What Caught My Eye Today

Supreme Court - The Supreme Court affirmed the right to have guns for self-defense in the home and addressed a constitutional riddle almost as old as the republic over what it means to say the people may keep and bear arms. The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities. The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades. And based on this ruling, the gun lobby appears to have won. What I find interesting is that the 5-4 ruling suggests that court's interpretation of the Constitution was not exactly ironclad. My take--such as it is--is that this ruling reflects the divisive nature of this issue. And like it or not, the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. Now I don't particularly agree with this interpretation, but who is to say what that interpretation will be a few years from now. I'm pretty we haven't heard the last word on the subject.

North Korea - After months of stalling, North Korea offered a glimpse of its secretive nuclear program and was promptly rewarded by President Bush with an easing of trade sanctions and a move to take the communist state off the U.S. terrorism blacklist. Bush, who once famously branded North Korea a part of his "axis of evil," offered mostly symbolic concessions in exchange for Kim Jong Il's agreement to hand over a long-awaited accounting of its nuclear bomb-making abilities. The White House announcement marked a turnabout of the hostile U.S. policy toward impoverished North Korea. Better relations with Washington could eventually improve dire economic conditions for the country's 23 million people who suffer food shortages and blackouts. So let me see if I've got this straight. The 'good guys' (that would be us) offered the 'bad guys' (that would be them) an incentive for taking a step back from the wrong side of the tracks and lo and behold they did? Holy crap. Is it possible that diplomacy and positive reinforcement might actually work? Well now, that's just crazy. I say nuke the bastards before its too late.

Economy - The economy grew at a 1% annualized rate in the first quarter, helped in large part by stronger sales of U.S. products overseas, the Commerce Department reported. the new reading was better than the anemic 0.6 percent growth rate logged in the final three months of last year. The two quarters together marked the slowest growth in five years. The economy has been bruised by housing, credit and financial problems. That led consumers during the first quarter alone to boost their spending at the weakest pace since the 2001 recession. The Commerce Department also suggested that the government's tax rebates, the centerpiece of a $168 billion stimulus package, have helped to energize consumer spending in recent months, which should bolster the overall economy's performance in the April-to-June quarter. Meanwhile, oil jumped more than 5 dollars to close at another record high and the stock market tanked another 350 points today. But sure, the economy is doing just fine and dandy.

Internet - The Internet's key oversight agency, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), relaxed rules to permit the introduction of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of new Internet domain names to join ".com," making the first sweeping changes in the network's 25-year-old address system. New names could cover locations such as ".nyc" and ".berlin" or industries such as ".bank." The hefty application fees could curb a rush for individual vanity names, though larger companies might claim brands like ".disney." The streamlined guidelines call for applicants to go through an initial review phase, during which anyone may raise an objection on such grounds as racism, trademark conflicts and similarity to an existing suffix. If no objection is raised, approval would come quickly. None of the new names is likely to dethrone ".com" as the world's leader, and critics fear new suffixes will merely force companies and organizations to spend more money registering names such as "microsoft.paris" simply so others can't. So like, were we actually in danger of running out of domain names using the old system? I generally favor progress, but I'm kind of with the critics on this one. Seems to me that most of the examples cited in this article are primarily for vanity purposes. Call me a stick in the mud, but I think the Internet has enough vanity on it already. Would it be such a bad thing to leave the domain names as-is?

Tennis - Not a particularly great day for American tennis... Maria Sharapova lost 6-2, 6-4 in the second round of Wimbledon to Alla Kudryavtseva, a fellow Russian ranked 154th. While Sharapova never really gave herself a chance, missed opportunities doomed Andy Roddick. The two-time Wimbledon runner-up went 0-for-8 converting break points, squandered three set points in the final set and lost to Janko Tipsarevic 6-7 (5), 7-5, 6-4, 7-6 (4). Venus Venus, seeking her fifth Wimbledon title, needed 26 points to win a single game but eventually shook stubborn Anne Keothavong of Britain, 7-5, 6-2. Venus and sister Serena also won their second-round doubles match shortly after being named to the U.S. Olympic team. But 1999 Wimbledon champion Lindsay Davenport withdrew before her second-round match because of a lingering knee injury. Davenport, back at Wimbledon for the first time in three years after becoming a mother, said she still expects to play in the Olympics. American men went 0-for-3. The elimination of Roddick, Jesse Levine and Olympian James Blake left the United States with one player in the third round of men's singles: No. 102-ranked Bobby Reynolds. If you are wondering who my picks are for winning the third grand slam of the year...I'm going to take a different approach this time around. I'm going with the dude and the chick that is still standing next weekend. Seriously, who would you pick at this point? Of course if you want specifics, Nadal and Federer are still alive and I suppose you can never count out the Williams sisters, so sure, gimme those guys and gals.