I picked up the Ipod Touch about a month ago. So far it's been worth every penny. The difference between the Touch and the IPhone is that the Touch is essentially the IPhone without the phone. You can still access the Internet if you can find a wi-fi hotspot. I would expect that hotspots will only become more and more prevelant.

The IPhone's ability to provide high quality web-surfing from anywhere was tempting, but I don't want to pay the monthly phone fee. I use an employer-provided cell phone for calls, texts, and e-mails, so I have all the technology I need.

That said, if anyone from Apple is reading this post, I'm your guy if you need field tests for new versions of the IPhone!

Franks wants to form a special House committee as early as next week to determine whether there's enough evidence to bring articles of impeachment against the governor.

It's not the first time Blagojevich's political rivals have suggested impeachment. Last month, House Speaker Michael Madigan, the powerful head of the state Democratic Party and Blagojevich's main nemesis, circulated talking points to Democratic legislative candidates on how and why to call for impeachment hearings.

Specifically, it suggests excising "a tumor."

"Criminal activity in the Blagojevich administration is no longer theoretical -- it is proven," Madigan's memo says. "The first step to cleaning up the mess and getting the state back on track may be to remove the governor from office."

It looks like House Democratic Speaker Mike Madigan, also Chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois, is playing it coy.  Here's what Madigan's spokesman had to say:

Brown said this afternoon he did not know what Madigan’s posture would be toward Franks’ push for an impeachment committee. But earlier in the day, Madigan’s spokesman left open the possibility an impeachment effort could gain momentum in the House given Blagojevich’s demand that lawmakers reconvene.

“You never know what anybody could do. The speaker isn’t advocating that,” Brown said. “And he wouldn’t take a position, of course, because he’d remain neutral and impartial because he may have to preside over proceedings.”

Meanwhile, Governor Blagojevich appears to be suggesting that he would be just fine if the Democrats didn't gain any more seats in the Illinois House of Representatives:

“I think there’s great cause to be concerned. If Speaker Madigan and the House leadership pick up a veto-proof majority … then they’ll be in a position to easily override a veto.”

I can't say whether or not the House would actually follow through on some of the threats.  Even if the House were to impeach the Governor, it's unlikely he would be removed from office by the Senate, given the Governor's close alliance with Senate President Emil Jones Jr.  Considering his rock-bottom approval ratings, impeachment would probably serve to extinguish any hope the Governor has of getting re-elected, thus finishing off his political career.  In my estimation, that is probably the strongest argument for the House to go through with it.  Illinois would be far better off with just about anyone else inhabiting the Governor's mansion.

The problem?  The only meaningful welfare reform law that significantly reduced the caseload was passed by the Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.  And what did Obama think about that law?  He opposed it:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace Report: Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul "slashed the rolls by 80 percent." Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.

While the states played an important role in helping people make the transition from welfare to work, the truly controversial decision which sparked the dramatic reduction in the welfare rolls was the one made by Clinton at the federal level.

The bill passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Clinton included work requirements and time limits. It included fewer supports for people moving from welfare-to-work than Clinton had originally envisioned. Though later restored at the federal level, it also included an end to benefits for legal immigrants which both Clinton and Obama found objectionable.   

Clinton said it was far from perfect legislation. But unlike Obama who looked at its flaws and said he probably would not have supported it, Clinton signed it.

Far from being something other than a typical politician, Obama, the self-proclaimed agent of change, has frequently ducked and obfuscated when asked if he would have supported what is likely one of the most significant domestic policy changes of its era:

While campaigning for president in 2007, Obama refused on two occasions to say if he would have signed the same welfare-reform bill approved by the husband of his top rival.

After addressing the International Association of Firefighters on March 14, 2007, Obama told ABC News, "I tend not to look back to what would have been done 10 years ago. We’re talking about what I’m going to be doing for the next 10 years."

When ABC News posed the same question four months later, Obama again refused to answer.

"I’m not going to re-litigate what happened back in the 90s," said Obama at a July 17, 2007, press conference in Washington, D.C. "I'm talking about what's going to be happening going forward."

"Bill Clinton isn't on the ballot," he added.

Once he had become the Democratic frontrunner in the spring of 2008, Obama signaled that he had always backed the 1996 welfare reform.

