Commissariate

urgent help!!!

2010-05-04T07:37:00.000-04:00

I'm caught up in a real mess and i need your help. I'm sorry I didn't inform you about our trip, We had a trip to the United Kingdom(Cardiff) and a bizarre thing happened to us.we where mugged at gun point last night, it happened at the park of the Hotel were we lodged but thank God we are not hurt, the muggers carted away with all our belongings excluded our passport. Cell,c-card,cash and some important documents are all gone. I was able to make contact with the Uk Police and i was directed to the Embassy, but they seems to be taking things too slow. I need your help so urgently. Our flight leaves pretty soon but we are having problems sorting out the hotel bills and also need getting our ticket straightened out. I need your help. I need a quick loan to get things fixed out here, I promise to refund as soon as we get back home. please reply asap. so i can tell you what to do and how to get the money to me.

Hope to read from you soon.

--
John C. Shea
East Lansing, MI

On the Election of Pope Benedict XVI

2005-04-24T07:52:00.000-04:00

A recurring complaint from disaffected Catholics (among whom, one may reflect, could be included non-Catholic Christians of all stripes), is the antediluvian insistence on a male clergy. This, the argument goes, is intolerable because women are as capable as men. Other non sequiturs abound: women must be included in the priesthood in order to show respect, because it is disrespectful to disinclude them. This is actually the most-often asserted "argument." Perhaps because there really are no others.

Proponents of female priests share a thought with the fictional characters of the hit Broadway play, "Annie, Get you Gun." According to female priest proponents, "anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you." But where the musical characters appear to have the ability to sing about their disagreements, and, indeed, end their conflict on a happy note, the empty harridans who preach for "equality" in Catholicism are never going to be requited.

The obvious differences between men and women remain unstated here. It doesn't seem necessary to make these obvious points. Instead, hope and uncertainty: it is hopeful that the Cardinals saw fit to elect a pope whose reputation is one of orthodoxy; perhaps he will take the lesson from the diametrically opposed experience of the American Episcopal Church (and its English parent) and the American evangelical movement. One moves toward institutional death by caving in to the chirping harpies; the other busts out of its adolescent furnishings by insisting that the old (ironic, isn't it?) is the best.

The one note of caution is the nature of B16's first few public utterances: it shoudn't be necessary to promise to compromise with each and every other faith in the world in order to hold high the standard of the Church.

One hopes it's just a sop for the press and the oh-so-sensitive political elites in the world.

All told, there should be some reason to hope.

Ratzinger Reported to Give Communion to Protestants

2005-04-17T15:53:00.000-04:00

Some doubt now exists that Cardinal Ratzinger might not exactly view a return to tradition as mandatory: "A German Lutheran theologian well known to the cardinal told UPI that he, too, received the sacrament from [Ratzinger's] hands." The notion that this act of sacrilege is a "conservative" act will come as a surprise to traditional Catholics. The Protestant Church (er, churches), no matter what small political values they had to offer medieval Europe, did not, do not, and will never possess Divine Truth. Whether started by madmen (Luther), whoremongers (Henry VIII) or other men, they simply were not inspired by the only Person who matters: Jesus Christ. We see this human failing all the time: the desire for the approbation of men surmounts one's observance of one's duties. Despite this story, it can not be conclusively determined whether or not the good Cardinal is mixing his vows with vodka these days. It had been previously reported, on this very point, that the Cardinal was in full communion (sorry for the pun) with Pope JPII's teaching on the matter: "THE Pope will issue an encyclical today that explicitly forbids Roman Catholics and Protestants from taking Communion together. According to Catholic teaching, only those in full communion with Rome can take part in the Catholic Eucharist, or Holy Communion. The Pope, who turns 83 next month, is said to be alarmed at the increasingly 'liberal' interpretation of doctrine by many Catholics and is using the twilight years of his pontificate to impose a return to tradition.

"* * *

"The Pope is also said to be alarmed by the practice of lay preachers distributing the Eucharist in parishes that lack a priest. Panorama magazine said that he and Vatican conservatives, such as Cardinal Ratzinger, believed that too many 'Protestant influences' had crept in to Catholic rituals in the guise of 'modernization.' These included priests placing the Communion wafer, or host, in the communicant's hands (as in the Anglican tradition), instead of on the tongue. Last year the Pope also ordered Catholics to halt the growing practice of Anglican-style 'general absolution' for sins and to return to individual confession." It is tempting beyond belief to criticize the press for this mess. But the reality is probably that there is as much confusion in the rank and file of Catholicism as there is anti-Catholicism in the rank and file of the press. Especially the European press. So, another day; another mystery concerning the Mystery of Faith.

Newsflash: Second-Rate Elitist Parrots NYT BSDs on his way onto Anti-DeLay Bandwagon

