Blogger down or something -- this is a test

Championship. This weekend is the Blogger 2k3 championship pitting the scrappy Florida Blogistas against the San Juan Pirates. These two teams met once during the regular season, with the Blogistas winning that one primarily due to Marcus Pollard's 9 point game (for a TE! Randy Moss only had 4 points that week). But if recent weeks are any indication, Ben's team should take the game -- in the past four weeks he's scored 73, 75, 85 and 88 points whereas the Blogistas have scored 72, 70, 67, and 90. That's right, last week, Mark's team would've beat Ben by 2 points due to the phenomenal game turned in by Kerry Collins -- but those other scores indicate a win for the Pirates.

Each coach has a number of tough choices to make:

Mark - should he let Kerry Collins ride? Even though he's facing the Eagles secondary? Other choice are Brad Johnson with the bad back and Drew Brees going against the Seahawks.
-Tight End - Mark has Ken Dilger starting, yet TB seems to be platooning pretty him regularly with Ricky Dudley. I'd start Pollard and hope for a repeat performance.
-Defense - currently Mark has four possible defenses and he seems to be going with Indy -- not bad when you look at how Shaun King performed last week -- except King will not get any playing time. I might be inclined to go with the Ravens hoping that Maddox will give me a turnover TD.

Ben - has to decide between Derrius Thompson and Peerless Price -- yeah, there are other WR -- Gardner, but I think it comes down to these two. Who knows which Drew Bledsoe will show up? He's blown 2 of his last three, so who knows? On the plus side for Price is wanting a big sendoff for free agency. On the minus side is the weather.
- Defense - Oakland against the explosive Chiefs or the 'skins against the Cowboys? Ben is picking the 'skins at this point. In Oakland's favor is the fact that Priest isn't playing. On the other hand, the Raiders might have to use Lester Hayes or Willie Brown at corner. The Chiefs scored 48 against Miami and 49 against the Rams -- so this might be a good pick.
- Corey Dillon or Tiki Barber? Ben's going with Dillon -- I agree, just because I think that he's more likely to get TD(s) against Buffalo than Barber is against Philly.

Having said all this, I think Moss will destroy the Lions -- four TDs -- and when Sam Adams, of all people, scores a touchdown to lead the Raiders in a shutout of the Chiefs, Ben will regret fielding the 'skins D.

Update -- okay, I was half right about the Raiders Defense -- they pitched a shutout -- I don't know if Sam Adams even played. I do note that Ben still went with the 'skins D. Also, I see I should've gone with Charlie G -- I fielded Jerry Porter who gained less than 15 yards receiving -- zip. In the early game, Shockey came through for me -- not Akers. Also, the Philly D gave the Burghers about a dozen points, so with 3 of my players active today I figure I'm down by one already. That leaves my five against the results of seven.

Third Day of Christmas. Bob and Doug have a great version of "The 12 Days of Christmas" [Flash Version] which includes this little quiz at the beginning:

Bob: Here's a quiz. Quiz for Doug.
Doug: Okay, I have my thinking touque on.
Bob: Yeah, right. What are the twelve days of Christmas? Cause, figure it out, right. Christmas is when?
Doug: Uh, the 25th.
Bob: Right, and what's the 24th, Christmas Eve, right? So, that's two. And then, what's after that?
Doug: Um... Uh, Wrestling Day.
Bob: No. Get out.
Doug: Boxing Day, yeah, yeah.
Bob: That's three. Then what's after that? Nothing.
Doug: New Year's.
Bob: Four. And what's...
Doug: New Year's Eve.
Bob: Five. Where do you get twelve?
Doug: Uh... There's two Saturdays and Sundays in there, that's four. That's nine. And, three other days, which I believe are the mystery days.

Of course, as I've noted previously, the 12 days of Christmas are the season in the Church calendar which follows Advent and runs from December 25 through January 5, which is the day before the Epiphany, which is on January 6. In Latin America the 6th is known as el Día de los Tres Reyes or Three Kings Day and is a time for gift giving (in my attempted brevity, I'm skipping over the nine days of Posada - the processions which recreate Mary and Joseph's nine-day journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem and their attempts to find lodging -- yet, this should not be overlooked -- it's a wonderful tradition which I hope takes root in a multicultural USA).

Anyway, it seems to me if you want to get away from the "commercialism" of Christmas, a good way to do it would be to return to the Church calendar with Advent being a time of fasting and Christmas being a 12 day period of feasting and celebration, with gift giving done on el Día de los Tres Reyes. Plus, this is a good response to those hosers who note that Jesus wasn't born on December 25.