Now, with the Democratic nomination firmly in hand, Obama is going one step further. In an ad airing in 18 states, including 14 carried by President Bush in 2004, Obama is celebrating a reduction in the welfare caseload made possible by legislation he originally opposed.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer political blog states that the ad carries a "whiff of doubt":

But he's taking too much personal credit by saying he "passed laws."

And some of those laws were not even on the federal level.

True, news accounts give him credit for sponsoring measures in the Illinois legislature that moved people from welfare to work.

But those reforms came about only because former President Clinton and Congress ordered welfare reforms. And some experts say the 80 percent drop in the welfare rolls came partly from administrative changes brought on by the Illinois governor, also a champion of welfare reform.

In fact, any change in law comes about because a majority of elected officials agree to the changes.

The same civics lesson applies to what he will do if elected president.

He won't end tax breaks or reward job creation unless a majority in Congress approves the changes.

Because of these exaggerations, we say this spots has a whiff of doubt.

It's important to note that Obama's ad doesn't state whether the welfare reform he supposedly "passed" was at the state or federal level.  It may be true that Obama voted for legislation while an Illinois state senator that helped to facilitate the mechanics of how welfare reform would work in Illinois.  Had it been up to a President Obama, however, those votes wouldn't have been necessary because the enactment of welfare reform would have never happened in the first place.  Needless to say, Obama's perfectly happy to let voters draw the conclusion, after being carefully manipulated, that he actually supported the federal welfare reform law.

Such dishonesty suggests that the opportunistic Barack Obama would do or say just about anything to gain political power.  The American voters should take this disturbing reality into account when deciding for whom to pull the lever in November.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

Some of the residents of Grove Parc say they are angry that Obama did not notice their plight. The development straddles the boundary of Obama's state Senate district. Many of the tenants have been his constituents for more than a decade.

"No one should have to live like this, and no one did anything about it," said Cynthia Ashley, who has lived at Grove Parc since 1994.

The Globe story was published on June 27.  The two major Chicago papers, or at least their online editions, have yet to write word one about a significant story emerging within their own backyard. 

The rich would pay more under Barack Obama's tax plan, and the poor and middle-class would pay less, a nonpartisan analysis finds. Under John McCain's plan, the rich would pay much less than they do now, the poor and middle-class would pay a bit less, and the federal deficit would grow, the study found.

 Describing a joint analysis conducted by the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute as "nonpartisan" may be a bit of a stretch.  The Brookings Institute is decidedly left-of-center.  The creation of the Urban Institute was recommended by a panel of civic leaders appointed by President Lyndon Johnson to study "problems facing America's cities and residents."  With that little disclaimer out of the way, here are the particulars on Obama's plan according to the analysis:

Obama says he would hike several taxes on people making more than $250,000, including the amount they pay on capital gains. Currently, the top income tax rate is 35 percent. Under Obama, that would go back up to 39 percent. Obama's staff told the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center he would raise the rates for people in the top two brackets -- about 2.5 million filers out of 100 million-plus. People in those high tax brackets would see the tax rate on their capital gains hiked from the current 15 percent to 20-28 percent.

Obama started his campaign saying his plans would not increase taxes for people earning less than $250,000. But he found himself in an apparent contradiction by saying he would tax all income to fund Social Security, not just income up to $102,000, as is now the case. So now, Obama's plan calls for no Social Security tax on income between $102,000 and $250,000, but all income above $250,000 would be taxed for Social Security.

The 95 percent-plus of the American population that earns less than $250,000 would see the following tax breaks: A $500-per-worker tax credit for people who earn less than $150,000 and do not itemize, and a $4,000 credit per child in college. Seniors who earn less than $50,000 would pay no income tax.

Here are the particulars for McCain: 

McCain would make permanent most of the tax cuts President Bush has already enacted, including those that benefit the middle class, such as elimination of the marriage penalty and the increase in child credits. He would also keep cuts that benefit the wealthy, such as the elimination of the highest tax brackets. Obama would keep the breaks for the middle class but not the ones for the wealthy.

McCain would also double the dependent exemption from $3,500 to $7,000, benefiting big families of all incomes.

Here's the part that has the most potential to impact economic growth:

Obama would leave the top corporate tax rate at 35 percent. McCain would cut it to 25 percent.