2005-04-15T21:52:00.000-04:00

Even in li'l ole Lansing, Michigan, the long arm of the opinion elite has infected the local law school constabulary. "Assistant Professor" Beery from highly-touted Thomas M. Cooley Law School (and Small Engine Repair) opines that the federal law that created a de novo cause of action in federal court for Terry Schiavo's parents was in actuality "not legally the province of Congress." "Courts," the good professor tells us with his flair for the obvious, "can't pass legislation [and] Congress can't decide cases." What is strange -- even at a backwoods law school like Cooley -- is that the Assistant Professor hasn't found or been made to find the "deprivation clause" in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. The analysis is not difficult: The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, provides in part: "nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified July 9, 1868, is, in pertinent part, identical. The power of Congress to control the causes of action in federal courts, Section 2. of Article III of that dear old (and I do mean old) Constitution, provides (after vesting "judicial power in the Supreme Court): "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." If the Supreme Court has "appellate jurisdiction," then some court has original jurisdiction. It should not be too hard to discern that the Framers were conspiring to institute a complete set of lower federal courts. Right at the same time they were constructing the Constitution! Fascinating, eh, Assistant Professor? The other question is, may Congress fiddle with the jurisdiction of these "inferior" courts (I do so hope they won't be offended!)? And the answer is a resounding "Yes!" Article III, Section 2 says, "Congress, you may make "exceptions" and "regulations" to your legislative heart's content! Thus, when Terry Schiavo's "husband" decided to deprive her of life, even though the quality of that life did not measure up to the standards of enemies of Tom DeLay (and, by implication, friends of our "Assistant Professor"), nevertheless, there was no question that she was "alive." As an "alive" person, Terry was still in possession of her Fifth Amendment right to life. No question about it; except perhaps in the minds of lefties. And, since Congress could adjust the original jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts to include a reivew of attempt to deprive her of her right to life, Congress was not exercising a "power to regulate life support," Congress was exercising its power under Article III. You'd think that a law professor might know that. Even if he didn't agree with the politics. Hiding the truth this way will do nothing to enhance the respect one feels for the legal manipulators like our good Assistant Professor. Let's review: Attacks on Terry Schiavo's life implicate a federal right under Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that she not be "deprived" of her life without "due process" (that's a different laugh track). Congress was authorized under Article III, Section 2 to adjust the original jurisdiction of inferior federal courts. Which it did with this law, Pub. L. No. 109-3 (Section 1.): "The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life." Notice, "Assistant Professor," the law is quite specific concerning the "rights" to be vindicated. They are "rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States." The good professor writes: "Not since 1871 has Congress had the temerity to suggest that it could tell federal courts how to decide cases." Savor that phrase: "had the temerity." Assistant Professor Beery might just as well have said, "Not since 1871 has Congress exercised its constitutional right to adjust the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts." Savor the other lie: "tell federal courts how to decide cases." Where, good Assistant Professor, will be find that direction in the statute? Please be kind enough to explicate it for us.. The sarcasm is palpable. The Assistant Professor couldn't stand the idea of the United States Congress reaching out into the world in an effort to block the unlawful killing of a human being. How pathetic that acting for life is such a threat to the liberal technocrats who try to license our entry into this world and hasten our exit.

He's SOOOOOOO Mean

2005-04-12T07:38:00.000-04:00

He's mean. And I don't want to play with him anymore. You'd think that grown-ups could think of more reasons to oppose those with whom they disagree politically than to construct (and I use the term advisedly) emotional that are, when examined by other adults, inordinately childish. If indeed Bolton fired subordinates who preferred the dead-end diplomatic approach of Powell and Clinton, then he should be applauded. If indeed Bolton has a penchant for skewering the United Nations, then he should be given a Cabinet position. Less hand-wringing; more diplomacy. Please.

Carter's a Big Baby

2005-04-09T07:35:00.000-04:00

How girlish is this? Carter gets asked to go, told that others might be interested, declines. And now his "supporters" are certain that what was really happening is that he was snubbed by the hidden, demonic Andy Card who conducted a personal vendetta causing "umbrage." Once again, Chicken -- er, I mean, Rabbit -- Jimmy proves that, in the words of the wag, he's America's worst living ex-president. It's enough to make wonder whether or not Saddam is going to get the next Nobel Peace Prize!

Can There Be an Objective Review of Pope John Paul II?

2005-04-08T20:08:00.000-04:00

The Pope has passed into history, to a place he will be remembered with fondness by the, oh, I don't know, .05% of the Christians in Europe all of whom were at the funeral. Across the rest of the great continent, secularists, Moslems, and political lunatics will forget him, or, if they remember him at all, will malign him as a "conservative."

For an American Catholic, the Pope's final days (years, really) are, at best, bittersweet. He didn't do anything about the pederasts in the clergy (although I have to say, I'm not convinced that the problem was exactly as bad as broadcast), he didn't do anything about rationalizing the liturgy (we now stand up during the "Second Half of Mass" which, by no means, may ever be called "A Mass"; instead, it is "a Liturgy" or "our gathering." Pukin' my guts out.

The rationalist bent of the modern age is everywhere. There isn't a part of the Roman Catholic Church that hasn't been harmed by it. Whether the next pope can do anything about it is open to serious doubt. More likely, he'll change "he" to "he/she."

What's weird is that the emotives are all arguing that they are the "rationalists." But when you come right down to it, their best reason for girl altar boys is that "we shouldn't hurt anybody's feelings."

Sad. Truly sad.

Mommy to Prince: You will TOO go to Rome!

2005-04-04T19:43:00.000-04:00

Can there be any doubt that the Anglican "Church" is nothing more than a half-millennium-old brothel/fence operation? When one considers that the "head" of the Anglican Church is required by his mommy (and Prime Minister) to put aside his marriage to his truly beloved, and mount his steed to pay respects to the descendant of the man his ancestor raped, pillaged and plundered (OK, not raped), it seems that the Church of England really ought to decide to (a) become Catholic and stop the prayerful imitation or (b) become the Church of Homosexuals and Lesbians and be done with it. I mentioned before how our Papa didn't do the absolutely right thing when it came to the clergy-sex scandal. But, come now. Can anyone view the scene today in England and Rome and even pretend that the Anglican Church exists except in the minds of pasty-white London accountants who keep tabs on the lucre stolen from the monestaries by Henry the Fat -- er, I mean, the Eighth? ... Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded survived? The head of a Christian Church? Primates? Are you kidding?