Currently Reading: [Corrected Version] I'm just finishing an audiobook of Black Sunday, which I probably read when it came out back around 1975 -- I know I saw the movie with Bruce Dern playing the role of the Wacko Vietnam Vet. Yet this book written so long ago gives all of us a good warning of the militant fanaticism of Islamic terrorism that has been at war with civilization since the 1960s. While some things are out of date, the ideas behind it are frighteningly fresh.

"Citizens of America," she said, "today the Palestinian freedom fighters have struck a great blow in the heart of your country. This horror was visited upon you by the merchants of death in your own land, who supply the butchers of Israel. Your leaders have been deaf to the cries of the homeless. Your leaders have ignored the ravages by the Jews in Palestine and have committed their own crimes in Southeast Asia. Guns, warplanes, and hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed from your country to the hands of warmongers while millions of your own people starve. The people will not be denied.

"Hear this, people of America. We want to be your brothers. It is you who must overthrow the filth that rules you. Henceforth, for every Arab that dies by an Israeli hand, an American will die by Arab hands. Every Moslem holy place, every Christian holy place destroyed by Jewish gangsters will be avenged with the destruction of a property in America. We hope this cruelty will go no further. The choice is yours. We hope never to begin another year with bloodshed and suffering. Salaam aleikum."

The second book I'm also finishing up is also frightening -- this one however looks at a scourge below the radar. The book is by Dr. Meg Meeker, a doctor practicing in pediatric and adolescent medicine. In Epidemic: How Teen Sex Is Killing Our Kids Dr. Meeker lays out the "epidemic" facing this country's teenagers. Please note that I do not place the word epidemic in scare quotes -- this is how the Centers for Disease Control characterized the problem during the Clinton years. See, for example, this press release dated December 5, 2000. Dr. Meeker's not only gives the statistics and sources for her contention, but gives the anecdotal testimony of real cases she has seen, which makes this a compelling book. It seems that Dr. Meeker trusted the condom and birth control medication in the past, but the inability of these two legs to keep the stool upright has caused her to be a convert to the simple truth of abstinence.

Update Friday's NY Times has a story linking changes to various webpages within the government to the politics of the Right:

As for the disease control centers' fact sheet on condoms, the old version focused on the advantages of using them, while the new version puts more emphasis on the risk that such use may not prevent sexually transmitted diseases, and on the advantages of abstinence. . .

Yet, according to a

letter to Secretary Thompson from House Democrats said that by alteration and deletion, the disease control agency "is now censoring the scientific information about condoms it makes available to the public" in order to suit abstinence-only advocates.

Based on what I'm reading in the Meeker book I think it is the House Democrats who are censoring scientific information about condoms and STDs

[End Update]


The third book, which I'm just starting, is The Punch by John Feinstein, an in-depth look at the fight between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Houston Rockets in December 1977 and the blow by Kermit Washington to Rudy Tomjanovich which nearly cost Rudy T. his life.

I remember the Punch vividly -- I was a big Laker fan back then -- and the videotape played pretty regularly on the TV back then. At that time, I lived in the D.C. area, where Kermit Washington was from and I can tell you that he was thought of very fondly here. In fact, it was almost unusual how fondly he was thought of when you compare him to others from this area who went on to become bigger stars, like Austin Carr, who was from the same time period. Part of that is because Washington went on to play for tiny American University and went from being a non-starter in his senior year of high-school to a college All-American. A larger part of it was that Washington was a decent person who shouldn't be thought of in terms of the punch he delivered.

Yes, the blow was horrifying and, as Feinstein notes, nearly killed Rudy T:

Once it became apparent to Tomjanovich that he wasn't going to get to Washington, he and Vandervoort proceeded to the locker room. Dr. Shields had already gone ahead and placed a call to the pager of Dr. Paul Toffel, a thirty-four-year-old who specialized in head trauma. Toffel was at a pre-Christmas fund-raiser for the University of Southern California Medical Center at a hotel not far from the arena. When he called Shields back, Shields told him there had been a fight during the game at the Forum. "I've got a guy here who appears to have a severely broken nose and other facial injuries," he said. Toffel told him he would meet the player in the emergency room at Centinela Hospital as soon as he could get there.

"Do me a favor and tell them to get started right away on X rays," he told Shields. "That way I can see what we're dealing with as soon as I arrive."

At that moment Tomjanovich was sitting on a training table, with no intention of going to a hospital. He had a game to finish. "If my nose is broken, hook me up with a mask," he told Vandervoort. Firmly, Vandervoort told him there would be no mask and no more basketball on this night.

"There's an ambulance outside," he said. "Ambulance?" Tomjanovich said. "What the hell is that about?"

