BoldlyRide

Matthew in Beirut: Backstroke of the West: "hillarious mis-translations of Star Wars Episode 3. "

Find out why Annakin would say "I've just been made by the Presbyterian Church."

Just a little whining about my links today.
First the good stuff, Lileks and Crimlaw can always be depended upon to post something, usually something good. The only drawback to CrimLaw is that Lammers changes his format more often than a teenage girl changes her hair. I think that I shall remove Hewitt's link as he has apparently welcomed so many advertizers to his site that he can only squeeze his meaningful material into a column three pixels wide; the visit is no longer worth the effort. Unfortunate as I have often used material or links from his site. WeWin has not had a great post in some time -- however, I would settle for just a new post -- I won't remove that one yet. Of course, Davidson's Law hasn't posted anything new in ages; I suspect he has a new job somewhere and can't risk the potential consequences of having a blog--whatever the reason, I'll remove Michael's stagnant link. WayOffBass is way off on hiatus; I'll leave that link, for a while.

So who needs a link? looks like I'll have a couple vacancies. Any recommendations?

Schumer has made much of the necessity of getting at the "deeply held beliefs" of judicial nominees -- at least the ones who have may have religious beliefs as "deeply held beliefs" is Schumerese for religion. He seems to believe that anyone with religious beliefs that are deeply held -- as opposed to beliefs that are merely a veneer or matter of convenience -- poses a serious danger to our nation and to the judicial system in particular. Once more Schumer's position is contrary to good sense, our nation's history, and the understanding of the founders. In his book, Original Intent, David Barton points out the explicit religious nature of this nation's founders and of the state governments that existed under the Constitution. In addition to the religious language in the various organic documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, Barton notes the deeply held beliefs of the individual founders. This piece from Washington's Farewell Address illustrates his point:

"Of all of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness... The mere politician ought to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert...? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail, in exclusion of religious principle." Washington's Farewell Address of September 17, 1796. Original Intent by David Barton p. 111.

Even the words of the United States Supreme Court itself contradict the misguided senator from New York:

"[T]his is a religious people. This is historically true... These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." Original Intent by David Barton p. 116. quoting from Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S.457, 465, 470, 471 (1892)

Schumer's opposition to deeply held beliefs, i.e., sincere religious belief, springs, sua sponte, from nothing more than Schumer's cavernous skull and the demands of the left wing extremists to whom he is bound. Schumer will oppose those who do not satisfactorily lay bare their religious beliefs on the basis that they are not forthcoming. If a nominee does speak of religious beliefs, other than to deny or discount them, Schumer will oppose the nominee on the basis that those beliefs interfere with the law or the ability to be neutral and objective. However, his opposition ignores the documents upon which this nation was founded, roughly two centuries of history, and the very intentions of the founders as expressed in their own unequivocal words.

LILEKS Screedblog: Trashing of a Robin Givhan's article in the Washington Post contains this gem of high sarcasm: "People who dress like Mormons are creepy. Creepy as real Mormons"

So just how creepy is that -- and why?

The Atlantic Online | September 2005 | The Holy Cow! Candidate | Sridhar Pappu: "Standing over six feet, graying neatly at his temples, with a sharply cut jaw and the whitest teeth I've ever seen... In other lights he resembles the gray-templed comic-book superhero Reed Richards (a.k.a. 'Mr. Fantastic,' of the Fantastic Four), whose superpower is the ability to stretch himself across great distances and into impossible positions. But his appeal also comes from the natural ease and warmth that one feels in the vicinity of a man who unselfconsciously uses words like 'neat' and 'gosh' and 'wow,' as if everyone spoke that way. "

Who is he talking about -- gee, it could be me--if I were tall and handsome. Thanks to HughHewitt for the link.

FOXNews.com - U.S. & World - Discovery Lifts Off: "The 114th shuttle liftoff "
Where else in the world does this sort of thing happen. 114 shuttle lift offs. Two tragedies but the effort continues. -- Now, when are going back to the moon? Homer Hickham wrote a novel that I enjoyed a few years back about hijacking the shuttle to the moon -- I can't quite remember the title, maybe it was Back to The Moon.

