June 21, 2006 - June 14, 2006
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Be Careful With That Gun
We send our heartfelt thanks to Your
Philosophy Sucks for calling our attention to the dissenting opinion
in the United States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refusal to grant a rehearing en banc regarding
SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER authored by Judge Alex Kozinski.
From the Keep and Bear Arms website dedicated to the case
we learn: "Silveira v. Lockyer was filed in the
Eastern District Court in California in the year 2000, by California attorney Gary Gorski. It argues for the
individual right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The case
seeks to overturn California's arbitrary ban on semi-automatic rifles -- a gun ban based on the ergonomic
and safety features the firearms possess.
The dissent referenced by YPS led to a Supreme Court petition which was denied in November of 2003 from what
we can tell. Now, there isn't an attorney among us (say, maybe that's why we got picked up by The Washington
Post before Hugh Hewitt has ever linked to us once), but the six dissenting Judges on the en banc appeal
seem to be trying to tell us something as well as his peers on the Court.
Judge Kozinski seems to think that the majority has fallen prey to a delusion -- "popular
in some circles -- that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off
leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll." Hear. Hear. Wait, there is
more -- "But the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear
the wrath of an armed people." Now, that makes sense to us.
The good Judge goes on to identify instances within U.S. history when such a right was necessary for the
survival of citizens of the United States and highlights how the elimination of this right abroad allowed
tyranny to have its way with its newly unarmed citizenry. We've talked about this issue before here
and here and it's not our intention
to rehash those arguments. We just want you to be aware of what is going on in your beloved US of A.
Take a look at the YPS post.
They've got links to all the pertinent data. You should download the full set of dissents in this
pdf file and
read them. And, if you joined the NRA like we told you to do before --
come on join already, it's not that expensive ($35 for one year) -- you
would have read President Kayne Robinson's explanation of why all these little fights must be fought and won.
You can read his note here and
get a full view of how these little laws and regulations reduce the number of gun owners in a population
until they are a minority -- like smokers -- who nobody has to listen to anymore. They did just this in the U.K.
Enough said. Go buy a gun. Join the NRA. If you already own a gun, get a permit to carry the thing and
If you're worried about the gun getting into the wrong hands or your kids -- buy a gun
safe and lock it up with plenty of ammunition for the day you need it. Our prayer is that you never have to
open the safe. But, not all of our prayers get answered in the affirmative.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
That's no lady, that's
Lady For All Seasons
. Here we go
again. There are, apparently, quite a few conservatives who think Laura
Bush was wrong to tell the jokes she did at her weekend
. According to the Swift
...not everyone appreciated her jokes
and one-liners poking fun at President Bush. At least one organization
of conservative Christians quickly lashed out at Mrs. Bush's
performance, warning that her remarks at the President's expense were a
public refutation of the Biblical command that wives should respect
According to an official statement released over the weekend by the
Coalition for Traditional Values, an organization that seeks a more
flexible relationship between church and state, Mrs. Bush's jokes at
her husband's expense amounted to a public emasculation of the
...the stripper and horse jokes were
totally beneath her.
Just put it to the other-shoe test: If
it were Teresa Heinz Kerry standing up on the dais telling the same
jokes, the conservative commentariat would be buzzing for the rest of
the year about what a tasteless skank she is.
"Lighten up?" How about cleaning up? The First Lady resorting to cheap
horse masturbation jokes is not much better than Whoopi Goldberg
trafficking in dumb puns on the Bush family name.
For once, we're going to have to side with the New York Times
on this one.
Columnist John Tierney, in a piece called Laura
Bush Talks Naughty
, wrote rather more equably about it all:
Mrs. Bush's performance, and her
husband's reaction, wasn't a shock to the reporters who cover the White
House. For years they have tried to convince their friends outside
Washington that Mr. Bush is actually not a close-minded dolt, and Mrs.