Apologetically yours, John Paul II

2005-04-04T07:32:00.000-04:00

Apologies can be spiritually meaningful. And no one can be indifferent to the life of John Paul II. There will be high drama at the Papal Conclave and a soap-opera for the secular-humanists. It is possible to praise this worthy Servant of God as a good and true Christian while also remembering his significant failings. While these are few, they are memorable. Two, in particular, should cause all believing Catholics to pause. Kissing the Koran, for example, was not a particularly successful evangelical or ecumenical act. Few Mohammedans view the Catholic Pope kindly, and his obeisance to their book is most likely seen as a weakness, not a gambit for their reluctant souls. In the more public, secular sphere, it was a political and diplomatic mistake. No follower of Jesus is swayed to a different flavor of Christianity by the Pope's obeisance to a lie; no pagan follower of Mohammed is swayed by an "infidel" -- indeed the leader of the infidels -- honoring the Green Book. Perhaps with the best intentions, this was a dishonor to the Truth, the Deposit of Faith, entrusted to the Pope. Similarly, the carefully-worded apology for the "violence some have used in the service of the truth" is an apology that either (a) says nothing or (b) says just enough for critics and enemies of the Church to make the case that, in admitting these wrongs, the Church is confessing the error that they smugly knew and reified lo these many years. Exactly what good comes from that? Even the strongest of Catholic defenders, William Donohue, in commenting (on the occasion of the Pope's death) on the "apology" that JPII was "brave" enough to make, can't seem to distinguish between individuals who might (I'm not convinced) have committed sins in the name of the Church on the one hand, and the Mystical Body of Christ, the actual Church, composed of Christ and all His followers in the union of belief and faith, on the other hand. Exactly what has been accomplished by bowing to the modern sense of emotion and confusing even your supporters? The late pope left the American homosexual clergy scandal to fester, elevated schismatics to the rank of Cardinal, as well. These imperfections alone probably prevent him from being considered a "great" Pope; the standards, however, for such elevation are publicly and proudly debased. All one needs for sainthood these days is a public disagreement with Madonna or Britney. John Paul II was a good and holy man (if my opinion doesn't irritate the reader overmuch), who made many wonderful decisions along with these few wrong ones. St. Peter will welcome him with all of the honors dues to a faithful, if erring, Servant of Christ. Pray that the next pope takes the name "Gregory" or "Sixtus"; something to recall the days of tradition, honor and loyalty to the Church and not to modernism.

The Seattle Times: Opinion: Accepting the painful truth: Sometimes God says no

2005-04-03T10:51:00.000-04:00

Leonard Pitts is a stellar human being. At least he thinks so. More later.

Wrong on All Counts

2005-03-06T10:52:00.000-05:00

Wrong on All Counts is George Will's typically brilliant attack on the recent Supreme Court decision barring -- as unconstitutional, not as wrong -- the execution of criminals whose crimes were committed before they turned eighteen. Not seventeen-and-three-quarters, eighteen. Not eighteen-in-maturity-as-demonstrated-on-a-test, eighteen. The criticism, while perfect, is also perfectly obvious. And by that I mean absolutely no disrespect for Will who, after William F. Buckley, can think like no other public intellectual. So. What are the questions that the bright lights of conservatism can't answer? I put it to you that the answer is "There are none." Except, maybe, one. How are we going to turn America around and return to the glorious, fabulous Fifties? How are we going to undo decades of abuse?

Byrd Droppings

2005-03-05T07:44:00.000-05:00

This article makes much of the fact that Robert "KKK" Byrd is a hypocrite for having advocated the elimination of Senate rules when is suited him. Others have argued that the filibuster is a special anti-government weapon that should not be abandoned by conservatives. How about: the majority of the legislative body should act majoritarian-ly and do the things that it perceives as a mandate. It the legislative body is right, the voters will reward it. If wrong, well, try, try again. The filibuster of judges is far too easy to dispatch to have achieved such angst. Kill it. If it's wrong to kill it, retrench after the next election. More likely, the voters will do whatever they are wont to do in 2006 without much attention to the filibuster. Now, if it were a Supreme Court justice, then maybe we'd have something to talk about.

Literary devices

2005-02-21T15:38:00.000-05:00

Now (broadening the category a bit): For action, we have "24." For drama, we have "Lost." For economy of expression, we have Hemingway. For literary effulgence, we have so many amateurs that I can't recall them all. The thing is, drama and action are both prerequisites for writing fiction. Because of that, puerile ideas like "Does one write about oneself?" are actually funny. One must write about oneself in the sense that the writer is the source of knowledge that the sunrise comes in a certain way (I'm embarrassed to say how) and that a first love (we each get one!) causes certain reactions. But if your life was filled with enough action and drama to make me want to keep reading, you must be a superhero.

Momma!

2005-02-19T12:43:00.000-05:00

I've got the signatures of fifty men here who are royally pissed off because they can't get a letter to the editor published complaining about the reverse discrimination rampant -- rampant! -- in our society. In fact, I'm going to go out and get SIXTY signatures! And I'm going to tell all these guys to use ALL THREE of their names! That'll show 'em!

Me wants some a' dat, too!

2005-02-19T07:43:00.000-05:00

The scene: A devastated community in a midwestern state.