NBCSandiego.com - News : "Family Afraid Of Toilet" -- With good reason -- Read it to believe it.

Found this today and just had to pass it on. Follow the link to see the other two C's.
learning to fly: "The three C's answers to some questions?

COWS

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them each a cow."

Trey Jackson: "Dumbass Questions": "I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions.'"

See Jackson's site for a link to the audio of Senator Hatch talking to Schumer.

Below I fault Senator Schemer (hey, that's what the spell check sayes it should be) for declaring that the burden is on the supreme court nominee. Here's what Hamilton says about the Senate's role:
To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though in general, a silent operation. I would love more silence from vocal members of that austere body, and Sen. Schemer in particular) It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of responsibility in the administration.

As we look at John Roberts, we see no personal connection to the President (no favoritism) and we see that legal minds of both parties support his nomination (so he does not appear unfit from a qualifications standpoint); I have heard nothing of any family connections Roberts may have with those in power; As for popularity, if, as the Dems say, he is not mainstream, he can hardly be popular so that cannot be the basis for his appointment -- no reason so far to oppose the appointment.

Thanks to The Cabarfeidh Pages (Highland Warriors): "James Doohan otherwise known as 'Scotty' from Star Trek has passed away."

Cabarfeidh has a great site -- go there for the link.

I know I'm in the midst of the Federalist Papers and the Supreme Court nominee, but Mr. Scott deserves a nod no matter what else is at hand. No one else could save the ship and the day in the nick of time with such gaelic flair.

Way Off Bass: "whiney women, whipped men, and drawn-out pointless storylines. Sound familiar?"

I'll leave it to you to determine whether the quote refers to Senate Democrats or something else. If you're really curious, follow the link. Just be aware that the site also mentions Harry Potter whose politics remain unknown to me.

USNews.com: The National Interest: Roberts will redefine 'mainstream' (7/20/05): "at least some Democrats will use the material compiled long since by the left-wing groups to support the case that Roberts is 'out of the mainstream.' But when you read that material on the Web, you find it is pretty thin gruel. "
Barone lists several tactics that the Dems may employ against the nominee.

I also caught Chuck-a-luck Schumer on PBS last night indicating that he had voted against Roberts appointment to the bench because he felt Roberts had not been forthcoming in his responses to the Senate Committee. Chuck-a-luck promised to provide his questions to Roberts in advance and he restated his commitment to have his questions answered. Schumer, the special interest collection boy of the Dems, still believes that the nominee must prove himself. This was certainly not the intention of the founders. Jay T. Jorgensen, in his article for the Federalist Society, "Precedent From The Confirmation Hearings of Ruth Bader Ginsberg For the Conduct of Judicial Nominees," reports that nominees appearance before the Senate Committee only became a regular part of the process in 1955. (Jorgensen is actually quoting Joe Biden--and gives proper credit, something Biden seems to have had trouble with himself). Nominees have refused to appear before the committee and were nevertheless confirmed. Historical evidence is contrary to Schumer's position that the burden of proof is on the nominee. The nominee has nothing to prove. -- See next post above for Federalist 76 on this issue.

See Hugh Hewitt for the link to a Federalist Society article on the Ginsburg confirmation hearings and how those hearings should be used as precedent in hearings on Pres. Bush's nominees. Ginsburg routinely declined to answer questions, with answers like: "I would prefer to await a particular case."

