Archive Listing
June 2, 2006 - May 26, 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 carry it.
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
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 President.
Even Michelle Malkin seems disgruntled:
"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:
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:
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:
We gave even higher marks to Laura Bush, 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:
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 political agenda 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 Goldberg. 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.
It's hard to resist tweaking the nose of a hypocritical dumbass 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 should be.)
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
PSAYINGS.5A.43-45. 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 instead."
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 Jersey. It began:
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 requested:
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 appreciated.
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 732-356-4370
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 about:
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
Pickin' Time
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 at Usher@InstaPunk.com 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
seige.
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 frightened.
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
Explaining
Postmodernism
Out the anonymous haters.
THE MISFORTUNES OF OTHERS. Yesterday's entry was no publicity stunt. I'm serious. Now they're going after Zell Miller. Read here. I'm calling on Instapundit, Michelle Malkin (her contact info is incorrect: it should read mmalkin@comcast.net), Hugh Hewitt, PoliPundit, 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
Thomas Paine
HARRIER PIETY. I 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:
That's how I'd expect a gentleman to address a personal adversary. The whole chapter is worth reading because every paragraph demonstrates the price that will always be paid by those who express their dissent bravely in the public eye.
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 to 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 earned.
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 has lately 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 Ingraham 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.
Thank you..