The action: A tsunami-like phenomenon has savaged the town, focusing its entire malevolence on the children.

Solution: Compassion. From friends, neighbors and, most importantly, taxpayers.

Consider:

"In the aftermath of the tsunami disaster, I am proud to say that compassion and generosity is the core of the people of this great nation. As a collective, we have raised enough resources to rebuild that devastating destruction three times over.

"But residents, we have an impending collapse of our own, right here in Leslie. We need to address it with as much generosity as we did for the victims of Dec. 26, 2004.

"Our victims are our children. With the education cuts looming on our district's horizon, our children's education could lack the fundamentals to produce future leaders."

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050219/OPINION02/502190330/1087/opinion

There are so many morally repulsive things distilled into these three paragraphs that the mind is almost unable to absorb it at one sitting. For example, does anybody in Leslie notice that the tsunami all the way around the world actually snuffed out the lives of almost two hundred thousand people? Including school-aged children? Or is the modern American civil posture -- begging money from taxpayers -- sufficient rejoinder to any criticism on moral grounds? Perhaps the most shocking thing about this mini-editorial from a reader is the casual dismissal of the natural disaster as merely a lead-in to the self-satisfied tone of the request. It is possible that the unthinking might use the tsunami as merely a distant, unusual natural occurrence -- after all, we don't really know very many people who were affected. But, to employ this disaster as a lead-in to a demand for money is revolting. Note the use of the word "collective." What possible intellectual freight is this word intended to carry? "As a collective, we"? Who's a collective? The U.S. taxpayers whose contributions were not asked for? Okay. U.S. taxpayers made a contribution. But what of private contributors? "Private tsunami relief donations have topped $400 million, compared to the U.S. government's $350 million in financial aid."

http://www.pac.org/page_monitor/EEpZuFylFpawFxYxUG.shtml

So, the "collective" was outshone by private contributors. I suppose our editorialist understands, however, that she is unlikely to receive much from private donors to save her children. Hence, presumably, the need to create a metaphorical relationship between the Leslie schools and the "collective." You would think that describing the United States, however glancingly, in a manner reminiscent of the Soviet Union might not be the best way to warm up to one's readers.

Our writer has studied the NEA playbook well. The purpose of education, you see, is not to educate children, not to imbue them with knowledge from the past. No. education is a much more scientific enterprise than that. Education is all about "produc[ing] future leaders." What, one inquires, is the relationship between those educated and our "future leaders"? Do all the educated become leaders? Do leaders become leaders whether they were required to use No. 2 pencils in art rather than high-quality HB quality pencils? Can leadership be taught at all? I can recall kids from my grammar school who were lackluster students, noncontributing in sports, extra-curricular activities and generally nondescript who grew up to be community leaders. How did that happen? Further, these kids (and I) were in classes of 50 (in one case 55) students. How did it transpire that classrooms that large produced anything other than criminals and hacks?

This putative rationale for secondary education and the massive, tsunami-relief-like cash that our writer requests must be provided: "Cutting or reducing remedial academic programs such as Reading Recovery is an obvious injustice that takes from students the basic skill of reading. How far and how frustrated and behind is that child going to feel as he/she progresses through the grades? Better yet, if he/she progresses? "The same can be said for the advanced placement classes at the high school. These minds need to be stimulated, or the alternative is boredom. And there lies a whole new set of problems, which can only serve to threaten a student's progression toward college." That just about covers the educational rainbow: smart kids need money and not-so-smart kids need money. Of course, the kids don't get any of this money. They get to "feel" that they are progressing and "stimulated." While our writer doesn't say, I'm certain that her tsunami-like request for cash will not line the pockets of the students. Rather, I'm quite sure that the money will go to salaries for teachers. It's pathetic in a way. The educational establishment will scruple at nothing, not even human tragedy, to push their demand for more money.

And of course, we can be sure that the "professionals" in teaching will see that the money is well-spent.

Man on Fire - Denzel "John W Creasy" Washington

2005-02-04T21:36:00.000-05:00

Though not a movie critic, and certainly not a timely movie watcher, I was struck by this movie in an unusual way. First, some background. The girls (wife and daughter) out for the night visiting a Clay Aiken gala in a different city. I'm alone to do what men do when they are alone. For me, it's woodworking, surfing the net, and watching "man" movies. The guy at the video store recommended this movie: "lot's of action and car chases," he said. "You'll like it." Well, I liked it. And not for the car chases. Wash. plays a former bad guy, who probably worked for the govt as a "black ops" thingie. He's a drunk, unable to love. He takes a set up job (set up by his friend, C. Walken) as a body guard for a kid in Mex. City. Her mom is American, so she's blonde. And cute. And eleven. He falls for her, satisfying the viewer. She's kidnapped and, apparently, killed. He, with his black ops skills, goes on a revenge rampage. Also very satisfying. She's returned to her mother, satisfying. Only one thing to criticize. When he's on his way to killing all the bad guys, I wish he'd become, how shall I say it? Dispensable. In other words, this character, if he had nothing to lose, literally, for the (male) viewer, would be perfect. Usually there's some sort of risk, the girlfriend is in danger, the good guys are going to get it (Magnificent 7). When DW starts to kill, and he starts to succeed, the tension builds that the cops will get him. We definitely don't want that. And so, the filmmaker would have done us a favor if DW was absolutely "cost-free" as a revenge-machine. I pondered whether what I was really asking for was cost-free wrongdoing. And I don't think so; the movie is quite emotional because he's a mess and this little girl is the one who somehow finds the key to unlock his miserable life. But, when she's (apparently) gone, no matter how complicated the plot to kidnap her, nor how corrupt the Mex. police, we are uncomfortable when he's about his bad work because (a) he's taking the law into his own hands (something frowned upon these days) and (b) he may get caught. If we don't care emotionally about him -- no "hostages to fate" -- then we can sit back and take the risks he takes and suffer the consequences. At the end, he is not rescued by the bumbling Mex police who were mere minutes away. And he should have been. But that's a secondary point. If John W. Creasy (DW's character) had disabused us of any emotional connection whatsoever, but only during the revenge part of the movie, I, for one, think it would have been a better movie. Sincerely, Movie Central Mr. Commissar, CEO