A few minutes later he was in the ambulance. Then he was in the hospital and they were making X rays. He wondered what he must look like, because the looks he was getting from the people in the emergency room were not that different from what he had seen on the court from Jerry West. "And these were people who were used to seeing stuff," he said.

Dr. Toffel arrived a few minutes later, still in his tuxedo. When he was given the X rays, his eyes went wide. "Oh my God," Toffel said to the emergency room doctor who had given him the X rays. "This isn't a sinus injury. The posterior portion of his face is way out of alignment." (Translation: the top part of his skull was actually about an inch off line from the lower portion.)

"Who is this guy?" Toffel asked. "Rudy Tomjanovich. Plays for the Rockets." Toffel knew the name, knew Tomjanovich was a very good player.

Tomjanovich was wondering when he was going to get to call his wife back home in Houston when Toffel, now wearing scrubs over his tuxedo, walked in carrying X rays. He introduced himself, put a glove on one hand, and told Tomjanovich that he was going to see if he could move his upper jaw.

"It moved very easily," Toffel said later. "Which confirmed what the X rays had shown. I knew then this was a very serious situation."

Tomjanovich was still trying to figure out the quickest way to get out of the hospital. He asked Toffel if whatever he was going to do was going to take long and, more important, if he couldn't play any more basketball that night, how soon would he be back? The Rockets had a game in Phoenix the next night. Could he play there?

Toffel looked Tomjanovich in the eye. "No, Rudy, you can't play tomorrow," he said. "You aren't going to play basketball for a while. You aren't going to play any more this season."

Tomjanovich, whose eyes were already swelling shut, looked at Toffel as closely as he possibly could. Even though they were slits, his eyes told him that Toffel was completely serious. Any pain he was feeling disappeared, replaced by rage. "Not play this season?" he repeated. "Okay, look Doc, I know you gotta do what you gotta do, but give me an hour. I promise I'll come right back. I need to go back and find the guy who did this to me."

In Tomjanovich's mind at that moment, he was about to walk out of the emergency room, hail a cab, and go back to the Forum. Not play for the rest of the season? Now he really wanted to get Kermit Washington, regardless of the consequences. "I can't ever remember being angrier than I was at that moment," he said.

Toffel's face didn't change expression. His voice was very soft. "Rudy, let me ask you a question," he said. "Do you have any kind of funny taste in your mouth?"

Tomjanovich's eyes opened slightly. "Yeah, I do," he said. "It doesn't taste like blood either. It's very bitter. What is it?"

"Spinal fluid," Toffel said. "You're leaking spinal fluid from your brain. We're going to get you up to ICU in a few minutes and we're going to hope your brain capsule seals very soon. Do you know what the ICU is, Rudy?"

Tomjanovich nodded. He knew what ICU stood for: intensive care unit. The rage was gone. It had been replaced by fear.

[This excerpt is taken from the first chapter, which is available online here.]

Like I said, I'm in the early stages of reading this one. However, since I've included a snapshot of the Punch, there's another photograph that also should receive wide circulation -- in fact, I hope that Feinstein can include it in the paperback. This was from USA Today. I can't deep link it -- go here to see it.

The Feast of Stephen is today, December 26.

Yesterday we celebrated the temporal birth of our Eternal King; today we celebrate the triumphant passion of His soldier. For yesterday our King, clothed in the garb of our flesh and coming from the palace of the virginal womb, deigned to visit the world; today the soldier, leaving the tent of the body, has gone to heaven in triumph. The one, while preserving the majesty of the everlasting God, putting on the servile girdle of flesh, entered into the field of this world ready for the fray. The other, laying aside the perishable garment of the body, ascended to the palace of heaven to reign eternally. The One descended, veiled in flesh; the other ascended, crowned with blood.
The latter ascended while the Jews were stoning him because the former descended while the angels were rejoicing. 'Glory to God in the highest,' sang the exulting angels yesterday; today rejoicing, they received Stephen into their company. Yesterday the Lord came forth from the womb of the Virgin; today the soldier of Christ has passed from the prison of the flesh.
Yesterday Christ was wrapped in swathing bands for our sake; today Stephen is clothed by Him in the robe of immortality. Yesterday the narrow confines of the crib held the Infant Christ; today the immensity of heaven has received the triumphant Stephen. The Lord descended alone that He might raise up many; our King has humbled Himself that He might exalt His soldiers. It is necessary for us, nevertheless, brethren, to acknowledge with what arms Stephen was girded and able to overcome . . . that thus he merited so happily to triumph.
Stephen, therefore, that he might merit to obtain the crown his name signifies, had as his weapon charity, and by means of that he was completely victorious. Because of love for God, he did not flee . . . because of his love of neighbor he interceded for those stoning him. Because of love he convinced the erring of their errors, that they might be corrected; because of love, he prayed for those stoning him that they might not be punished. Supported by the strength of charity, he overcame Saul, who was so cruelly raging against him; and him whom he had as a persecutor on earth, he deserved to have as a companion in heaven.

