Where are we?

I'll let the reader figure out which one we're in (I'll give you a hint, it's the second guy with the crown). 

Three cheers, lads, to Chuck Asay for another fine cartoon.

An inspired choice

President Bush has nominated John Bolton to be America's ambassador to the UN. I think that's an inspired choice.

Notlob, er, Bolton has been a vocal critic of the "world body," which has degenerated into little more than a mechanism for graft and a third-world debating society. I think we can safely conclude that Mr. Bolton won't go to New York and play footsie with this dysfunctional organization.

UN delegates have been their usual nonsensical selves.

"I hope that once he is here he will have a deeper perception of what the U.N. is about," Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said.

Which is what, now? How to enable petty despots and thrid-world potentates how to line their pockets? How to talk for hours upon end and achieve absolutely nothing?

Algerian ambassador Abdallah Baali said, "I think when he joins the United Nations he will certainly adapt his views to the United Nations, and I am sure we will work together in a very constructive way."

I don't want him to adapt his views to the UN. The UN has rotted down to its roots. Even their aid programs, which the UN used to be pretty good at, have become little kitties for the bureaucrats to skim from.

I don't believe for a moment that Mr. Bolton will be able to change the UN. Its corruption and ineptitute are deep seated. But at least it can be hoped that he won't just sit quietly in that oh-so diplomatic way for fear of injuring the delicate sensibilities of some delegate from a backwater dictatorship and call a spade a spade.

No posting tonight.

I'm not well.

That's the trouble with being a lone blogger. There's no back up when you get sick or busy.

Keep comin' back, though, please.

More on injudicious diktat

George Will has an excellent column today on how Anthony Kennedy, in his Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. ___ (2005) decision, played the role of legislator, sociologist and moralist.

At the end, Will writes:

The Democrats' standard complaint is that [Republican] nominees are out of the jurisprudential ``mainstream.'' If Kennedy represents the mainstream, it is time to change the shape of the river. His opinion is an intellectual train wreck, but useful as a timely warning about what happens when judicial offices are filled with injudicious people.

A-bloody-men.

Why do we even bother to have a Congress or state legislatures at all, if the court can step in and say, "Here's what national policy is. You'll take this and like it."

Based on Kennedy's decision, what is to stop the Court, or any court, from, say, imposing higher taxes in order to comport to our "evolving standards of decency." Sure, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes, but what is that when there is a "national consensus" (as defined by the court -- indeed it apparently doesn't even take a majority of states to create a "national consensus), or when the Europeans are doing it, or when there are several studies before the Court stating that raising taxes would be a good thing.

That's what is so disturbing about the Roper decision. It wasn't based on law, which is what the Court is supposed to look at. It was based on feelings, personal opinions about what is proper, studies, all those things that are proper for a legislature to consider. If a Court can base decisions on those extra-legal materials, then there is nothing to stop them from ordering anything, whether they have the constitutional authority to do so or not, except their own grace.

That's partially why we broke away from Britian in the first place.

Remembering Jim Gordon.

No, he's not dead, yet.

I was driving to church this morning, and "Layla" by Derek and the Dominoes came on the radio. The song was co-written by Eric Clapton and Jim Gordon. Actually, I believe Clapton wrote the first past and Gordon composed the instrumental theme at the end.

I get choked up everytime I hear that song, not because of Clapton writing it his love, and then-wife of his friend George Harrison, but because of what happened to Gordon years later.

Gordon was a top session drummer in the late '60s and early '70s. He played with the best of that era, Clapton, Harrison, John Lennon, Joe Cocker, Frank Zappa, Harry Nilsson, and Jackson Browne.


Here he is at a rehearsal. 

Of course, he took copious amount of drugs, as did most of the top musicians of the day. But that wasn't his real problem. His real problem was with schizophrenia.

He had been hearing voices for years, especially that of his mother's. In 1983, the voices got to him and he murdered his mother. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but he was convicted and sentenced to 16 years to life in the California prison system. He actually spends most of his time in Atascadero State Hospital.

It's sad to think of such a musical talent being brought down by mental illness and the things he did for lack of treatment. That's why I get choked up when I hear "Layla" and that hauntingly beautiful theme at the end.

Excepts from a July 3, 1994, article on Gordon.

Now that's funny!

Do I make myself clear? 

Go get 'em!

Update: PowerLine has a story about gunfire at a protest march, fire coming from pro-Syrian thugs. Posits that the weapons play may have been on purpose to give the Syrians a reason to stay in Lebanon to "restore order" or some such.

(Let's hear it for Powerline, lads! Hip hip hooray!)

Fear and loathing in Paris

I generally despise France, and have rarely found the French, on my travels there, to be exactly friendly, be ye Americain or not.

