There Goes the Greatest Hitter who ever lived. Ted Williams died today.
More on the greatest hitter.




Still more by Thomas Boswell.




More comments from others.








Still More. My father (Col. USMC-ret.) reminds me that Ted Williams was a Marine: "I'm a U.S. Marine, and I'll be one 'til I die." He served in the Marines as a "Flying Leatherneck" for 5 years during WWII and Korea; certainly giving up his shot at 600+ home runs for a career.

Independence Day. I'll take a day or two off for this one. See you this weekend.

[enjoy hated owner's birthday -- George Steinbrenner and Al Davis were both born on the 4th.]

905 John Entwistle's death last week got me looking at some of his old songs again. This one, 905 from the album "Who Are You?" strikes me as very current:

Mother was an incubator
Father was the contents
Of a test tube in the ice box
In the factory of birth

My name is 905,
And I've just become alive
I'm the newest populator
Of the planet we call Earth

In suspended animation
My childhood passed me by
If I speak without emotion
Then you know the reason why

Knowledge of the universe
Was fed into my mind
As my adolescent body
Left its puberty behind

And everything I know is what I need to know
And everything I do's been done before
Every sentence in my head
Someone else has said
At each end of my life is an open door

Automatically defrosted
When manhood came on time
I became a man
I left the "ice school" behind

Now I'm to begin
The life that I'm assigned
A life that's been used before
A thousand times

I have a feeling deep inside
That somethin' is missing
It's a feeling in my soul
And I can't help wishing

That one day I'll discover
That we're living a lie
And I'll tell the whole world
The reason why

Well, until then, everything I know is what I need to know
And everything I do's been done before
Every sentence in my head
Someone else has said
At each end of my life is an open door

Blame the child. The Domenecher has a note up referring to his brother and an ABC news article on Grand Theft Auto III. The ABC article is critical (although does present a counter assertion) of the violence and the "realism" in GTA-3. Ellis Domenech disagrees: "though these video games may seem real they are still just games and all you are really killing is a line of zeros and ones." And brother Ben echos: "If a child can't make a distinction between what they see in media -- video games, movies, and on TV -- and what they do in real life, it's a problem with the child, not the media. Life, after all, has no reset button."

I disagree. I would present my case here, but it has been done much better than I ever could by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his article in Christianity Today or here at his website. Grossman notes that killing does not come naturally and the military conditions it's soldiers to learn to kill other humans.

How the military increases the killing rate of soldiers in combat is instructive, because our culture today is doing the same thing to our children. The training methods militaries use are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. I will explain these in the military context and show how these same factors are contributing to the phenomenal increase of violence in our culture.

He discusses each item primarily with respect to television and movies; however, with the third method, operant conditioning, he pretty clearly demonstrates the media, in this case, violent video games, does condition the child.

Therefore, I'm in disagreement with the Domenech brothers -- after all, life has no reset button.

Hot Dawg! It's summer -- temperatures touched 100 yesterday in my neighborhood and July 4th a day away, what could be more American than the Hot Dog? Not Mom or Apple Pie. See this article by Paul Lukas in the NY Times mentions his favorite 'dog joints. My own favorite place for enjoying a hot dog is at the ball park -- and my personal favorite is the Fenway Frank (although see this dissenting opinion) smothered in Guldens mustard. A close second is the foot long Dodger Dog. The hot dog I had the Sunday before last in Cincinnati (while enjoying a victory by my beloved Athletics over the Reds) was excellent. The dogs in San Diego and Louisville were pretty good. And, to show you I'm no homer, the dogs served up in the Oakland-Alameda County Stadium are to be avoided.

More on the Pledge ruling. Newsweek has a cover story on the Pledge ruling -- issued so smartly the week before our Independence Day reflections on the unalienable rights we are granted by our Creator.

Stuart Taylor notes the source of this shoddy opinion: ". . . the Supreme Court’s tendency to seed its own rulings with loose rhetoric has certainly tempted adventurous lower-court judges to issue decisions that infuriate most Americans." He further comments: "If judges hope to stop a popular wartime president from robbing them of their power, they’ll need to win the support of the Congress, and the public. Attacking the Pledge of Allegiance probably wasn’t the best way to start."

George Will touches on the controversey noting that while we may not be one nation, under God, we are ". . .one nation under judges."

Next, while not in Newsweek, you should read the important insights that Howard J. Bashman has on this ruling.