St. Fulgentius, Third Sermon on St. Stephen.

And, of course, from the carol "Good King Wenceslas"

Good King Wenceslas looked out,
On the Feast of Stephen . . .

* * *

Therefore, Christian men, be sure,
Wealth or rank possessing,
Ye who now will bless the poor,
Shall yourselves find blessing.

BTW, Wencelas is a Latinized version of Vaclav.

Merry Christmas! This jolly fat man is feeling pretty cranky right now -- all my elves abandoned me and I'm left with all the Santa duties . . .

Ah well, my oldest daughter had a nice Christmas post on her blog earlier today (even though I was hurrying her along)-- that's what I need to concentrate on.

Cover Watch. Time has the "Person of the Year" which is always it's big issue. Who is it? A mild surprise -- see below. If I were picking up one magazine, it'd be Newsweek with its cover story of the Matrix -- I loved that movie and I confess that I had to start reading the cover story -- the movie sounds good.

Time magazine declares the Persons of the Year are the whistleblowers -- in the FBI, Enron, and Worldcom. This leaves me with mixed feelings -- I like the recognition of the whistleblower -- it's important -- but who really is a whistleblower? And why are these particular women lauded, when prior whistleblowers like Jean Lewis, Notra Trulock, and, yes, even Linda Tripp pilloried?

Into the Void. Stepping into the void left by Trent Lott [actually, Cynthia McKinney] is Senator Patty Murray:

We've got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world? Why are people so supportive of him in many countries … that are riddled with poverty? He's been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that.

Really? Well then what did the $275,000,000 spent on the Peace Corps go for? Or the budget request of $8,477,724,000 (yes, 8.4 billion) by that niggardly George W. Bush for USAID?

Senator Murray sits on both the Budget and the Appropriations Committees.

Christmas Movies. Last weekend, my kids and I all watched the greatest Christmas movie ever -- It's a Wonderful Life. I always revel in pointing out that's what mommy's job was -- shutting down S&L's (when she was with FSLIC). Yet, I haven't seen the second greatest Christmas movie ever -- Die Hard. I'm not sure when or if I'll be able to watch this -- of course the language complicates viewing...

Yeah, Die Hard -- it's full of Christmas references, some blatant -- Sgt. Al Powell singing "Let it snow" to the subtle (what was the name of Alan Rickman's character? Hans Gruber -- a play on Franz Gruber?). Like It's a Wonderful Life, it too ends with reconciliation and recognition of the importance of the husband/wife.

So what other Christmas movies are there? My Father's Favorite is A Christmas Story -- my son is asking for a pop gun and we all tell him "You'll shoot your eye out." My sister likes Miracle on 34th Street, the original.

Others are White Christmas, the Santa Clause, various versions of Scrooge/Christmas Carol, and The Bishop's Wife. Any more suggestions?

Two Towers. As you may have noticed, I'm pleased to have opened the Blithering Idiot to my daughter, Joy, age 13. I think I have to disagree with her slightly on this movie. (I too will try to avoid spoilers here.) Like Charlie Parks, I was probably most disappointed by the total failure to mention the Ent wives -- such a sublimely romantic part of the books could've been mentioned at least in passing. (Parks also highlighted: "One scene shows Legolas swinging onto the back of Gimli's horse (!) that is beautifully executed." This received the loudest applause from the sold-out crowd.)

Where I think Joy and I disagree is on the need to read the book before seeing the movie. I think I was a little confused because I kept trying to remember whether thus-and-such was in the book. I think the movie is faithful to the book, but it's more like a paraphrase than a translation -- there is much that is missing and a few things (one pretty significant) that aren't in the book.

I may have liked the first movie more, but then I didn't like the first movie as much until I saw it for the second time, when I could enjoy it as a movie and forget about the book (so the same complaint).

Also, I didn't think there was more of Frodo -- if anything, I thought Aragorn seemed to be more featured.


There was a lot of action and, yes, violence in the movie. There was a battle fought in the rain (homage to Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai? Perhaps, perhaps not -- the Two Towers rain was more gentle). I think something that disturbed me in watching the movie was seeing a scene of extreme violence and hearing laughter around me -- even if it was Uruk-Hai being squashed like bugs by a ladder, it still bothered me. Violence may be necessary at times, but it isn't enjoyable or fun -- and I didn't think Jackson made it funny.

Maybe I'm being too picky.