Roberts found 'deep regard' for court arguing cases: Notes that Roberts has more experience as an advocate before the Supreme Court than any of the current justices. Of Course, Senator 'put a hammer in my skull'* Schumer continues to demonstrate his partisan obstructionism and loyalty to those who seek no restraint on sucking the brains from the mostly born. He also lacks an understanding of the Senate's role in the process:
"Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee that will hold a confirmation hearing, said, 'It is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly, honestly, and fully in the coming months. His views will affect a generation of Americans and it is his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views.' He added, 'The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy. "

The Senate is not a judicial body before whom a nominee must prove his credentials. The Senate approval is to guard against favoritism (nepotism and corruption (see past and future posts on Federalist No. 76) -- Schumer places a burden where it does not belong. I can see the hearings now:
Senator Schumer: Would you vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which protects a womans sacred right.......
Judge Roberts: Of course I cannot comment upon specific situations, I can only say that I would uphold the Constitution.
Senator Schumer: You will answer this question! How would you rule?
Judge Roberts: Well, I can see the competing interests as..... However, I cannot rule without knowing the particular facts, and I cannot comment on any particular set of facts as that would then call into question the integrity of the judicial process and create the appearance that I have already revealed how I would rule on given facts which may or may never come before the court, but which would raise issues of prejudice to the parties... But I would be bound by the Constitution with appropriate deference for the principle of stare decisis.
Repeat the process with Senator Durbin and other democratic senators who in the end will vote "no" because of the special interest group litmus test. However, barring the discovery of some scandal or the defection of Republican Senators like the despicable 7, Roberts should be confirmed.

*I do not advocate any such conduct. Whenever I see the esteemed mealy-mouthed senator for New York I am reminded of a comment that a construction worker friend of mine made to the effect that whenever he sees that guy, he just wants to put his claw hammer in the guy's forehead. He would never actually do that, nor would he advocate that others do that.

Roberts Could Leave Conservative Imprint: "Democrats acknowledged privately that Roberts' thin record does not lend itself easily to attack, though they are troubled particularly about his views on abortion. There will be a fight, they predicted, but it will probably not be epic.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., did not sound like a man throwing down the gauntlet when he said, 'The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry.'
Even the criticism of special interest groups sounded halfhearted. 'John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues,' said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way. He expressed disappointment in the pick, but did not call on Democrats to defeat it."

Ralph Neas disappointment can only be a good sign! Long may he be sorely disappointed.

Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts : "Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sites of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the 'very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation' and that his reputation as a 'brilliant writer and oral advocate' was well deserved."

Naturally, the left is already screaming that this nomination is a threat to "privacy" rights, i.e., he can't pass the infanticide litmus test demanded by NARAL whom Senator Durbin calls "mainstream America."

Hamilton addresses more of the problems associated with placing the appointment power solely with a legislative body:
... The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. (i.e., Litmus test candidates -- must satisfy NARAL pro-infanticide or the Dems will be instructed to fillibuster and vote no if a vote even comes) In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that." (the dems will approve a moderate (read swing left vote) if they can get another extremist--and they'll call it 'preserving the balance' on the court ) This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

still more to come

I know I haven't even finished posting on Federalist No. 1. But at the rate I'm going (comparable to the ground speed of hogtied sloth in a gunny sack full of rocks) I won't finish before the Apocalypse. Therefore, I leap forward like Wyle E. Coyote on steel springs and rocket boosters (with perhaps not dissimilar results) to excepts from Federalist No. 76. This paper is credited to Hamilton which deals with the presidential power of appointment, very a propos in light of O'Connor's resignation and Rhenquist's health:

The President is "to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States..."
So when we have the O'Connor replacement confirmation hearings, let the members of the Senate offer their advice (to be taken or ignored) and have an up or down vote. It is the president who "nominates" and "appoints" not the Senate.

It has been observed in a former paper, that "the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration." If the justness of this observation be admitted, the mode of appointing the officers of the United States contained in the foregoing clauses, must, when examined, be allowed to be entitled to particular commendation. It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union; and it will not need proof, that on this point must essentially depend the character of its administration.
The endless fillibuster blackmail the Dems promise threatens the judicious plan the founders have foreseen for good government.