I generally agree with John J. Miller and Mark Molesky that France has been our oldest enemy. See also Denis Boyles' Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese. The term "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" wasn't just coined by chance.

But aside from their wines, more specifically Bordeaux, and even more specifically Margaux, I have found one other saving grace:

Coralie Clement.

Totally fine. And that breathy whisper-style singing is enough to make even that Carson guy switch sides.

Here's Coralie's picture from her website.


Coralie Clement 

Listen to the song that launches when you go to her website. Something else.

OK, I'll concede France that point. R-r-r-o-w-w!

Marines, salute!

More Python

It seems that Eric Idle, with the blessings of the surviving troupe members, has launched a Broadway musical based on Monty Python and the Holy Grail, called "Spamalot."

The story's here.

I like Eric Idle, but a musical, and without the Pythons? Hmmmm. I'll reserve judgment on a thing like that until all the facts are in.

What has America ever done for us?

Gerard Baker, a columnist for the Times of London, and a frequent guest on The McLaughlin Group, has a column on what all America has done for Europe (and the world), which starts off with this (three cheers, lads, to Jonah Goldberg over at NRO's The Corner for finding it first):

ONE OF MY favourite cinematic moments is the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian when Reg, aka John Cleese, the leader of the People’s Front of Judea, is trying to whip up anti-Roman sentiment among his team of slightly hesitant commandos.

“What have the Romans ever done for us?” he asks.

“Well, there’s the aqueduct,” somebody says, thoughtfully. “The sanitation,” says another. “Public order,” offers a third. Reg reluctantly acknowledges that there may have been a couple of benefits. But then steadily, and with increasing enthusiasm, his men reel off a litany of the good things the Romans have wrought with their occupation of the Holy Land.

By the time they’re finished they’re not so sure about the whole insurgency idea after all and an exasperated Reg tries to rally them: “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

I can’t help but think of that scene as I watch the contortions of the anti-American hordes in Britain, Europe and even in the US itself in response to the remarkable events that are unfolding in the real Middle East today.

I love Monty Python and just about any Python reference. And Baker's use of a very funny scene and applying it to real life is just icing on the cake.

Also reminds me of a scene from The Simpsons

Krusty: Aw, heck: now where am I gonna get a danish?
Bart: Here's a danish, Krusty!
Krusty: Gimme, gimme, gimme! [devours it] Now that's danish! Where'd you get it?
Bart: I stole it from Kent Brockman.
Krusty: Great! [realizes] Uh, he didn't touch it, did he?
Bart: No.
Krusty: Good job, kid! What's your name?
Bart: I'm Bart Simpson. I saved you from jail.
Krusty: [not remembering] Er, I...
Bart: I reunited you with your estranged father.
Krusty: Er, uh, I don't know...
Bart: I saved your career, man! Remember your comeback special?
Krusty: Yeah, well, what have you done for me lately?
Bart: I got you that danish.
Krusty: [grateful] And I'll never forget it.

That's the European elites in a nutshell. Ingrates.

What would the Founders say?

C-Span had an interesting show from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Washington Journal this morning.

The first call-in topic was on what would the Founders think about America today?

I think that the Founders would, firstly, be impressed at how we've grown from a small strip of land on the Atlantic seaboard all the way across the continent. I think they would be amazed at our incredibly high standard of living, yet somewhat dismayed that there is poverty here. Back in their days, anyone with the least spark of industry could support a family, and heaven help them if they didn't. Government support for the poor and slothful? No, thank you.

Secondly, I think the Founders would be thrilled at how our republic, their little experiment, has not only survived but thrived (and has spread throughout the world) without the need for a king or prince, which was very much the norm in the day.

I think, however, that they would be shocked and appalled at how the national government has become the Leviathan it has become. Even Alexander Hamilton, who advocated a strong federal government, might be shocked at just how big it had become. Concurrently, the Founders would probably be distressed and surprised at how emasculated the States had become, since they were correct in believing that government was best when kept close to the vest. The States now are little more than the provinces the Founders were familiar with in Britain, no more than administrative districts for the crown. In their day, the States were co-sovereign. Not anymore, as a practical matter.

They would be surprised, and maybe a bit dismayed, at how large and powerful the office of the executive had become, and even more so at the unchecked and unrivaled power of the judiciary. They saw the Congress as being the first among equals.

I have no doubt that they would be shocked at how involved we have become in the world. The Founders, collectively, thought we were a breed apart and should remain apart, lest the disease of monarchialism and despotism so rampant in Europe infect this nation. They might, however, have altered that opinion when they saw how our brand of government has spread throughout the world instead of the world's, as they knew it, spreading to us.