A judicial solution in search of a problem

2005-01-14T21:25:00.000-05:00

According to USA Today, life tenure for federal judges is a problem. The nature and extent of the problem is a bit hazy, but the rationale for the complaint rests on the longevity achieved by modern American (including judges): "The reason is clear. Justices, like everyone else, are living longer. That makes life tenure a far weightier proposition than when the framers included it in the Constitution. The average age of today's justices is 70. The justices who have left the court in the past 35 years served an average of 25 years before retiring. By contrast, the justices who departed in the early years of the republic served an average of eight years."

"Legal scholars" have also complained that the justices of the Supreme Court serve too long. This is so because of life tenure granted by Article III of the U.S. Constitution, according to Section 1 of which extends "during good Behaviour," and not for a stated term:

"Serving 25 years or more is too long in a democracy," says Steven Calabresi of Northwestern University. Law professors Roger Cramton of Cornell and Paul Carrington of Duke also point out that none of the constitutions that have been written for nations worldwide in the past 150 years has given life tenure to top judges. Another argument they make is that supersize life tenure has raised the stakes of each appointment and made Senate confirmation more contentious."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-01-12-mauro_x.htm

What, one wonders, did the Framers think about all of this? In Federalist 79, the author states that the compensation provision of Article III was intended to assure independence for federal judges:

"This .e., the provision for no reduction in compensation], all circumstances considered, is the most eligible provision that could have been devised. It will readily be understood that the fluctuations in the value of money and in the state of society rendered a fixed rate of compensation in the Constitution inadmissible. What might be extravagant to-day, might in half a century become penurious and inadequate."

"Half a century." Hmmm. Looks like the Framers thought that federal judges might actually live and serve for quite a long time. The argument that we should adjust for longer lifespans, then, is not particularly convincing.

Mr. Calabresi's fiat, that "[s]erving 25 years or more is too long," is not quite redolent of facts and argument, dontcha think? Why, for example, does Mr. Calabresi not criticize Senators who serve so long? Or Representatives? [For all I know, he might have. The article doesn't say.] But this argument, turned on its head, would never be accepted. That is, if one were to assert that only "mature" people -- say those attaining the age of fifty --could serve on the Supreme Court, surely there would be an outcry. And why is 25 year bad but not 20? Or nineteen and an half?

As the Federalist authors note, federal judges may be impeached for misbehaving. And why, if a judge isn't misbehaving, should anyone want to get rid of him?

Mr. Calabresi's other arguments deserve short shrift. He claims that other countries have done things differently. Answer: So what? Shall we model our government on the failures in Europe or the failures in Asia? America is the world's oldest democracy (I think). It got that prestige using Article III judges, not Calabresian ones. Mr. C. also thinks that life tenure has "raised the stakes" in Senate confirmations. Talk about blaming the victims!

All in all, McPaper has met its mediocre standards with this article, advocating a mediocre idea with mediocre arguments and mediocre sources.

Uxoriousness

2005-01-12T13:25:00.000-05:00

8:00 p.m. eastern. Finished watching "Turbulence." Didn't care much for the movie; it was on in the background as we took down the Christmas tree (last day for bulk "holiday" pickup). The plot was fairly conventional, except for the hero. Actually, I suppose that the hero is following the new conventionality: the hero was a heroine, or rather, the "flight attendant." The bad guy was Ray Liotta, a wonderful bad guy. His problem was a sexual one. He liked to kill and ra*e women. Our flight attendant saved the day and was met at the end by the wonderful, slightly effeminate British-speaking captain who "talked" her down. Right now, more in the foreground for its dramatic effect, is "24." Turns out that Jack was fired by his boss, a woman. The head of the antiterrorist organization. Now, what are the chances in the real world that females (a) run antiterrorist outfits and , (b) that the last, say, twenty heroes of hijackings were women? Now, I have absolutely nothing against pretty women playing important parts on TV. I have nothing against working with women. Or (except in the case of lawyers) for women. But, why must everything on television be so far from the reality of American life? What's worse, the men in these stories are all he-men. And they uniformly lose fights to these wonder-women. I can't tell you how silly it is for little Annie what's-her-name tossing a right cross to Ray's chin and him crumpling like Martin Short in the ring with Mike Tyson. All I'm asking for is a little verisimilitude. Men don't have to be portrayed tossing women in the air, or ordering them to their rooms for, ah, er, procreative activities. All I'm asking for is a little resemblance to physical reality. Women make lousy firemen, cops and combat soldiers. They can't beat men in fighting, running, lifting or any other muscle activities. I don't really care what Clint Eastwood thinks. Can our lowbrow art forms are be free from propaganda? It's probably not something that's going to turn the world upside down, but whatever happened to respect for the truth? There are three genders in the workplace: men, women and women who imitate men. Why is this a good thing and why is it being cloned into TV?