Bush is no Stepford Wife or Church Lady. Yes, they're Texans who go to
church and preach family values, but they're not yahoos or religious
The coverage of Mrs. Bush's comic debut may change some minds, but for
devout Bush-bashers, it's much easier to stay the course. If you live
in a blue-state stronghold, a coastal city where you can go 24 hours
without meeting any Republicans, it's consoling to think of the red
staters as an alien bunch of strait-laced Bible thumpers.
This feels like a place we've been before. Because it is. Remember all
the conservative concern about the performance of the Twins at the
Republican Convention on the same night that Laura Bush spoke? We
stepped in decisively on that occasion too, first by taking the
temperature of the right:
Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, and Mara
Liason were mostly faint in their praise of Laura Bush and from mildly
to severely critical of the girls. Only Chris Wallace -- memorable for
his immediate pan of Teresa Heinz-Kerry's speech -- continued to
bolster my respect for his acumen by praising both. I was curious to
see what the rest of the geniuses out there had to say, hence the hours
Mostly, the bloggers and columnists agree with Fred and Mort. The Twins
were terrible, an embarrasment, "cringe-inducing," a Republican
mistake. Laura Bush was solid and likable but a letdown after Arnold
and far from a homerun. These views are represented to one degree or
another by such normally acute observers as Jonah Goldberg, Roger L.
Simon, Glenn Reynolds, and many many more bloggers and blog-responders.
Mostly men, of course. And there's the rub. They weren't the target
audience and they're not quite imaginative enough (at least today) to
understand what they witnessed.
We pointed out that the girls' performance wasn't going to do anything
but good for their father's election prospects:
The Twins are clearly not the spawn of some dynastic clan
which sits at table with the Illuminati. They are just like millions of
other American girls their age -- awkward, corny, goofy, a bit
lascivious, intentionally disrespectful, and full-time flirtatious. But
they also evidently love their parents, both of them, and their
performance was not the one we would have expected if they had a cold
and distant father for whom they were doing a public family duty. Who
would make sex jokes at a party convention if you had the kind of dad
who was going to land on you like a ton of bricks afterwards? The Twins
were a HUGE plus for George W.
We gave even higher marks to Laura
, who did not tell any sex jokes that night. But this time she
did, and the Coalition for Traditional Values (CTV) thinks she's
emasculating her husband, while Michelle Malkin thinks the First Lady
lowered herself to the same level as Whoopi Goldberg comparing GW
unfavorably to her vagina.
Both criticisms are, not to be uncomfortably blunt about it, absurd.
We'll dispose of the Coalition first, then proceed to Ms. Malkin's
(typically) more plausible argument. Here's the money point for CTV
chairman Roy deLong:
"As a believer, President Bush is no
doubt familiar with the passage from Ephesians that says 'Wives, submit
yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord,'" says Mr. DeLong.
"That means that just as Christ is the head of the church, the husband
is the head of the wife."
We don't know too many women of any denomination who quote this passage
from Epehesians, and we'd speculate that those who do are not above
winking at one another as they intone the words. Just as we fail to
administer all the capital punishments listed in Leviticus, most
Christians (that is, those who permit their women to vote) tend to
regard contemporary marriage as more of a partnership than a papal
administration in miniature. Sorry, Reverend deLong. The overwhelming
majority of those you expect to agree with you on this find your quote
funnier than anything Laura Bush said in her comedy routine.
Which brings us to Michelle Malkin. I could be very wrong, but I don't
see her as a big exponent of Ephesians either. I won't gainsay her
right to be offended or distressed by Laura's jokes, but I will argue
that her comparison is flawed. Here's why. It may well be the case that
conservatives would pile on Theresa Heinz-Kerry for a similar
performance, but that is only because THK has already established a
propensity for several boorish behaviors: crude and disrespectful
treatment of those who are required to treat her respectfully, a
narcissistic obsession with siphoning attention
from her candidate husband to herself, a barely concealed personal and
of her own, and a general tone-deafness about how her 'spontaneous'
comments might sound to the American public, specifically including the
political opposition. Planted on top of this little pile, a less than
pristine joke or two might make her seem a member of the jaded and
amoral jet set.