Some have said the Founders would keel over at the thought of the US Patriot Act today. But remember that less than a dozen years after the Constitution was ratified, the Congress adopted the Alien & Sedition Act, which makes the Patriot Act look like child's play.

What would the Founders say? Maybe it's best that we not know. Some people may not like what they would hear.

Arresting Development

The geniuses over at little green footballs (three cheers, lads!) have this:

More bloggers arrested, detained, questioned, what have you.

Seems as if some of the iron boots over in the sunnier climes don't much care for the free flow of information.

I suppose there was some tin-horn despot trying to shut down Gutenburg and his hip new information technology. But look where we are.

Information control freaks, y'all are living on borrowed time.

Run 'em through the gauntlet, lieutenant!

What's a limited government person to do anymore?

The Libertarian Party? Nope, been there, done that, sold the movie rights.

The other day I saw a drunken sailor who told me that even he thought the government spent too much.

Who should know more, eh? 

I don't know if there will be anymore posting tonight

Either Blogger's server doesn't have its cables coiled down properly or its on my side. Either way, I'm getting a lot of DNSs.

Mr. Midshipman Fubar send his respects.

All Hail the Conquering Hero

Time is but a fleeting moment. We all seem to have the time to make sure our breath doesn’t smell, but have we really taken the time to be totally truthful with our fellow man and say, “Mint or no mint, your breath stinks?” When will our nation own up to what it has been doing since it left school? It never writes, never calls, not even a postcard, and after all the nights I’ve waited up for it to come home. I mean, really! That’s the thanks I get. But I digress.

We are living in tough times. What with the Raelians buying up every living being in the heavens and on Earth and the possibility that double-knit polyester leisure suits may be coming back in style, I don’t know how I can stand the pressure. Let’s get back to some original values. Free handguns and 90 proof rot-gut for everyone. And before children are allowed to go to kindergarten, we must instill in them some sense of community mob mentality, so that when teachers ask them to recite the alphabet, they can respond, “Up against the wall, you imperialist dog. We won’t take any more of your establishment dogma!”

But given the ramifications of the ever fluctuating petro-dollar, I believe that we will see in our lifetime. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? But getting back to where I originally started ... probably wouldn’t be a good idea. Besides, Mother probably wouldn’t want me back in anyway, what with her Limburger and arthritis pain formula and all. But can we really get back to the future? As the greatest sage and philosophical genius of our time Yogi Berra said, “The future ain’t what it used to be.”

I think there’s a lesson in that for all of us.

Please let this be the start of something real

Headline:Palestinians recoiling from suicide bombs; even some militants distance themselves from last weekend's attack.

Indeed, after years of celebrating suicide attackers as heroes, Palestinians are souring on suicide-bombings like the one last weekend, which emboldens many of them to question whether strikes at Israel will hasten their goal of establishing an independent state. It's a shift many link to the election of Mr. Abbas - a vocal critic of the militarization of the Palestinian uprising - as well as the emerging détente with Israel.

Amid Israeli outrage and international affront in the wake of the attack, Abbas called the perpetrators mukharebin, Arabic for saboteurs, and a term which observers said has never before been applied to suicide bombers.

While I'm far too cynical and jaded to believe that the tide has turned in favour of peace in the sunnier climes, I can still hope.

How amazing would it be if we could look back on 2005 as the year freedom and peace germinated in the ME.

V: O Lord, let thy mercy be showed upon us.
R: As we do put our trust in thee.

Talk about your loose cannon on deck

It seems as if an Illinois anti-gun, Million Mom Marcher has been arrested on, what else, gun charges.

Annette Stevens became a gun control activist after her son was shot to death several years ago. She told a newspaper the gun belonged to her late son, and when she found it, she didn't know what to do with it, so she put it in a drawer.


Police reportedly found the gun and illegal drugs while executing a search warrant at Stevens' home in connection with a spate of drive-by shootings in the area. Stevens insists the search was illegal.

Apparently, the gun found in her home had had the serial number scratched off.

Y'know, I can't think of anything wittier that could beat this. Sometimes reality just has to speak for itself.

Sound to quarters! Sound to quarters! Tragic irony to larboard!

We're Here, we're feminists, we're still relevant (I swear!)

Carrie Lukas over at NRO has an interesting take on the Larry Summers flap at Harvard.

She posits that the reason that the hard-line feminist cabal have been so relentless since his January mistake of challenging politically correct orthodoxy that there could, just maybe, who knows, we haven't studied it, be a physiological or biological reason for differences in higher-level achievement in math and hard sciences is because the Feminists (capital F) are trying to assert their relevance.