Who's Cryin' Now?

2005-01-10T22:07:00.000-05:00

The environment. What would fit into a square hole cut out of remote Wyoming or Nevada (or any other suitable place) one hundred yards deep and thirty-five miles on each side? Give up? The answer is All The Garbage Generated By Americans in The Third Millennium. In “Recycling is Garbage,” an article published in the New York Times magazine in 1996, see, e.g., http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-27-97.html, author John Tierney audits the claims of necessity and fear concerning the alleged landslide of landfills that environmentalists assert will dominate America’s landscape. This seems like the sort of question one could actually understand and quantify. After all, after a few years of paying attention, one should be able to determine whether or not the family’s waste, together with all of the waste in the neighborhood, added, for that matter, to all the waste in the city and state, is crowding out mothers and their babies, dogs, cats and playgrounds. A cursory look around suggests that, after a couple of centuries of post-Industrial-Revolution civilization and the detritus thus caused, Americans are still living in rather commodious digs. Imagine then one’s bemusement at the Local Paper’s trumpeting – on its editorial page – of the vasty dangers of accepting trash for cash. Apparently, outfits in Michigan are considering whether or not to accept trash from Canada for disposal. For a fee. Imagine. Canadian trash in Michigan landfills. Michigan landfills making money for Michigan taxpayers. http://www.lansingnoise.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050101/OPINION01/501010327/0/noise54 [The cached version from Google can be found at http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:0uVGnY4vWowJ:www.lansingnoise.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20050101/OPINION01/501010327/0/noise54+%22iron+eyes+cody%22+%22lansing+state+journal%22&hl=en%20target=nw ] You can almost smell the Local Paper’s position on this, can’t you? Needless to say, Fearless Editor was agin’ importing Canadian Trash into Pristine Michigan. Doing so would make folks cry for the lost beauty, ya see. In service to this opinion Your Editor impressed the memory of that noted Native American environmentalist, Iron Eyes Cody, the glycerin-teared icon of fell-good environmental television advertisements a while back. Ole Iron Eyes oughtta know what clean is. After all, until the Dirty White Men arrived, the land was preserved by the Native American Clean Ones. Trouble is, though, ole Iron Eyes Cody was really “Espera DeCorti,” an regular American of Italian descent. He didn't have any Native American blood in him at all (except of course in the non-PC sense). He was a fake. The editorial concludes by asserting that the importation of trash from Canada would somehow harm “Michigan’s landscape.” This assertion, however, is nothing if not counterintuitive. After all, the trash would be landfilled. In a currently existing, licensed landfill. In the same gull-infested areas that are currently receiving trash. The places that are so far out of sight that most people don’t even know when they drive by them on the highway. And so the Fearless Editorial from the Fearless Editor of the Local Paper had a sort of mock-solemn symmetry: both the main argument and the symbol for that argument were fakes. There is no garbage "crisis" and ole Iron Eyes is not a Native American. A Curious Reader wonders when – if ever – Michigan residents are ever going to get unbiased information from the Local Paper about the causes, the costs, and the relative value of trash, its disposal and its actual effect on the environment in a form that does not betray a religious belief in NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”).

website re Cho

2005-01-01T01:07:00.000-05:00

The website I mentioned is http://ace.mu.nu/archives/033066.php The author makes the obvious point that Cho is not funny. What is interesting is how the Safety Culture is pervading comedy as pervades the rest of modern American society. You must wear seat belts, helmets and listen to PC two-fers. You may not laugh at things, people or animals. Only conservatives, preferably rightwing presidents who are always wrong, funny and dangerous.

2004-12-31T14:16:00.000-05:00

This is Clay Aiken. He is very popular with a segment of the population that is not particularly moved by the trash that normally emits from Hollywood and the assorted minions of culture.

Mr. Aiken has attracted the attention of my soon-to-be-sixteen-year-old daughter. I was required to stand outside in freezing weather for two hours recently in order to get tickets to the book signing that Mr. Aiken was presenting. He was very nice and thanked everybody for coming and signed all of our books. At the concert, lo and behold, the audience was in a swoon and there was no sign of sex or drugs or rock 'n' roll! I wouldn't have been caught dead at this place in 1969!

There is something quite interesting going on about this guy. He is wholesome and popular.

What brings this up is reading about the disgusting Margaret Cho on someone's blog this a.m. (I will try to get his link). MC is obviously boring and obviously untalented. I don't just say this because she swears and is vile. She is untalented, rough-speaking and vile. But that has an audience in leftie America. And MC can skin those folks all she wants as far as I'm concerned.

But just like the bores who gave us "stream-of-consciousness" and "road/bus trips," eventually forgot to tell us stories, MC is not going to penetrate into anybody's consciousness who isn't already laughing at her "jokes." Before they arrive at the theater.

Mr. Aiken, on the other hand, in the best tradition of good entertainers everywhere, appears to be trying to (a) present an entertaining show, (b) learn his craft (or whatever you wish to call it), and (c) not act like a complete idiot just because he's onstage and you're not.

Mild stuff, to be sure. Watch him sometime and see what you think. And ask yourself why a cultural background which includes middle-brow acts like Clay Aiken wouldn't be a positive development for our sex-obsessed entertainment industry.

Happy New Year.