Last, modified for the day, here is the conclusion of the Declaration of Independence:

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Alfred T. Goodwin, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our secular honor.

I'm back. Sorry about the long absence -- I thought I would be able to get on-line again last Thursday or Friday. I was in Northern Kentucky for work last week and then went to Texas for my wife's family reunion. My wife took all four kids with her from Dulles early in the morning to fly to Austin, with the eventual destination being the Dixie Dude Ranch, where the reunion was held. Unfortunately, the weather was not with her so she and the kids baked for many hours on the runway at Dulles before returning to the terminal. After my last note on Lavenski Smith, she gave me a call and filled me in. Since I was in a hotel with one phone line and a dial-up modem, I kept the phone free for updates from her. Late in the evening, she and the kids got on a flight to Chicago with the slim possibility of a flight to San Antonio, where her father was staying, and she told me that if she didn't call, it probably meant she managed to get on the flight. When she didn't call by midnight, EDT, I assumed that she was on her way to SA. What it meant, however, was just more delays. She called me about 1:00 am and said that she finally reached Chicago but that there were no connecting flights until the morning. On our earlier calls, we had discussed where to sleep in Chicago at the last minute and I had called her brother (who flies for United, based in Chicago). Well, to cut a long story short, she decided that she and the kids would sleep on the cots offered by the airline (with at least 300 other stranded passengers). So that is where this saint spent the night.

I flew out on Friday morning, also encountering weather delays and re-routing, and we finally met up in Austin at around 2 that afternoon.

Anyway, we had a wonderful time at the family reunion and got back at 1 yesterday.

Unfinished Business. Pat Leahy's Judiciary committee has finally sent the nomination of Arkansas lawyer Lavenski Smith to the full Senate. Let's get off your butt, Pat and start looking at some of these other nominees.

Here's my prior comment about Lavenski Smith, the man from Hope.

Boris the Spider. John Entwistle died today in Las Vegas. Good bye, Ox.

Victory. I imagine everyone stoping here has heard the good news that the majority of the Supreme Court recognized school choice in constitutional. Here is a good link to the various opinions in both HTML and .pdf. I note that in .pdf format all the opinions run nearly 100 pages. In other cases the Court approved random drug tests for many public high school students (Breyer and Kennedy in the majority, O'Connor dissenting), declared a gag rule on judicial candidates to be unconstitutional, and determined that chaining a prisoner to a post for seven hours in the sun is cruel and unusual punishment.

I'll read these opinions and offer comments later, if I have anything to say.

RIP I just received a note saying that the former Dean of my law school (and my Labor Law Professor) passed away recently. He was a grand man. He loved God and his family. May he rest in peace.

Dishonest Judges Don't miss this note in Instapundit regarding historical falsification by David Souter in his opinion in Atwater v. Lago Vista. The referenced article is here in .pdf format.

This is not unusual. I recall prior Supreme Court opinions that severely twisted and manipulated history to suit the Justices preferences. Nevertheless, it's nice to see someone taking on the Justices.

On the cusp. It's the evening before the Zelman decision (whether providing vouchers to parents, which may be used for religious schools) is announced (actually, it could be held over for a decision next term) -- this case, more than any other could be the main case of the October 2001 Supreme Court term. By holding on to it until the last day, the Court clearly shows that this has been the subject of intense internal debate -- far from the unanimous opinion that I once predicted.

What I am very concerned about is that the Court will confuse a policy decision from a constitutional decision. In discussions with people regarding this case in the past few weeks they have all indicated in some fashionthat they hope the Court strikes down the case because it will kill the public schools. In the Zorach case I quoted below, Justice Douglas also wrote: "This program may be unwise and improvident from an educational or a community viewpoint. That appeal is made to us on a theory, previously advanced, that each case must be decided on the basis of 'our own prepossessions.' . . . Our individual preferences, however, are not the constitutional standard. The constitutional standard is the separation of Church and State." He concluded by saying "we cannot expand [our jurisprudence to strike down] the present released time program unless separation of Church and State means that public institutions can make no adjustments of their schedules to accommodate the religious needs of the people. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion."

Yes, there may be valid reasons for voting against a voucher system like the one used in Cleveland, however, the Court are not council members or legislators -- the only issue before them is whether the use of government vouchers by parents to provide and education for their children is an unconstitutional establishment of religion. I am strongly convinced it is not. A decision to the countrary would be as illegitimate as the 9th Circuit striking down the amendments to the pledge of allegiance.