Lukas writes:

The effort to take down Summers, for what objectively appears a modest infraction against feminist orthodoxy, parallels the strategy advocated by many hawks in the war on terror. Toppling Saddam was a strategic move, they argue, because other countries are now more wary of crossing the United States. If Larry Summers is ousted for failing to tightly toe the liberal line, the feminists will prove their ability to punish future would-be dissenters. That's appealing for the gender warriors, but terrible for a Democratic party scrambling to project empathy for middle-American values.

"We're here, we're Feminists, and we're still relevant (no, really, I swear, ask anyone)!"

This is reason enough for him to stay put. It's time to end the Feminists attempts to continually divide us by sex and keep the gender wars raging. He probably needs words of encouragement.

Larry Summers

Harvard Corporation has already expressed its support. Good on 'em.

Three cheers, lads!

I'm still mad!

I'm still mad about that Roper decision. How could something that was deemed constitutional only 15 years ago now be unconstitutional? The Constitution hasn't changed. The only answer is that five mischevious and unelected people foisted their own purely personal beliefs as a matter of national policy outside of the elected branches of government.

Justice Scalia rightly noted that the majority didn't even address whether such punishment was consider cruel and unusual at the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted. But why consider that? The Founders are just a bunch of dead white men anyway.

For everyone who cheers this decision today, just remember that five unelected people could make national policy that you won't like tomorrow.

Time for 5 certain people to kiss the gunner's daughter

I know five certain people who should be made to kiss the gunner's daughter for an absolutely outrageous act.

I refer to the five so-called "justices" of the U.S. Supreme Court who, just today, decided that certain states' death penalty statutes applicable for people who committed their crimes when younger than 18 years old is somehow unconstitutional. This only a decade or so after holding that it was constitutional. This betrayal of republican democracy, otherwise called the opinion, can be found here: Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. ___ (2005).

My beef is not so much with whether, as a matter of policy, states should or should not hand down capital sentences to people who were juveniles at the time they committed their crimes. My beef is that such a decision is for the elected representatives to make.

THE COURT IS NOT A LEGISLATIVE BODY!

Five people, five unelected and wholly unaccountable to the citizenry people, have decided what our national policy should be. Doesn't anyone find that in the least bit scary?

And what was their basis? The blackguard Justice Kennedy cited, of course, the Eighth Amendment and its proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. But how is something that wasn't cruel and unusual before suddenly so now?

Kennedy cited our evolving standards of decency. But THAT'S NOT HIS JOB to be the moral and final arbiter of our standards of decency! That's what we have legislatures for!

Kennedy then cites ad nauseum the studies of juveniles and their mental and emotional capacities and abilities, all of which would make for a wonderful committee report to a legislature. "The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means 'their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult,'" Kennedy writes. That's as maybe, but it is no business of a court's! You weren't elected, so you don't get to make these value judgments!

Kennedy then goes on to state that "[i]t should be observed, furthermore, that the Stanford Court should have considered those States that had abandoned the death penalty altogether as part of the consensus against the juvenile death penalty. . . ." So, is what you're saying that the policy of other states, even a majority of them, should now of necessity be binding on the rest, absent the constitutional mechanism put in place for achieving that dominance, otherwise known as the amendment process? Of all the unmitigated gall!

Finally, in Part IV of his opinion, Kennedy commits the most heinous act. He looks to the laws of other countries to decide our own. "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty. . . ." No, it is not proper! The laws and policies of other countries, other government, do not and should not influence ours, especially when those laws and policies are rendered by a body that does not have the constitutional authority to makes those decisions.

Then Kennedy has the gall to say: "The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed." No, it doesn't; YOU DO! And therein lies the way to tyranny, when unelected people can make the laws.

I strongly urge everyone to read Justice Scalia's vigourous and well-written dissent. He says everything I have just written, only in greater detail and better.

More about The Family.

A little more about the family.

The Wife is the poor benighted housewife, struggling through days of dog poop and Play-Doh® and Caillou. She did vacuum today, though. We alerted the media.

She was traumatized as a child. She was routinely left in a small 2’x3’ room with a deranged insurance salesman. To this day, she sometimes wakes up in the middle of the night screaming, “No! Not the actuarial tables!”

The Boy is the heart and sole of the family. His silliness knows no bounds, and his dream in life is to become a deranged insurance salesman. We think something must have happened in utero. He loves football (except the penalties), baseball (except for the boredom part) and cricket (except for the understanding the what the heck is going on part).

The Boy 2d used to be the Baby of the World. Now, he’s the big boy
of the World. He was named for a Scottish king whose name eludes me for the moment. We love him very much, especially when we hook him up to the treadmill for some free electricity.