Clay Aiken

Philosophy

2004-11-21T07:46:00.000-05:00

How is it that one of the central issues of philosophy, namely, the nature and existence of knowledge, is permitted to ignore the evidence of the last few millenia of human evidence? Here's what I mean: starting with Hume (I suppose), there has developed a silly idea in philosophy that the world around us cannot be proven to exist. That's because we are dependent on our senses and we can't trust that our "beetle in the box" is the same as others' "beetles in the box" (this image from Wittgenstein).

Okay. I don't know about your beetle and you don't know about mine.

If this ambiguity were actually existing, then wouldn't there be some evidence of it? Wouldn't it be fair to say that such a hypothesis is exceedingly unlikely (in other words, WYSIWYG) if there were exactly zero evidence that supported it?

Now, cast your mind back to the Stone Age. Warrior seeks food. Warrior sharpens stone. Warrior attaches sharpened stone to stick. Warrior hurls stick at animal. Animal appears to die. Animal appears to provide meat to Warrior and his descendants. This is replicated millions of times. How do I know? Because, unless you are willing to posit that what you're reading is an illusion created by your imagination and your imagination only, then we have evidence that the phenonemon is the noumenon.

End of discussion

Constitutional Amendment

2004-11-16T11:11:00.000-05:00

The current controversy about the Marriage Amendment is interesting. But, maybe, it doesn't go far enough. In the third debate, President Bush explained that the reason for the amendment was (in part) to stultify activist judges who want to take a minority view in, say, Massachusetts and foist it onto the good folks of Ohio. The Marriage Amendment would presumably prevent that. But why stop there? Why not an amendment that actually restricts the judges from deviating from original intent. My first thought was to say something like "The Constitution shall be interpreted in accord with the intent of the Framers as expressed in the Federalist Papers. [and other preexisting documents]. Any decision to the contrary shall be inoperative." This is just the first thoughts. There must be a way to say it that would work.

Easy Rider

2004-11-03T18:38:00.000-05:00

Kerry said (and I paraphrase), it's important to come together, to unite. And, but the way, if I had an inkling that there was a snowball's chance in hell of winning Ohio, I'd have litigated it until the day I died. The crodocile tears aside, his performance was pathetic. I was prepared to be sympathetic for his struggle, after all, he did have to suffer the horror of false expectations created by the idiotic exit polls. [Aside: if the pollsters can screw up horserace polls throughout the fall by manipulating the "internals," the proportion of this group and that group to be included in their sample, why couldn't they have done that for the exit polls? 59% women?] And, of course, no one has offered an answer to the $64,000 question: how could ten people, let alone 50,000,000 of 'em, vote for a guy with no idea how to govern, with a plan to turn tail in a war, with a plan to completely screw up the economy with cockamamie tax ideas and nutty healthcare ideas? S*x and dr*gs and rock 'n roll.

The nature of the race

2004-11-02T08:19:00.000-05:00

Last night, on Halloween, I invited a long-time friend to share the task of giving out candy. He told me that he had been walking the precincts of South Lansing (Michigan) on behalf of Kerry.

At one house, he misspoke his mission to the elderly owner, accidentally saying that he was there representing Bush, instead of Kerry.

The old lady replied, "If you're for Bush, get off my property."

A week ago, I was visited by two old crones with clipboards. I was busy and brushed them off. The returned the next day, during my preparation for dinner (roast pork loin, yum). I snatched up a potato and the peeler and went to the door, begging their indulgence because I was busy.

It was a white lie; I knew that they were Kerry supporters (Moveon.org, officially). But I didn't see the point in causing a ruckus on my front steps.

Their side: incontinent Bush hatred; our side: misplaced consideration.

I hope our side shows up tomorrow.

Unified Theory?

2004-11-01T20:39:00.000-05:00

Fred Barnes is on to something about the nature of the political/cultural debate in America. He says that there is one reason that explains all of the activities of a particular group of partic -- I mean people. I've been under the impression that science was also interested in a "grand unified theory" that could explain gravity, the behavior of light, the nature of magnetism, and the amount of energy discernible in atomic particles. For years, I thought the reason for all things leftish, dovish, multisexual and countercultural was the eternal Sunday-morning hang-over caused by the 1960s. And I still think much can be explained by reference to that most gruesome of decades. This analysis needs some more IQ.

Democrats for Catholics

2004-10-31T15:56:00.000-05:00

These are two sides of a piece of mail I got over the weekend. At first, I was simply irritated that JFK2 was trotting out his faux "altar boy" religiosity. Then I read the back (the first image; I can't do scanning well). Way down at the bottom in teeny, tiny type is the legend: "Paid for by the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee, 606 Townsend, Lansing, MI 48933. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's commitee." In this document, Clinton is praised for the lowest level in 24 years. Clinton. Kerry. Reducing abortion. I think it's insulting. Kerry a Catholic? (2)

2004-10-31T15:54:00.000-05:00

Kerry a Catholic?

Does Anybody Really Care What Time It Is?

2004-10-31T08:41:00.000-05:00

Sunday at the Commissariate. The LA Times doesn't care what the right thing or wrong thing to do in the world is, only Bush and his brain trust "have decided that rather than trying to expand their coalition and possibly water down their agenda, they would rather push for their agenda, even if it meant having to govern in a very partisan way," said Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Atlanta's Emory University. "Bush's strategy has focused primarily on energizing the Republican base rather than reaching out to swing voters." And shades of Isaiah Berlin, that dang well makes Bush a hedgehog. The sin here, apparently, is "partisanship" as opposed to "seeking the middle-of-the road" or "caving-into-what-your-adversaries-want." The article's author, Mr. Brownstein, doesn't quite tell us what went right or wrong with Bush's presidency, only that it will change nothing. Well, one thing will change: as others have posted, there are some issues floating around here that it might be prudent to answer. Answering such questions correctly is, of course, preferable, but answering at all is more ethical and moral than sitting around wondering where all those nice politicians of yore (!) went to.

