What About Mississippi?

Today, Obama is making his first trip to New Orleans as President. I'm not sure why more people aren't upset about this. Remember all the anger there was about Bush taking a week to get to New Orleans after Katrina? Well, it's taken this President nearly nine months to get there.

Then again, he sure has been busy with all that he's accomplished since taking office, so I guess its understandable.

What's less understandable is why he is only visiting New Orleans and not taking a couple of extra hours to stop by some of the towns in rural Mississippi that were actually more severely damaged than the city of New Orleans. (Remember, Katrina actually made landfall just across the border in Mississippi, about 50 miles east of New Orleans)

The mayor of Waveland, Mississippi, told the AP he's "greatly disappointed" that Obama is skipping the Mississippi altogether. In the same article, U.S. Representative Gene Taylor (D) of the 4th Congressional District, which includes all of the state's Gulf Coast, said he wrote a letter to Obama this week "that began by pointing out the president hasn’t visited the area."

"Taylor criticized the administration for opposing legislation to reform the National Flood Insurance Program, which Taylor believes would prevent gaps in coverage for millions of people who live areas vulnerable to hurricanes.

“If you visited the Mississippi Gulf Coast today, you would find that some areas have recovered, but in the cities of Waveland, Bay St. Louis, Pass Christian and in portions of other cities and counties, only one-half to two-thirds of the homes have been rebuilt,” Taylor wrote."

Of course, a photo opp and speech in the center of the Ninth Ward is a more powerful image than, say, in Pascagoula or Waveland, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore the people there either. It seems to be another example of how this Administration is more interested in its image than in actually doing something positive.

Practice the Second Amendment

Since Obama became President, millions of Americans have decided to patriotically practice the Second Amendment by adding to their own personal supply of firearms. Unfortunately, all those new gun purchases has created a bit of a shortage when it comes to bullets. The AP reports:

"Gun sales spiked when it became clear Obama would be elected a year ago and purchases continued to rise in his first few months of office. The FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported that 6.1 million background checks for gun sales were issued from January to May, an increase of 25.6 percent from the same period the year before.

"That is going to cause an upswing in ammunition sales," said Larry Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association representing about 5,000 members. "Without bullets a gun is just a paper weight."

Correction, Mr. Keane, without bullets a gun is just a really cool paperweight.

Or it could be that a gun without bullets is your new carry-on, at least on Amtrak. The Senate voted on Wednesday to allow travelers to carry handguns in their luggage while traveling on America's system of passenger trains. Perhaps the most amazing thing about this is that it passed by a vote of 68-32, meaning that while the two parties can't seem to agree on much, there is apparently bi-partisan support for bringing guns on trains. Go figure.

Maybe they were thinking this will finally be the right kind of incentive for Amtrak to run their trains on time.