Due to my dramatic change in careers, I don’t think I’m going to be able to keep up this blog. I still get a ton of hits from people that have always followed me since I blogged daily (thank you RSS), but I just don’t have the time to keep it up like I used to.

In the meantime, I’m considering giving Twitter a try. If you’re interested, sign up for an account and follow me at http://twitter.com/brandonjaynes.

A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers — New York Times

I made a graphic to help illustrate the underlying thematic point of the New York Times article linked above on mothers, motherhood, and the vice-presidency and presidency.

UPDATE: This article sums up a lot of my thoughts, as well.

When Joe Biden tragically lost his wife and infant daughter in a car wreck in 1972, not a single colleague, friend or competitor advised him to quit his newly won Senate seat to raise his two little surviving sons.

Rather, he was sworn into office from the injured boys’ bedside, and took to commuting an hour and a half each way from Delaware to Washington. And when Biden’s second wife gave birth to a daughter, no one thought to ask him to step aside and stay home.

They all do it. John Kennedy did it; so did Barack Obama: Men run for office and serve in elected positions while creating small children without ever being patronized as “super dads” or “multi-taskers.”

Nor are they penalized, ridiculed or dismissed for ignoring their kids. They’re good dads.

If Sarah Palin, tapped as John McCain’s running mate, were a man, it’s unlikely we’d even be having this conversation. (A man, or a Democrat.)

Indeed.

Here is my schedule for the Fall semester:

Monday, Wednesday, Friday

9:00 a.m. - Sales and Leasing

Monday, Wednesday

1:00 p.m. - Estate Administration
3:00 p.m. - Pretrial Litigation

Monday

6:30 p.m. - Employment Law

Tuesday, Thursday

1:00 p.m. - Estate and Gift Tax

iPhones-Macintosh computers become apples of hackers’ eyes — AFP

It’s been a long time since I have taken sides in the Microsoft-Apple war. I haven’t been one of those to throw rocks at the other side while praising my own in some time (if I even have an “own” anymore — I’m a Linux geek), because I really believe that the differences between the two are not nearly as vast as they used to be. It may be a bit more than just cosmetic differences, but the two major players have grown more alike than different over the years. Of the three major consumer operating systems, I believe that they each have their place.

One thing that I never could allow Apple fanboys to get away with saying, though, is how much more secure their favorite operating system is because it has so few viruses. It’s an oft-made error of logic to confuse causation with correlation, and it certainly doesn’t follow that one can derive the premise (the operating system is secure) from the conclusion (there are few viruses). The biggest arrow in the quiver for Apple, in this regard, has been its total lack of market share — if there aren’t a lot of Apple machines to propagate a virus, then why go to all the trouble of writing one that won’t go anywhere?

Now, the AFP is reporting that hackers are starting to take a second look at Apple now that the market share has increased. The article goes into a bit more detail, but it’s not much more than what I said above: it’s simply a cost-benefit analysis to virus writers, and now that Apple’s market share is increasing, the “benefit” to the virus writers is going up.

High court affirms gun rights in historic decision — AP

The Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Constitution grants people the right to own guns, something that should be obvious to anyone who would just read the Second Amendment itself.

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.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said an individual right to bear arms exists and is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It can’t be any plainer. There are already people lamenting the decision, expecting gun-related violence to increase; however, if one just takes a moment to think about it, one will see that the only people affected by this ruling are the people that were getting killed by murderers.

Those in DC (which has one of the highest murder rates in the country) who were not allowed to own guns (everyone), and who followed the law, were the ones getting killed. Those who were shooting people with guns obviously didn’t follow the law that said they couldn’t own one, thus they owned guns “illegally.” Those that would shoot people who would break in and rape or murder their wife or children are the ones actually affected by the ruling: now they can defend themselves.

I’m going to make an easy prediction: gun violence is going to go down over the next few years in all cities that had handgun bans.