I enjoyed the scenes of the restoration of Theoden, although prior to this I actually dozed off at one point. (Those chairs were so comforable and the discussions were predictible and it felt good to close my eyes...)

PapaBlog noted how apropos the messages about defending civilization and not shirking a war thrust on you are. At first I thought "the antiwar people are going to hate this." But soon I realized they will just see Dubya as Saruman, despoiler of ancient forests for the sake of a vast war machine (the vast army of Uruk-Hai warriors) -- if they haven't made this assertion yet, it won't be long.

Update: Ben also missed the Entwives -- that makes three of us. Maybe this is an Augustinian thing?

Mr. Blue Sky. I was never a fan of ELO -- but I love the new VW commercial brought to you by these folks. Mr. Blue Sky was a pretty good homage to the Beatles; the commercial is a great tribute to "A Hard Day's Night."

Ghostwriter? The other day Ben drafted a speech Trent Lott could've given and included this:

I grew up here in Pascagoula. My father was a shipyard worker here...(fifth paragraph)

According to the WaPo, in an interview with ABC yesterday, Lott said:

"I am the son of a shipyard worker from Pascagoula, Mississippi."

Maybe Trent's staff reads Ben?

Power Rankings The Bengals are still unanimous.

	No.	Team	Avg.	Hi	Lo
	1	Eagles	1.29	1	2
	2	Bucs	1.86	1	3
	3	Packers	3.57	3	5
	4	Raiders	4	2	5
	5	Dolphins	4.29	4	5
	6	Falcons	8.71	6	11
	7	Saints	8.71	6	15
	8	Titans	8.71	6	14
	9	Colts	9.29	7	12
	10	49ers	9.43	7	12
	11	Broncos	11	7	14
	12	Steelers	11.71	9	16
	13	Patriots	11.86	9	16
	14	Chiefs	13.86	10	17
	15	Chargers	14.14	12	19
	16	Jets	14.71	7	18
	17	Giants	16.29	15	19
	18	Bills	17.71	16	20
	19	Browns	20	18	23
	20	Ravens	20	18	22
	21	Rams	22.14	20	27
	22	Jaguars	22.57	21	25
	23	Seahawks__	23.43	20__	28
	24	Redskins	24	21	26
	25	Vikings	24.14	28	30
	26	Cowboys	25.29	23	29
	27	Panthers	26.71	25	29
	28	Cardinals	27.86	25	31
	29	Bears	28.14	27	29
	30	Texans	29.14	25	31
	31	Lions	30.71__	30	31
	32__	Bengals	32	32	32

Sources: ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, War Room, CBS, Sagarin (USA Today), Sports Central,
and the AP.

The reason I like Sports Central, a fan site, is because of insights like this one:

This is 1984 all over again. That year, Dan Marino shattered nearly every single-season passing record, Eric Dickerson set a new mark for rushing yards in a season, and Art Monk demolished the old receptions record. This year, Gannon may pass Marino's mark for passing yards, Holmes is having the best statistical season ever by a running back, and Harrison has already broken the existing record for receptions in a season.

Go? Look, I just think Lott should step down as SML -- I don't think he should resign. If we're going to be throwing stones, in addition to Lott leaving we need to say buh-bye to Robert KKK Byrd and Teddy "when I returned Mary Jo and the caah were gone" (Killer) Kennedy. And that's just for starters. McCain and his Hillary-Reno-Chelsea joke? -- gone. Well, you get the idea.

Power Rankings. As of noon today, a couple of these hadn't been updated -- check back tonight or tomorrow. Sneak preview, Eagles, Bucs, Pack. Dolphins a solid number 4. Bengals at 32.

Sources: ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, War Room, CBS, Sagarin (USA Today), Sports Central,
and the AP.

Football I'm officially out of the playoffs -- here's what Sporting News had to say about Drew Bledsoe

Bledsoe is second in the league in passing yards, so he should have had a field day against the Chargers, No. 31 in the NFL in passing yards allowed. Instead, Bledsoe waited until the fantasy playoffs to have his worst game of the year. He was 11-for-33 for 107 yards and no scores. Fantasy Spin: It probably doesn't matter whether Bledsoe's matchup against Green Bay in Week 16 is a good one or not. Most of his owners probably got knocked out of the playoffs because of today's lame performance, so they don't have to worry about next week's lineup.

There's still the loser bowl playoffs -- I guess the best I can hope for now is fifth place. I'll probably drop Bledsoe out of spite (like he'll notice).

My Raiders, despite a ragtag secondary, kept pace with Miami last week -- I think the core of the secondary should be healthy and back in time for the playoffs -- if we can hold on. This week's game against the Bronco's is the key; if we win, we'll take the Division. All of our losses are attributable to the secondary -- our four-game slide occurred when Charles Woodson and Phillip Buchanon both went out with injuries. Woodson should be back this week and Buchanon (broken wrist) might make it back for the playoffs.