The First Lady's public record is devoid of any such gaffes. She is,
beyond any possibility of doubt, a lady. Now she has demonstrated what
many must have suspected anyway, that she also has a sense of humor and
is acquainted with both sex (she has two daughters, for God's sake.
Where did they come from?) and the personal foibles for which her
husband has been mocked by others and himself. Only she can do it
without rebuke. She is his wife. She is participating in an
entertainment that has always been cast as a roast, of which the
President is always the butt of jokes. There is (supposed to be) an air
of good humor about the occasion, as well as the sharp use of humor.
Ms. Malkin may concede all of this while still objecting specifically
to references to strippers and horses. Why? Because no one knows what
these things are, because we're not supposed to know what they are,
because good and religious people never make jokes about these things?
Sorry, but these all seem more than a bit preposterous. Go to a horse
show sometime and eavesdrop on the bon mots about horse anatomy that
fall from the virtuous lips of many fine ladies of spotless reputation.
Only the Reverend deLong is going to think ill of them on this account.
What else? Oh. Whoopi
. Let's wrap this up quick. Not the First Lady. Not a lady,
for that matter. Not married to George Bush. Not proving her essential
love by an act of teasing fun. Not funny, either.
We frequently agree with Ms. Malkin and always respect her opinion.
This time, we disagree.
UPDATE: Instalanche underway --
thanks Glenn -- welcome to InstaPundit visitors and feel free to
take a look around -- Tech
Tonic is working on a way to let you switch the audio on and off, until then, your volume control will have to
do with our apologies.
UPDATE II: There is now an ON/OFF switch for the audio at the top of the page.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Just look at her.
. We were
going to give this story a complete pass. As far as we were concerned,
it was over the minute she turned up alive and well, and the subsequent
news coverage has been sickening for its sensationalism of a total
non-event. But then two things happened. First, there was the rising
hue and cry -- fed by media desperate for any kind of prosthetic limbs
on which to carry this trivia in the headlines for another day -- for
"Runaway Bride." Perhaps not most representative of this vein, but
definitely the most annoying was 'libertarian' Neal Boortz
(a.k.a. The OxyMoron) giving way once again to his penchant for
absolutist authoritarian judgmentalism with this little diatribe:
If Gwinnett County, Georgia has ever
prosecuted one single person for smoking one marijuana cigarette, or
for any non-violent drug offense, then they can darn sure prosecute the
runaway bride. Let's get on with it.
It's hard to resist tweaking the nose of a hypocritical
like Boortz, that legend in his own mind who tries to make
himself look smart by reprinting in his blog only those critics
who are unable to formulate a sentence without three misspellings, two
grammatical errors and a string of cursewords (i.e., marginally more
illiterate than the Great Host himself). So when he launches another
off-the-top-of-his-pointy-little-head tirade, we feel an almost
ungovernable impulse to ridicule him as he ridicules those who disagree
with him. But in the case of Jennifer Wilbanks, we were determined to
stand firm and silent for a change.
Then Chain Gang entered the picture, as is their wont
pointing out that we are the only ones in a position to comment
definitively on this matter. Chain Gang insisted that we do our little
part to get Boortz and company to leave the poor girl alone. So, with
great reluctance, we agreed to do so.
All the newscasters and morning talk show hosts are beating their drum
with a single question: WHAT WAS SHE THINKING? They couch the question
variously. Did she have an intent to deceive? How could she put her
fiance and family in such a terrible situation? Did she plan the whole
caper? How could she have so disrupted her hometown and its citizens
with such a gambit? In other words, WHAT WAS SHE THINKING?
The answer is: Nothing. Today of all days, you must
click on our first link above.