... I proceed to lay down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps of superior discernment.
Hamilton has forseen the modern day Senate, or at least its perception of itself and said, in effect, 'Senators don't make the appointment, that is best left to President.' Because:

... He will have fewer personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. ( This is exactly the kind of conduct that Mark Levin in Men In Black has said is happening -- The Democrats are catering to left wing extremists, thus being warped and distracted. ) There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations, whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly.

more later

From USHistory.org, I bring the following (the formatting was lost in the transition, and the bold is my own emphasis, my few comments are in italics):


IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, (I like the use of the word "just" powers, as many of governments powers, those not derived from the consent of the governed, must be unjust) --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. (It really is easier just to put up with the accustomed evils than to do anything about it.) But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. (Is this anything like refusing to confirm important judical nominees and calling for endless investigation, unending debate and partisan obfuscation in the service of select leftist special interests to the detriment of the justice system and of the nation?)
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these ColoniesFor taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

--John HancockNew Hampshire:Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew ThorntonMassachusetts:John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge GerryRhode Island:Stephen Hopkins, William ElleryConnecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver WolcottNew York:William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis MorrisNew Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham ClarkPennsylvania:Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George RossDelaware:Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKeanMaryland:Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of CarrolltonVirginia:George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter BraxtonNorth Carolina:William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John PennSouth Carolina:Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur MiddletonGeorgia:Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Lileks moaned a day or two ago about how lame it would be to post a recitation of his Fourth of July two days late. I write much more slowly, so I successfully trump his lameness in both timing and post quality:

This was the best Fourth of July that I can remember. I suggested to my family the day before that we go fishing and hiking the the hills nearby for the holiday. Only Number One Daughter was opposed to the idea; everyone else thought that it sounded fun. My wife and son already had a cooler of food packed by the time I was ready for breakfast on the Fourth. I put the flag out front where the gentle breeze caressed it in the unwavering sunlight. As we drove to the hills, I could not help but contemplate that on this day of all days, I was an American and mighty pleased to be one. God has shed his grace on this nation, this Tree of Liberty nourished with the blood of patriots, this Edifice of Freedom founded by those who gave blood, treasure and their sacred honor in its construction.

My family and I found a spot in the hills where we had camped before. The water was too low in the stream for fishing. We drove down to the big rock where the fish congregate and where they bite when they will bite no where else. I went first and then the kids took turns with the pole. Only one small fish, just a few microns larger than a minnow chased the worm whose fate was no longer at issue. We got some pictures in the familiar places; this was our youngest's first time here, or on any other fishing trip. No one mentioned her apparent jinx effect; no sense in telling her as she is too young to feel upset by it.

With the utter failure on the part of the fish to participate in that activity to which they are so essential, we elected to discontinue that pasttime in favor of a hike. We had only been walking a few minutes when I realized that the abandoned mine that we had intended to walk to was actually miles away. So we decided to go to no place in particular and we proved entirely successful in reaching that destination. On the way we found currant bushes with low voltage but lots of berries; another first for the youngest and a treat for all of us. Our journey took us up a rough and steep trail. One might say that we carried on like troopers; if troopers are prone to constant whining about going back, being too hot, and stopping for water at least twice in any forty foot stretch of trail.

When the moaning ended we were back at the van where we made a valiant attempt at eating the supplies that wife and son had packed. We did eat all of the sandwiches and cherries and we did drink all of the water; I just don't understand why we needed seventeen boxes of crackers, nine bags of chips and one bag of small frozen bagels that were only slightly drier than, and at least as hard as, the trail we had just hiked.

Back in the van and headed for home, son requested music so I commanded the playing of Johnny Horton. Unfortunately, after just two songs the tape developed a squeal that struck the ears like a salted ice-pick. We were forced to listen to a popular country music station and it was entirely appropriate for this day of patriotism, celebration, and gratitude.

