Iowa Shall Issue

We're within four days of a decision on Iowa's shall-issue and reciprocity bill. When it was passed, overwhelmingly, the prevailing opinion was that signature by Gov. Culver was a no-brainer. He's as vulnerable as an unindicted politician can be, and antagonizing gun owners in a rural state seemed to make no political sense whatsoever.

The chatter now is about pocket veto. The bill must be signed by April 29 -- 30 days from passage -- or it dies. The NRA is concerned enough to have just sent a mailing urging calls to Culver's office.

One school of thought calls the thing a charade from the outset. That narrative has Democrats needing to give their rural incumbents a chance to cast a pro-gun vote without having to answer to their liberal base for an actual pro-gun law.

They delayed the vote until the final three days of the legislative session, kicking in the pocket veto provision which was part of the scheme, giving most every Democrat all the political cover needed.

Another theory is that Culver knows he is a dead duck no matter what he does, so he has nothing to lose by following his Hyannisport /Chicago inclinations.

The theory I like best is the one saying he'll sign it at the deadline and, meanwhile, is just having a good time keeping guys like us in a stew.

Idle reflection

How much richer would the United States be if it were able to send a few million of its least productive citizens, especially including those with criminal tendencies, one nation north?

(Easy, there, Neighbor. I don't advocate it. Just thinking.)

Arizona and the Illegals

I've just told an Arizona friend I probably would have signed the immigration bill myself if it had been up to me. At the same time my skin crawls at the notion of "Your papers! Kuh vickly!")

There is no answer, seek it lovingly.

Eugenics -- some preliminary problems

Is there doubt in any one's mind that the number of human beings on Earth already exceeds, or very soon will exceed, (a) its comfortable physical carrying capacity and (b) our human ability to humanely manage our civilizations?

It is almost impossible to talk about it. Powerful churches continue to insist that every act of intercourse embrace the opportunity for another human being. Their political henchmen/exploiters carry the concept over into the civil arena. The word itself, eugenics, automatically recalls the horror of Hitler's mad philosophies made manifest.

The demonization of the term Eugenics parallels the term "liberal" which classically describes today's libertarian but in current usage denotes his statist opposite.

As a start might we begin to soften the word and entertain the notion that human happiness and the chance for human survival will be enhanced if we can discover an acceptable way of reducing population?