It explains everything. She wasn't thinking at all. She had no intent,
to deceive or otherwise. If she had thought of her fiance, her family,
her hometown, she wouldn't have done what she did. But she wasn't thinking
That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't. Who in the hell would try to
escape from the pressures embodied by 8 bridal showers, 14 bridesmaids,
and 600 wedding guests via the expedient of becoming the target of a
nationally televised 24/7 manhunt? Nobody.
Should she be punished? She already has been. She has received within
the past few days a lifetime's worth of humiliation. Should she be
prosecuted? Should she be sued for a big wad of cash? Oh, grow up.
Women do stuff. We mostly don't hold them accountable in our own lives,
so why plaster over our native good sense with a great public
display of unchivalrous loutitude? (Yeah, I know it's not a word. It
So end this story now, you media whores. Stop blogging about it,
Boortz. Stop beating it to death on radio and TV in the name of
compassion, Hannity. Fox and Friends -- shut up and cease your giggling
and smirking for a change. And everybody else who wants to put in your
two cents, drop it in the change tray at the 7-11 instead.
This is the absolute last word on the subject: LEAVE HER ALONE.
Satisfied, Chain Gang?
Update from Chain Gang: This is just fine -- but, perhaps she went looking for the other earring. Oops. Sorry. Last word.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Greyhounds in need...
a recently adopted greyhound, lounging on the couch
In June of last year, InstaPunk posted an entry from a sometime
contributor to the site about greyhounds
It was a touching and very personal piece that also introduced me to
the terrible plight of racing greyhounds, of whom as many as 20,000 a
year are killed by the dogtrack industry. I have since come to learn
firsthand how exceptional these dogs are and how rewarding a
relationship with them can be. After our most recent checkup, a vet
tech remarked to me, "So many people come in with the most popular dogs
-- retrievers, terriers, you know -- and they tell me the dog is so
hyper, so demanding that it's driving them nuts, and I keep thinking
they should have done more homework up front and gotten a greyhound
She was probably right in terms of temperament, though greyhound owners
know that not everybody can be trusted to obey the prime directive,
which is that a sighthound with a top speed of 55 mph can never
be allowed to run free except
in a fenced enclosure. They can see for half a mile, and when they
launch a pursuit they are at full throttle in a split second, heedless
of roads, cars, and trucks. The extra vigilance this requires is a
small price to pay for their otherwise calm and easy companionship, but
it's a genuine responsibility that disqualifies the careless.
If you're the kind who's devoted enough to accept responsibility, I
urge you to consider stepping up to a situation that might well become
a crisis. Last week, I received the following email from my local
greyhound rescue organization, the Greyhound Friends of New
To our Adopters and Friends:
We received word on April 27 that the greyhound track at Plainfield,
CT. will be closing down as of May 15- good news and bad. Certainly we
are happy to have one less track, especially one that has produced more
than its share of broken legs. The bad news: there are 1200
greyhounds at Plainfield that will need safe places to go.
This is an extraordinarily large number of greyhounds to be in need of
placement all at once. There are multiple rescue organizations in the
United States, but they are staffed by volunteers, and their websites
typically feature about 20 to 30 dogs at a time who are immediately
available for adoption. The dogs who cannot find homes are almost
certain to be put down. That's why I'm asking every dog person who
reads this to do three things.
1. Acquaint yourself with the ugly facts about the lives (and deaths)
of racing greyhounds. There is abundant evidence here
very disturbing to look at, I grant, but a vital part of the situation.
2. Learn about greyhounds -- their special attributes and needs -- at this website
and any others you can
find on the Internet.
3. Read the rest of the email about the 1200 from Plainfield,
reprinted below, and consider how you might lend a hand, either by
adopting a dog or by helping out with the other resources being
While we’re hopeful that all adoption
groups will step forward and help, we know that a large part of the
burden will fall on us since we have been one of the primary “safe
havens” for Plainfield greyhounds over the last several years. We
need to prepare now to take in more dogs than we normally do and make
sure they have temporary places to go. Hay Hill kennels can
accommodate only so many, especially now as vacation season approaches.
