamas Media
  

Assuming the data is mostly genuine, this seems like a classic case of whistleblowing.  We have emails talking about how to avoid releasing their scientific data to reviewers, including how to avoid freedom of information act requests; how to hide a decline in the warming trend; how to avoid accounting for the inconvenient medieval warm period; the unreliability of tree ring data on which vast amounts of climate science is based... there's a lot there, and perhaps worst of all, the complete datasets from major articles that were being suppressed.

The emails are very damaging and will likely be career-ending for some of the people featured in them.  The datasets, however, may well prove capable of destroying the entire global warming myth... simply by exposing their claims to real peer review.  

In addition to police-monitored cameras all over the country, the government of Britain has decided to track every single user's internet usage.  Data will be retained for a year and can be accessed without a warrant, simply by obtaining the authorization of a senior police officer or deputy head of department.  Over 600 different government agencies will have access to this information, including police, local councils, and tax authorities.

Sigh.  The death of privacy is complete.

Should an adoption agency be able to consider whether a household has firearms as part of a decision on whether to allow adoption?  The question has come to a head in Florida, where at least one agency is using forms that ask about firearms ownership as part of the adoption process. 

This one strikes a little close to home for me because I was adopted.  My adopted family did not have guns in the house while I was growing up, and I do not think that was a good thing.  Obviously it doesn't determine the outcome of a child's life, but it's made my own interest in firearms more difficult to pursue -- and I had more opportunities than most kids in a home without firearms would have, because I encountered firearms in a controlled and positive environment outside of the home.  Many others would have only negative experiences with guns in the absence of a family that can demonstrate positive gun ownership. 

So what are the pros and cons of considering gun ownership in the adoption process?  To start with, let's frame the question a little bit more.  Kids are not only adopted as newborns; some are adopted significantly older than that, even potentially as teenagers.  Some are adopted by strangers, others by family friends or relatives after the parents pass away.  There's a broad spectrum of adoptees to consider, and many of those who are no longer newborns are not exactly angels either.

So, on the pro side:

• Some children may not be responsible enough to handle firearms when adopted, through no fault of the adopting parents;
• Some children may intentionally misuse firearms.
• The adopting parents are taking an unknown factor into their home, and may not fully appreciate the necessary precautions.
• The decision to allow an adoption is one where a great deal of discretion is present on many different factors.  Gun ownership is by no means the only potentially discriminating factor.
• There is some evidence that responsible use of legal firearms helps children to avoid other negative behaviors.
  

On the con side:

• Asking about firearms ownership creates a registry of firearms in the possession of the government agencies charged with making that decision.
• Asking about firearms is likely to strongly, and irrationally, prejudice the people making the decision whether to allow the adoption.
  
• Making a gun-free home a prerequisite for adoption is likely to discourage an enumerated Constitutional right, even if such restrictions are not applied to a broad segment of the population.
• Nothing that I know of prevents adoptive parents from acquiring a firearm after the adoption decision has been made.
• The degree of scrutiny applied to potential adopting parents is almost certainly already sufficient to screen out felons, who are already prohibited from possessing firearms.
  

What it boils down to is simple.  There are people who can be trusted with firearms, there are people who can't be trusted with firearms, and people move between those groups in both directions.   Asking about gun ownership is not enough information (even if answered truthfully) to determine whether someone is a responsible gun owner, or whether a child is at particular risk for a bad outcome from being in a gun-owning home.  Asking the question by itself (regardless of how the answer is handled) creates some negative consequences.

And it's all unnecessary, because we already have a societal proxy for responsible gun ownership.  Quite simply, we treat felons (plus those convicted of domestic violence) as not being sufficiently responsible to own a gun; all other adults are considered responsible by default.  The adoption process almost certainly checks for a criminal record already.  Thus, we are already weeding out the "bad gun owners" earlier in the process, using a method which does not have privacy implications and does not impose a Constitutional right. 

Because felons are already excluded, asking about firearms specifically during the adoption process can only lead to negative results.  There is no positive benefit to asking about firearms in addition to checking for criminal background.

That should make the decision simple.

So, after 10 days in office, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.  Why?  I suppose for not being President Bush.  He'll be the third person so far to receive the award for that reason -- after Al Gore and President Carter.  It's truly a pity that the Nobel committee couldn't wait until there was at least a pretense of accomplishment.  As it is, after 6 months without anything significant to show for it, the award is obviously without substance.  The only thing that has been accomplished here is to dilute the meaning of an award that used to mean something.

Meanwhile, our President's advisors support sharia law that oppresses women, describing it as "gender justice":

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man-made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".

They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government".

More like enforced gender helplessness, it seems like.  Personally I'm rather fond of the "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism".  Who wouldn't be fond of freedom and wealth?  Oh, wait... I think we just found out.

The Supreme Court has chosen to hear McDonald v Chicago, a case I've been covering sporadically on this blog.  The case is Alan Gura's carefully-planned incorporation case, and he's the genius behind the Heller case that forced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of an individual right to keep arms under the Second Amendment.  This bodes well for our chances at a favorable ruling on the incorporation issue.  The composition of the court has not changed much since Heller (the court has lost Souter, who dissented from Heller, and gained Sotomayor, who will likely vote against incorporation).

Busy with other things.  Feeling the ennui with activism topics, I feel like my energy is better spent elsewhere since the government mostly isn't listening.   But the return of Total Information Awareness gets at least a mild reaction.  This is the program started by Homeland Security to data-mine consumer datasets in search of "terrorists" that caused enough of a public outcry for the program to be canceled.

Supposedly canceled, anyway.  As predicted, it was renamed and funded from different sources and didn't miss a beat.  And it's already being used in domestic criminal investigations -- notably unrelated to terrorism.  Data from car rental companies, hotel chains, and even department stores is being correlated.

This is exactly what the 4th Amendment was intended to prevent.

Noted without comment: 

A notorious New Jersey hate blogger charged in June with threatening to kill judges and lawmakers was secretly an FBI "agent provocateur" paid to disseminate right-wing rhetoric, his attorney said Wednesday.

Hal Turner, the blogger and radio personality, remains jailed pending charges over his recent online rants, which prosecutors claim amounted to an invitation for someone to kill Connecticut lawmakers and Chicago federal appeals court judges.

But behind the scenes the reformed white supremacist was holding clandestine meetings with FBI agents who taught him how to spew hate "without crossing the line," according to his lawyer, Michael Orozco.

Reason has an excellent (but lengthy) article on the return of the militia scare.  

Some of us have wondered how the BATFE was so sure that American guns were being smuggled across the border into Mexico.  It turns out, they were the ones doing the smuggling.

It used to be a common saying that in any political meeting with 3 members, one was from the FBI, one was from the BATFE, and the third person was an ordinary citizen telling everyone to calm down and stop talking about blowing things up.  I see that's still true.

It seems that even granting police dramatic stop-and-search powers doesn't prevent being mugged from being a part of everyday life.  However, at least the stop-and-search powers are being abused in a racially balanced manner!