Power Rankings later today.

Last -- Dick Heller looks at the so-called "Immaculate Reception." What he fails to note is that on the last play of the game the Raiders completed a long pass to Fred Biletnikoff. Also, there's no mention of the clip by Steelers tight end John McMakin on Raider linebacker Phil Villipiano. Still, it may have been one of the greatest, most physical games in pro football history. The aftermath -- an exhausted depleted Steeler team faced Miami in the championship game, which they lost. I contend that had either the Steelers or the Raiders played Miami on December 23, 1972, Miami would've lost that one. More coverage here.

Judging. Dalia Lithwick has a thoughtful essay about the personal aspects of judging in this morning's NY Times. I've never been a big Lithwick fan, but in this she eschews her normal breezy style to reflect on judging and "personal truths."

Where she misses is classifying Justice Thomas' point an "emotional outburst." In her Slate commentary last week on the oral arguments she already noted the giddiness of the proceedings, with the Chief Justice away recovering from surgery. In fact she used the analogy of students in a classroom with a substitute teacher. Accordingly, Justice Thomas' comments seem to be nothing more than a return to sobriety -- the principal walking in on the class. (Similarly, I disagree with her observation: "what Justice Thomas did is unforgivable; by hijacking the argument into the murk of personal experience, he did violence to the disinterested, lucid distance necessary for justice to be achieved.")

The subject is an intriguing one -- Lithwick's Dowdian contempt for Clarence Thomas defeats her attempt to look at the subject however. My own favorite essay is by Justice Frankfurter written about a flag-salute that can only be described today as Nazi-like in the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). His dissent:

One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Were my purely personal attitude relevant, I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the general libertarian views in the Court's opinion, representing, as they do, the thought and [p*647] action of a lifetime. But, as judges, we are neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Catholic nor agnostic. We owe equal attachment to the Constitution, and are equally bound by our judicial obligations whether we derive our citizenship from the earliest or the latest immigrants to these shores. As a member of this Court, I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution, no matter how deeply I may cherish them or how mischievous I may deem their disregard. The duty of a judge who must decide which of two claims before the Court shall prevail, that of a State to enact and enforce laws within its general competence or that of an individual to refuse obedience because of the demands of his conscience, is not that of the ordinary person. It can never be emphasized too much that one's own opinion about the wisdom or evil of a law should be excluded altogether when one is doing one's duty on the bench. The only opinion of our own even looking in that direction that is material is our opinion whether legislators could, in reason, have enacted such a law. In the light of all the circumstances, including the history of this question in this Court, it would require more daring than I possess to deny that reasonable legislators could have taken the action which is before us for review. Most unwillingly, therefore, I must differ from my brethren with regard to legislation like this. I cannot bring my mind to believe that the "liberty" secured by the Due Process Clause gives this Court authority to deny to the State of West Virginia the attainment of that which we all recognize as a legitimate legislative end, namely, the promotion of good citizenship, by employment of the means here chosen.

Not so long ago, we were admonished that

the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books, appeal lies not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government. [p*648]

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 , 79 (dissent). We have been told that generalities do not decide concrete cases. But the intensity with which a general principle is held may determine a particular issue, and whether we put first things first may decide a specific controversy.

The admonition that judicial self-restraint alone limits arbitrary exercise of our authority is relevant every time we are asked to nullify legislation. The Constitution does not give us greater veto power when dealing with one phase of "liberty" than with another, or when dealing with grade school regulations than with college regulations that offend conscience, as was the case in Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245. In neither situation is our function comparable to that of a legislature, or are we free to act as though we were a super-legislature. Judicial self-restraint is equally necessary whenever an exercise of political or legislative power is challenged. There is no warrant in the constitutional basis of this Court's authority for attributing different roles to it depending upon the nature of the challenge to the legislation. Our power does not vary according to the particular provision of the Bill of Rights which is invoked. The right not to have property taken without just compensation has, so far as the scope of judicial power is concerned, the same constitutional dignity as the right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the latter has no less claim than freedom of the press or freedom of speech or religious freedom. In no instance is this Court the primary protector of the particular liberty that is invoked. This Court has recognized what hardly could be denied, that all the provisions of the first ten Amendments are "specific" prohibitions, United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 , 152 , n. 4. But each specific Amendment, insofar as embraced within the Fourteenth Amendment, must be equally respected, and the function of this [p*649] Court does not differ in passing on the constitutionality of legislation challenged under different Amendments.

When Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for this Court, wrote that

it must be remembered that legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberties and welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts,

Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267, 270, he went to the very essence of our constitutional system and the democratic conception of our society. He did not mean that for only some phases of civil government this Court was not to supplant legislatures and sit in judgment upon the right or wrong of a challenged measure. He was stating the comprehensive judicial duty and role of this Court in our constitutional scheme whenever legislation is sought to be nullified on any ground, namely, that responsibility for legislation lies with legislatures, answerable as they are directly to the people, and this Court's only and very narrow function is to determine whether, within the broad grant of authority vested in legislatures, they have exercised a judgment for which reasonable justification can be offered.

The framers of the federal Constitution might have chosen to assign an active share in the process of legislation to this Court. They had before them the well known example of New York's Council of Revision, which had been functioning since 1777. After stating that "laws inconsistent with the spirit of this constitution, or with the public good, may be hastily and unadvisedly passed," the state constitution made the judges of New York part of the legislative process by providing that "all bills which have passed the senate and assembly shall, before they become laws," be presented to a Council, of which the judges constituted a majority, "for their revisal and consideration." Art. III, New York Constitution of 1777. Judges exercised this legislative function in New York [p*650] for nearly fifty years. See Art. I, § 12, New York Constitution of 1821. But the framers of the Constitution denied such legislative powers to the federal judiciary. They chose instead to insulate the judiciary from the legislative function. They did not grant to this Court supervision over legislation.

The reason why, from the beginning, even the narrow judicial authority to nullify legislation has been viewed with a jealous eye is that it serves to prevent the full play of the democratic process. The fact that it may be an undemocratic aspect of our scheme of government does not call for its rejection or its disuse. But it is the best of reasons, as this Court has frequently recognized, for the greatest caution in its use.

The precise scope of the question before us defines the limits of the constitutional power that is in issue. The State of West Virginia requires all pupils to share in the salute to the flag as part of school training in citizenship. The present action is one to enjoin the enforcement of this requirement by those in school attendance. We have not before us any attempt by the State to punish disobedient children or visit penal consequences on their parents. All that is in question is the right of the State to compel participation in this exercise by those who choose to attend the public schools.

We are not reviewing merely the action of a local school board. The flag salute requirement in this case comes before us with the full authority of the State of West Virginia. We are, in fact, passing judgment on "the power of the State as a whole." Rippey v. Texas, 193 U.S. 504, 509; Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 79. Practically, we are passing upon the political power of each of the forty-eight states. Moreover, since the First Amendment has been read into the Fourteenth, our problem is precisely the same as it would be if we had before us an Act of Congress for the District of Columbia. To suggest that we are here concerned [p*651] with the heedless action of some village tyrants is to distort the augustness of the constitutional issue and the reach of the consequences of our decision.

Under our constitutional system, the legislature is charged solely with civil concerns of society. If the avowed or intrinsic legislative purpose is either to promote or to discourage some religious community or creed, it is clearly within the constitutional restrictions imposed on legislatures, and cannot stand. But it by no means follows that legislative power is wanting whenever a general nondiscriminatory civil regulation, in fact, touches conscientious scruples or religious beliefs of an individual or a group. Regard for such scruples or beliefs undoubtedly presents one of the most reasonable claims for the exertion of legislative accommodation. It is, of course, beyond our power to rewrite the State's requirement by providing exemptions for those who do not wish to participate in the flag salute or by making some other accommodations to meet their scruples. That wisdom might suggest the making of such accommodations, and that school administration would not find it too difficult to make them, and yet maintain the ceremony for those not refusing to conform, is outside our province to suggest. Tact, respect, and generosity toward variant views will always commend themselves to those charged with the duties of legislation so as to achieve a maximum of good will and to require a minimum of unwilling submission to a general law. But the real question is, who is to make such accommodations, the courts or the legislature?

This is no dry, technical matter. It cuts deep into one's conception of the democratic process -- it concerns no less the practical differences between the means for making these accommodations that are open to courts and to legislatures. A court can only strike down. It can only say "This or that law is void." It cannot modify or qualify, it cannot make exceptions to a general requirement. [p*652] And it strikes down not merely for a day. At least the finding of unconstitutionality ought not to have ephemeral significance unless the Constitution is to be reduced to the fugitive importance of mere legislation. When we are dealing with the Constitution of the United States, and, more particularly, with the great safeguards of the Bill of Rights, we are dealing with principles of liberty and justice "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental" -- something without which "a fair and enlightened system of justice would be impossible." Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 , 325 ; Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 530 , 531 . If the function of this Court is to be essentially no different from that of a legislature, if the considerations governing constitutional construction are to be substantially those that underlie legislation, then indeed judges should not have life tenure, and they should be made directly responsible to the electorate. There have been many, but unsuccessful, proposals in the last sixty years to amend the Constitution to that end. See Sen.Doc. No. 91, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 248-251.