Pledging Allegiance. Two judges on the 9th Circuit Court, one, an elderly Nixon appointee, one, a Carter appointee (and the bete noir of the conservatives) today determined that the 1954 amendment, which held the words "under God" to the national Pledge of Allegiance to be an unconstitutional Establishment of Religion.

There were four parts to this decision, the first three were not surprising or controversial. In part A, the Court rejected Newdow's (the litigant) request to compel the President and Congress to amend the Pledge of Allegiance to strike the words "under God" from the Pledge. In part B, the Court said that it would not address Newdow's request to strike down the California Statute mandating in the Pledge in the schools, because the state of California was not a party. In part C, the court said that Newdow, as a parent of a child in a particular school district had standing to challenge that district's policy. It further said that he did not have standing to challege a policy of a different school district where his child was not a current student.

In Part D of the 9th Circuit determined that "in the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation 'under God' is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism." After a review of the Supreme Court's recent Establishment clause jurisprudence, the two judges on the 9th circuit held that "the 1954 Act adding the words 'under God' to the Pledge . . . violate[s] the Establishment Clause."

To refresh everyone's recollection, the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." A review of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence of the past 20 years or so shows that it has built an edifice of case law that is so far askew of the plumb line of the establishment clause that it was bound to collapse, and this could bring it down. A review of the 9th Circuit decision shows that it has been built on those great errors. Specifically, in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), the Court struck down an Alabama statute that authorized a one-minute period of silence in public schools "for meditation or voluntary prayer." In Lee v. Weisman, 505 the Court banned a non-sectarian invocation offered at a high school graduation 505 U.S. 577 (1992). Finally, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the court prohibited student initiated and led prayer before an extra-curricular school event. Each of these interpretations is a clear departure from the touchstone of the constitution.

This is not an establishment of religion. It is time for the Court to strip down the crust that has built up over the past twenty years and get back to first principles. The first question that should be asked is whether the action of Congress or the state has the effect of establishing a religion. Does this create an institution like the established church in England? If not, that doesn't necessarily mean the legislature can, say, require students to recite the Pledge. That issue was effectively addressed by the Supreme Court in the Barnette 319 U.S. 624 case (overruling the earlier Gobitis decision) in which the Court stated:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." at 642.

Back in 1952, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Supreme Court observed:

The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals [p*313] to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: "God save the United States and this Honorable Court."

Zorach v. Clauson 343 U.S. 306 (1952) In that case, Justice Douglas went on to write:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction.

Justice Douglas is widely perceived as a judicial liberal -- I recall attending a lecture by Notre Dame Law Professor where he referred to him as William ZERO Douglas -- yet, his liberalism could be (and generally was) grounded in the constitution (he was very wrong in his Yoder dissent). I would like to see today's judicial liberals return to that type of constitutional fidelity.

For further research: The judge who wrote the majority opinion, also was on the committee that issued this church report.

Judicial Idiots. I was going to talk about Zelman tonight, and I probably still will, but before I do, I'm going to sit down and read the 9th Circuit opinion declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. I'll have some comments later.

I'm looking forward to seeing whether the 2 judges on the 9th Circuit cite Red Skelton as an authority?

Cover Watch It's the end of the world! So naturally Time magazine takes the cover watch this week. I mean Martha Stewart for Newsweek? Martha Stewart v. the Apocalypse? No contest.

I haven't read the story yet which looks at the Tim LaHaye - Jerry Jenkins books, but I've listed to about 4.5 of these books (I'm half way through Apollon now), but I'll tell you these books are such drivel. As I indicated I've been listening to them on books on CD and I find that whenever there's a defect in a track, I can skip to the next track and not miss a thing. If you want to read a good book on the apocalypse, look for Father Elijah by Michael O'Brien. (I'll paste a link later)

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

Day. Okay, that's it -- almost nine, time to go home. Who sez guv'mint workers slack off?

A Horse is a Horse, Of Course.