Scrap the Presidential Debates?

2004-10-30T21:29:00.000-04:00

Fred Barnes says scrap the presidential debates because we learned very little except that Bush can "grimace and scowl" (first debate) and Kerry was capable of a "gratuitous and nasty reference to Vice President Cheney's daughter Mary as a lesbian." Mr. Barnes asks: "Is this what campaigns for the presidency should turn on?" "The answer," he says, unsurprisingly, "is no." But wait a minute. What if instead of bloodless ciphers who probably have an axe (or butter knife) to grind, like Ifill, Gibson and Schieffer, we had the likes of William F. Buckley, the late Daniel Moynihan, or any of a number of forensically skilled questioners who are experienced in taking depositions, questioning witnesses and marshalling ideas into the verbal tools necessary to get information out of a reluctant candidate? I think the most striking thing about the debates this year is how Kerry used his reputation as a skilled political debater. Mostly, he lied. Mostly he obfuscated. Prez Bush did less of this but his other attempts to convey information was overly-controlled and talking-point-constrained. His steam-rollering of Mr. Gibson concerning Kerry's disparaging of our allies comes to mind. A simple example should suffice. In one of his answers, Senator Kerry said: "Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary." Most folks find it ludicrous for Kerry to say he "never changed [his] mind about Iraq," but wouldn't the rest of the answer be fertile ground for follow-up? Always a threat? Even when you voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait? Wanted to give Clinton the power to use force? What power did he ask for? What power did he use? For Prez Bush, a questioner asked: " Mr. President, since we continue to police the world, how do you intend to maintain our military presence without reinstituting a draft?" Wouldn't you have wanted to know, exactly how many of our armed forces are committed to North Korea? To Europe? How are we going to effectuate your goals of making America safer if we don't find the armed forces to do the job? Are there allies out there willing to provide resources to trouble spots around the world? Are these allies all a part of the so-called "Anglosphere?" Can we ever count on the French and/or the Germans? Now, only a naif (such as yours truly) might suggest that candidates with so much at stake would expose themselves to thoughtful questions. But if I weren't an optimist, I wouldn't bother to jettison these (ahem) thoughts to the ether, now would I? The Standard article here

Weekly Standard picks

2004-10-30T16:56:00.000-04:00

Weekly Standard predictions I think the guys at the WS decided that they all couldn't project Bush as the winner. My question: how did they decide who had to go for Kerry?

2004-10-30T16:33:00.000-04:00

Was watching Ann Coulter debate Peter Beinart at Amherst on CSPAN w/ my teen daughter. Beinart, like Kerry, views debates as forums to bet folks to like you, so you are free to say anything without bothering to be accurate or truthful. For example, he claimed that Prez Bush alleged that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake in "Neejahr" in the State of the Union address. Why is it that the actual words that a person says are of no meaning to the left? But here's the thing: Beinart, like Kerry, will say anything to get Kerry elected. Further, Kerry's supporters, generally, will blow in whatever wind Kerry's blowing in. If Kerry allies with Hitler's Germany, they support it. If Kerry declares war on Germany, they're for it. (Pardon the Stalin thingie.) When Bush did the steel tariff thing, he lost support. I was irritated. I guarantee that if Bush declared that he was no longer opposed to partial birth abortion, he would drop in the polls like a stone and he, like his father, would be a one-termer. This is a key, key difference between the opposing cultures in this wa -- I mean, election. The left really does not have anything much more than the will to power (I've never read Nietzsche, so forgive me if this is (or isn't) his). Literally. The Clintons come to mind as secondary examples of this. Secondary only in the sense that they are (finally!) not running for office this year. My kid surprised me when halfway through this rant, she said, "I get that, Dad." Made me think that there is hope for the world after all . . .

Who won

2004-10-01T19:15:00.000-04:00

When pundits vote on who won the debates, they don't let on whether they are scoring, shall we say, "conservatively," under which regimen only the forensic skills of the debaters are counted, or whether (this is politics after all) the bigger picture is being considered. For example, no one should doubt that Kerry was filled with more information than Bush. He had an assertion and a "fact" for everything important that he wanted to say. In a real debate, he would have had to "prove" his assertions and validate his evidence. In the "cross press conference" from last night, he didn't. He only had to fill in the blank in accordance with the procedural needs of the moment. For example, the rhetorical defense of Kerry's vote-for, vote-against ends up with "which is worse? Saying it or doing it (wrong)" [and I paraphrase]? The "right" forensic answer is: "Prove it that you only 'misspoke.' Prove it that the money wasn't needed to provide the vests and armored Humvees that you say kids are having cookie sales for." But we can't get there from here. If I were Bush I wouldn't worry about losing such a "debate." He's got his work cut out for him, that's for sure, but he also has reality to fall back upon. Unlike Kerry.

Bush Kerry Debate

2004-10-01T13:30:00.000-04:00

The debate was zero, zilch, nada. The contestants each have personal shortcomings that seem to have absorbed the attention of the re-viewing public. The real point, however, is that nothing moved during or after the debate. If Bush were to have laughed out loud at Kerry's intemperate remark about stopping America's nuclear research, then the thing might have lurched into a debate. As it was, though, nothing really happened.