In addition to housing dogs until they can be placed into permanent
homes, we need to expand our available discounted veterinary services
so the dogs can be prepared for adoption as quickly as possible.
Here’s what we need you to do:
Volunteer to foster at least one dog, hopefully short-term, until we
can get the vet work done and place the dog in an appropriate home.
Speak to your own veterinarian about doing reduced rate work, which
would include spay or neuter, heartworm test, and dental. (We are
assuming that the track will at least update shots)
Help with transportation from the track to New Jersey as we have space
available for dogs.
If you’re unable to do any of the above, dig down and make an extra
donation to help with the increased kenneling and veterinary fees we
will be facing to accommodate the extra dogs. Any amount will be
All of us who love greyhounds will have to pitch in and help until this
crisis is over and all the dogs are in safe places.
If you can help with any of these things please call Barbara at
Feel free to offer additional suggestions through the Comments section
here. We will pass on any that might be helpful to the rescue
organizations who are leading the effort.
I'll update the situation as I receive news. Until then, I'll leave you
with an excerpt from our entry of a year ago -- just something to think
Since Patrick came to live with us, I
realized even more how much I love greyhounds. I thought I already knew
this from having Sonny, but Patrick has made this feeling even more
intense. I cannot imagine life without one. These retired racers, so
poorly treated in their life on the track, are serene, loving, and
eternally sweet companions. Their eyes are as gentle as spring rain,
and their long faces are as graceful and moving as a dream of angels. I
feel honored and privileged to have known them.
If you choose to help out, I'm certain you'll receive a similar reward.
UPDATE: Thanks to Michelle Malkin for calling this situation to the attention of her readers.
History Just Kind of Happens -- All the Time
Today in 1863 a rifle shot found its target and Thomas
"Stonewall" Jackson fell. The shot was fired
by an unknown member of the 18th North Carolina Infantry Regiment as Jackson was returning from a
review of his lines. Jackson died just over a week later on May 10th, 1863. If he lived,
would it have made a difference? Is the question
relevant? We'll leave that up to you.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Believe it or not, it is the end of April. Thanks to our monthly subscribers who have made their
contributions, for the others waiting until the last minute -- this is it -- the last minute.
Like what we're doing here? Not a monthly contributor? Well, you can fix that today. Just click
here and you will be wisked away to our little Amazon.com tip jar. It is that easy. You don't
have to drop much on us -- any amount will be cheerfully received. And, unlike NPR, we don't get millions
of dollars from the Federal Government on top of your donation -- we just get your donation.
Want to get something for your trouble? Then, click
here and you can get into our store
which has all kinds of stuff for you to wear and/or give away as presents -- you can even get an autographed
copy of The Boomer Bible or your very own copy of Shuteye Town 1999. In the store, we
make a little money and you get something of great value.
Of course, you don't have to be a monthly subscriber, you could just lay a one-time gift on us. Any
amount will do here, just fine. Just click
here and enter whatever amount you'd like in the little box at the Amazon tip jar.
Remember, Amazon.com doesn't tell us anything about you, so we can't say a personal, "Thank You." This
post will have to do -- Thank You. If you'd like to take credit for a donation, just drop me a line
and I'll be happy to thank you myself, directly -- be sure to tell me the date and the amount so I
know it is you or, at least, I'll know you're really lucky.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Enlightenment in Danger!
Robert Kuttner is concerned. Concerned that the Enlightenment itself is under
We agree. But the culprits are a bit closer to his Boston home than he might appreciate. Mr. Kuttner
seems to think that the seige works have been constructed by "Fundamentalist Christians." He is very
We would like to suggest he travel over to Harvard to inspect the state of the Enlightenment. All the
sons of Kant and continental philosophy have been tenured at the venerable institution where the Enlightenment
is regarded as an aborted English project with no basis in fact -- since there are no facts. We'll be
writting more about this in upcoming posts, but if you'd like a little primer -- get yourself a copy of
Stephen R. C. Hicks for a very readable history of the ideas that have brought us to this perilous state
of affairs so feared by Mr. Kuttner.