And the capital gains tax?

The two candidates differ widely in their approach to the estate tax, which the Republicans call the "death tax." McCain would set it at 15 percent for estates above $5 million. Obama would set it at 45 percent for estates above $3.5 million.

McCain's plan is the superior one when it comes to the potential to grow the economy.  Obama's opposition to lowering the top corporate rate isn't constructive.  Coupled with his intention to require businesses to pay 6.2% in Social Security taxes for each dollar of salary in excess of $102,000, the present ceiling for Social Security taxes, would retard economic expansion.

The article acknowledges that the deficit projected for McCain's plan doesn't take into account other factors that would be part of the federal budget.  Spending cuts would obviously mitigate against deficits.  It's also not clear if the analysis allows for the possibility of increased tax revenues pouring into the federal coffers as a result of lowering the top corporate tax rate.  Lower rates can mean more corporate profits, increased investments, more economic growth, and, consequently, more federal tax dollars collected.

The Tax Policy Center's report can be viewed here.

One day after the Supreme Court voided the District of Columbia's handgun ban, the National Rifle Association on Friday filed suit in Chicago seeking the repeal of similar prohibitions in Chicago, Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park.

The NRA and Dr. Kathryn Tyler, Anthony Burton, Van F. Welton and Brett Benson of Chicago filed suit against the city and Mayor Daley, demanding the city's handgun ban be ruled null and void.

Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson is outraged...again.  He was joined by the controversial Reverend Michael Pfleger in denouncing Heller.  Not to make light of a tragedy, but I thought the use of a very recent shooting in Chicago as somehow supporting their cause was a bit strange:

Nearly 13 hours after her 16-year-old son was shot in a drive-by, Denise Dixon stood beside the Rev. Jesse Jackson, pleading for gun regulations in the wake of the controversial Supreme Court decision that could threaten Chicago's ban on handguns.

Doesn't the occurrence of a drive-by shooting, despite the existence of a gun ban, kind of undermine the dangers of overturning said ban?  This is exactly why, on a practical level, so many advocates of gun ownership scoff at the futility of efforts to restrict gun ownership.  It's a largely illusory proposition, as the kind of people who would pull something like a drive-by shooting aren't going to disclose, or otherwise surrender their guns.

Newly unsealed court files in the Tony Rezko corruption case show that federal agents interviewed Gov. Blagojevich “on multiple occasions” and that the governor denied having conversations described in court by two key prosecution witnesses.

That raises the possibility that either the witnesses lied under oath or that the governor lied to federal agents about statements Blagojevich was said to have made, tying state business to support for his campaign.

This could begin getting very interesting indeed. 

I'm no scholar of the Court, but it appears to me that the way the decision was rendered was in keeping with the practice by the Roberts Court of issuing rulings as narrowly as possible:

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

The Court took no position on whether the Second Amendment right restricts only federal government powers, or also curbs the power of states to regulate guns. In a footnote, Scalia said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second into the Fourteenth Amendment, thus applying it to the states, was “a question not presented by this case.” But the footnote said decisions in 1886 and 1894 had reaffirmed that the Amendment “applies only to the Federal Government.” Whether the Court will reopen that issue thus will depend upon future cases.

There were a host of other related issues on which the majority might have opined, but chose not to.

Meanwhile, back home, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley issued a swift condemnation of the decision, which threatens Chicago's gun ban.  For good measure, Da Mayor threw in a bizarre class warfare reference that I can't say I completely understand:

Daley said the Supreme Court decision, by allowing guns in city streets but still banning them in the halls of federal power, further widens the gap between the country's elite and the common people.

"This decision really places those who are rich and those who are in power [to] always feel safe," Daley said. "Those who do not have the power do not feel safe, and that's what they're saying."

This was a case to determine the constitutionality of a prohibition against the possession of handguns within an individual's home.  This isn't a question of where one can conceal and carry.  And it's not like people in Chicago, particularly the criminal element, have been exactly obeying the current gun ordinance.  Furthermore, an individual is no more empowered to walk into a mall with a gun, based on this decision, then they are the U.S. Capitol Building.

Daley also suggested that the City might find a way to work around a potential reversal of the Chicago gun ban by drastically increasing insurance requirements on gun owners.