With the kids debarked from the family ark and the multitude of dry crunchables restored to the pantry shelves, we began the discussion of fireworks. Usually on the Fourth, we go to my parents and do fireworks with the extended family. Brother-in-law usually buys way too many so we don't bother to get any. The word this year was that there would be cake and ice cream for a nephew's birthday at my sister's house, but no fireworks. I reasoned that nephew would have a fine birthday without us. We were having such a great day keeping our own company that I made a command decision to continue the day in that state of isolationism. We all broke into our caches of change--and I mean the round shiny stuff. I came up with $30 in quarters, son had $8.35 in assorted nickels and dimes, and the girls came up with a couple bucks. We traveled to two fireworks stands to exchange our hard currency for fused packets of patriotic zeal. Our combustible celebratories included something called an Express Pack of assorted fountains and screechers, several boxes of white tadpoles which emitted the audio selections from loud breakfast cereals when compressed, spherical grenades of colored smoke and sticks for putting flaming stars at arms length.

The waning afternoon found the girls tossing poppits and then we lit the smoke bombs. I kept expecting a girl in a diaphanous pink outfit to appear and request master's wish. My daughters just wanted to walk through the billowing clouds of colored smoke. The youngest screamed with delight for another as each smoky apparition dispersed. Poppits and smoke bombs exhausted, we relaxed in the air conditioning. We indulged in a viewing of Return of The Jedi because nothing says "Freedom" like a young Carrie Fisher in a slave girl costume or Mark Hamil writhing in simulated pain from special effects lightning. Dinner featured corn on the cob, watermelon, and animal flesh that I charred on the grill. I had persuaded my son to play a game with me, a simulation of the Napoleonic battle of Montebello, and I neglected to turn the burgers when should have. But I did win the game quickly enough that my son did not complain about it. I have left the figures out with the hope of coercing him into another game soon.

At last Daylight took a header off the horizon and Darkness cast its Vaderesque cape across the sky. We gathered the fireworks and moved to the front steps, just below where the porch light illuminated Old Glory; our display of patriotic zeal unfolded before that hallowed Symbol of Liberty. Let me say that I was entirely satisfied with the Express Pack. We had gone in quest of the half price Family Pack but it was sold out. I have never been more happy with a bait and switch. All of the items performed well. The Bamboo Garden, Screeching Dragon ( or some kind of dragon), the Desert at Night, and a couple of others were really great, beyond my expectations for non-illicit firewords. The neighbors came over to express their wishes for a happy Fourth of July and complemented us on the fireworks. We wished them the same. Truly, it was the best Fourth of July ever--in the last five years, anyway.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies an fears. (It is not Hamilton's purpose to harp on the self interest and prejudice of those who might oppose the constitution just because circumstances cast suspicion upon them. After all, even "such men" could have good intentions. So let us not consider the polluted wells from which the opposition water comes but treat it as simply misguided rather than selfishly motivated.) So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occassions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of quesions of the first magnitude to society. (Besides, there may even be some decent men who oppose the constitution, but let's not forget that they are wrong in this particular matter.) This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson on moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a quesion. (Nobody can be right all of the time and even those who, as they should, support the proposed constitution may have improper motives.) Were there not even inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. for in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. (So announcements that adoption of this constitution would force grandmothers to live on cat food, that its supporters are nothing but polluters of the environment who would bash in the heads of poor crippled children like so many harp seals, and that the creators of this document are also the same sort of people who, given the opportunity, would form a regime capable of torturing and gassing entire races, cannot be properly calculated to sway opinions.)

LILEKS (James) :: The Bleat: Speaking about the servicemen whose chopper was downed in Afghanistan: "These are the men who make my fat happy life possible, who will jump on a plane and go to Venus on behalf of people whose idea of sacrifice is taking a few minutes to sort the plastic from the glass on recycling night. "

Best quote day -- both for what it says about the nobility of those who risk their lives and for what it says about the rest of us. Just or the record, I refuse to sort -- but that's a whole other story.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and conseuence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government. (Hamilton begins his defense of the Constitution with an attack upon the motives of those who might oppose it. In the second paragraph Hamilton cast the hue of self-interest and local prejudice upon any opposition. In this third paragraph he brushes generously the opposition with the stain of grasping power for themselves at the expense of the union.)