Conscientious scruples, all would admit, cannot stand against every legislative compulsion to do positive acts in conflict with such scruples. We have been told that such compulsions override religious scruples only as to major concerns of the state. But the determination of what is major and what is minor itself raises questions of policy. For the way in which men equally guided by reason appraise importance goes to the very heart of policy. Judges should be very diffident in setting their judgment against that of a state in determining what is, and what is not, a major concern, what means are appropriate to proper ends, and what is the total social cost in striking the balance of imponderables.

What one can say with assurance is that the history out of which grew constitutional provisions for religious equality [p*653] and the writings of the great exponents of religious freedom -- Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin -- are totally wanting in justification for a claim by dissidents of exceptional immunity from civic measures of general applicability, measures not, in fact, disguised assaults upon such dissident views. The great leaders of the American Revolution were determined to remove political support from every religious establishment. They put on an equality the different religious sects -- Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Huguenots -- which, as dissenters, had been under the heel of the various orthodoxies that prevailed in different colonies. So far as the state was concerned, there was to be neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy. And so Jefferson and those who followed him wrote guaranties of religious freedom into our constitutions. Religious minorities, as well as religious majorities, were to be equal in the eyes of the political state. But Jefferson and the others also knew that minorities may disrupt society. It never would have occurred to them to write into the Constitution the subordination of the general civil authority of the state to sectarian scruples.

The constitutional protection of religious freedom terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges. It gave religious equality, not civil immunity. Its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma. Religious loyalties may be exercised without hindrance from the state, not the state may not exercise that which, except by leave of religious loyalties, is within the domain of temporal power. Otherwise, each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws.

The prohibition against any religious establishment by the government placed denominations on an equal footing [p*654] -- it assured freedom from support by the government to any mode of worship and the freedom of individuals to support any mode of worship. Any person may therefore believe or disbelieve what he pleases. He may practice what he will in his own house of worship or publicly within the limits of public order. But the lawmaking authority is not circumscribed by the variety of religious beliefs -- otherwise, the constitutional guaranty would be not a protection of the free exercise of religion, but a denial of the exercise of legislation.

More Cross Burning. I work with an attorney who, while a young girl in the 1970s, had a cross burned on her front lawn. She said she didn't understand what was happening at the time, but as you can imagine, her parents were pretty frightened.

As a side note to the story -- her father later ended up representing the man who burned the cross. The man begged forgiveness which was granted. Since this is not my story, I'm being somewhat vague, so as to not violate someone's privacy.

Sister Kathy. The other day we celebrated my number one sister's birthday and it got me thinking about the day we lost her with the garbage. That was back when I was about 5 and she must have been 3. We lived in Tsoying, on the outskirst of Kaohsiung, China. We were actually pretty fortunate in that we had indoor plumbing and our sewage did not flow into the binjo ditch. Moreover, we had trash pick up -- a man came by with his water buffalo and picked up the trash. Well, one day he took my little sister -- at that time, my only sister -- for a ride. Panic ensued, but in the end, she was fine.

I'm not sure why I write about this -- maybe it's just the juxtaposition between lives -- my childhood with these things (we boiled all our drinking water, for example) and my kids.

Sheesh, I am getting old.

Tomorrow, I'll tell you about the adventure on the roof of the Ambassador Hotel or describe the wonderful aroma of the Love River (where do you think all those binjo ditches flowed to?).

Hotchpot. Congratulations to Mark Byron and his Florida Blogistas for their overwhelming victory over my Idiots in the first round of yesterday's Blogger Bowl 2K3 playoffs. My team, the aptly named Idiots, was representing the small township of Asylum, Pennsylvania, we are sorry to have let the town down but we appreciated all the fans who met us at the airstrip last night. We appreciated those who left their pitchforks at home.

To those Republicans down about things after the Louisiana race and Trent Lott -- things look brighter in Hawai'i: Linda Lingle may restore a second party in that state (plus actually doing good things for the state). Here's local columnist David Shapiro on how.

A good note about how the Clintonistas still running federal agencies (they are in total control of mine, for example -- no nominations over 2 years after the election) are blocking freedom and progress.

Here's an interesting note about a suppressed Disney flick -- the Small One -- a story about the donkey that brought the Holy Family to Bethlehem.

And I'll end with football -- the Redskins looked great for the first play and a half... and what was the deal with that punt block -- that guy was in there fast enough to pick the ball out of mid-air -- how in the world did he miss getting any part of the ball and still manage to rough the kicker?