Regina v. Ojibway
(1965) 8 Crim.L.Q. 137-139 (Canada)

Blue, J.: - This is an appeal by the Crown by way of a stated case from a decision of the magistrate acquitting the accused of a charge under the Small Birds Act, R.S.O., 1960, c.724, §2. The facts are not in dispute, Fred Ojibway, an Indian, was riding his pony through Queen's Park on January 2, 1965. Being impoverished, and having been forced to pledge his saddle, he substituted a downy pillow in lieu of the said saddle. On this particular day the accused's misfortune was further heightened by the circumstance of his pony breaking its right foreleg. In accord with the Indian custom, the accused then shot the pony to relieve it of its awkwardness.

The accused was then charged with having breached the Small Birds Act, §2 of which states:

2. Anyone maiming, injuring or killing small birds is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine not in excess of two hundred dollars.

The learned magistrate acquitted the accused holding, in fact, that he had killed his horse and not a small bird. With respect, I cannot agree.

In light of the definition section my course is quite clear. Section 1 defines "bird" as "a two legged animal covered with feathers". There can be no doubt that this case is covered by this section.

Counsel for the accused made several ingenious arguments to which, in fairness, I must address myself. He submitted that the evidence of the expert clearly concluded that the animal in question was a pony and not a bird, but that is not the issue. We are not interested in whether the animal in question is a bird or not in fact, but whether it is one in law. Statutory interpretation has forced many a horse to eat birdseed for the rest of its life.

Counsel also contented that the neighing noise emitted by the animal could not possibly be produced by a bird. With respect, the sounds emitted by an animal are irrelevant to its nature, for a bird is no less a bird because it is silent.

Counsel for the accused also argued that since there was evidence to show the accused had ridden the animal, this pointed to the fact that it could not be a bird but was actually a pony. Obviously this avoids the issue. The issue is not whether the animal was ridden or not, but whether it was shot or not, for to ride a pony or a bird is of no offence at all. I believe counsel now sees his mistake.

Counsel contends that the iron shoes found on the animal decisively disqualify it from being a bird. I must inform counsel, however, that how an animal dresses is of no concern to this court.

Counsel relied on the decision In Re Chicadee, where he contends that in similar circumstances, the accused was acquitted. However this is a horse of a different colour. A close reading of that case indicates that the animal in question there was not a small bird, but in fact, a midget of a much larger species. Therefore, that case is inapplicable to our facts.

Counsel finally submits that the word "small" in the title Small Birds Act refers not to "Birds" but to "Act", making it the Small Act relating to Birds. With respect, counsel did not do his homework very well, for the Large Birds Act, R.S.O. 1960, c.725, is just as small. If pressed, I need only refer to the Small Loans Act R.S.O. 1960, c.727 which is twice as large as the Large Birds Act.

It remains then to state my reason for judgment which, simply, is as follows: Different things may take on the same meaning for different purposes. For the purpose of the Small Birds Act, all two legged, feather covered animals are birds. This, of course, does not imply that only two-legged animals qualify, for the legislative intent is to make two legs merely the minimum requirement. The statute therefore contemplated multi-legged animals as well. Counsel submits that having regard to the purpose of the statute only small animals "naturally covered" with feathers could have been contemplated. However, had this been the intention of the legislature, I am certain that the phrase "naturally covered" would have been expressly inserted just as "Long" was inserted into the Longshoreman's Act.

Therefore, a horse with feathers on its back must be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a bird, and, a fortiori, a pony with feathers on its back is a small bird.

Counsel posed the following rhetorical question: If the pillow had been removed prior to the shooting, would the animal still be a bird? To this let me answer rhetorically: Is a bird any less of a bird without its feathers?

Appeal allowed.

Busy Day, Busy Weeks. Sorry, I was hoping to go back to last afternoon's essay on the Atkins decision and make a few revisions, tighten it up a bit. I haven't been able to do so. We have had some out-of-town visitors and I've been pretty busy at work. We had a very nice time going out for dinner with our friends -- it was good to see them again. Work has been busy. I got in at 6 this morning, it's now 7:20 and I'm not sure when I'll be done. This weekend my parents are up and we've got lots of family stuff going on. Then, for the next two weeks or so, I'll be pretty busy at work, in fact it's not likely I'll be at a PC, so only updates in the evening. Look to Eugene for analysis of the Zelman case. It has to be released next week. Opinions on Monday and then the remainder should be out by the end of the week. I think there are about 10 cases pending. I'll leave a fun thing that I received while I was in law school for your enjoyment.

Oh Well. USA loses 1-0. They had 11 shots, 6 on goal. Oliver Kahn had a good game in goal for Germany. Glückwünsche zur Deutschen Mannschaft.