UPDATE: I'm not kidding.
Out the anonymous haters.
THE MISFORTUNES OF
. Yesterday's entry
was no publicity stunt. I'm serious. Now they're going after Zell
. Read here
I'm calling on Instapundit
, Michelle Malkin
contact info is incorrect: it should read email@example.com), Hugh Hewitt
, and everyone else who
claims to care about the tone of our political discourse to help with
this counter-offensive against the vermin who rejoice at the physical
ills of their enemies. Wake up. This kind of nonsense won't stop until
we make it impossible to post such poison anonymously. I call on all
our readers to pester the big blogs to take a stand. Email them, phone
them, do whatever is necessary to make them pay attention. And then go
to Democratic Underground to help force the louts out of their
comfortable closets. You think you can't make a difference? This is one
instance where you can.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
"Try something more
worthy of a man."
knew it would happen. As soon as I heard about Laura Ingraham's health
situation, I knew the maggots of the left would emerge from the dank
underside of the Internet to wish her ill. Michelle Malkin signalled
the beginning of the onslaught
with a link to this odious comment
(one of many) at DemocraticUnderground.com. It's written by a person
who calls himself Tom_Paine, as if he fancies himself a noble champion
of humanity rather than a vicious bully. I wondered what the real Tom
Paine would have thought, and so I searched out an account of
him that included some personal details, including his own response to
a sly and dishonest attack upon himself:
Before Paine's arrival in America, the
excitement on his approach had tempted a canny Scot, Donald Fraser, to
write an anticipated "Recantation" for him, the title page being
cunningly devised so as to imply that there had been an actual
recantation. On his arrival in New York, Paine found it necessary to
call Fraser to account. The Scotchman pleaded that he had vainly tried
to earn a living as fencing-master, preacher, and school-teacher, but
had got eighty dollars for writing the "Recantation." Paine said: "I am
glad you found the expedient a successful shift for your needy family;
but write no more concerning Thomas Paine. I am satisfied with your
acknowledgment -- try something more worthy of a man."
That's how I'd expect a gentleman to address a personal adversary. The
is worth reading because every paragraph demonstrates the price that
will always be paid by those who express their dissent bravely in the
I also wondered what the decent-minded of the Internet might do to
confront those who creep out of the dark places at such times, and I
hit upon an approach that might carry some weight. There is no need for
invective, name-calling, cursewords, or scatologies. What I propose is
that you and every like-minded friend go to this and similar links
identify specific comments which require acknowledgment. Reply to each
with a single demand: Take
responsibility for your words by giving your real name. If you can't do this,
look into the mirror and see the face of a coward
. Then, try to feel the shame you have
Note that you don't have to be a conservative or a Republican to
participate in this accounting. If you know of any similar response to
the misfortune of Peter Jennings, for example, pursue the perpetrators
in exactly the same fashion. (Interestingly, I haven't seen or heard of
any such ugliness.) All such people are the equivalent of obscene phone
callers, and those of us who congregate in this electronic realm do
have a responsibility to maintain some
standards. There is a profound difference between combativeness,
satire, and ridicule on the one hand and bitter hatefulness on the
other. Wishing disease and death on those who disagree with you is over
the line, as even the unbalanced Randi Rhodes
been forced to concede.
Events like this prove that there is more than one kind of cancer in
the world. The cancer that afflicts the Internet may not be organic,
but it is -- if left to flourish in the dark -- a potentially fatal
pathology. The very least we can insist on is that the carriers stand
up like men and identify themselves by name.
Please also take the time to wish Laura
a speedy recovery. Perhaps a flood of wellwishers can do a
little to allay the hurt of the brutes who spoke up before we did.
Back to Archive Index