Cowboy Confessional

I love stand-up comedy. Why this ex-cowboy enjoys that form of entertainment is still a mystery. I suspect it is the only pastime that reinforces my cynical nature.

In the current crop of stand-up funnymen, nobody is more side splitting hilarious that Osama bin Laden. Now one normally doesn’t equate international terrorism with humor, but when bin Laden writes a fatwa, releases an audio tape, or produces a video … well I drop whatever I’m doing because a solid belly laugh is guaranteed.

He delivered once again, providing Al-Jazeera, Al Qaeda’s tactical PR wing, an audio tape that again provides yucks aplenty.

He begins his monologue with the witty non-sequitur that he alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. This borders on slapstick as he dances like a puppet in the middle of 12 hijackers, hundreds of financial support liaisons, his right-hand joke writer Ayman “Rhymes with hymen” al Zawahiri, and an ensemble of stage hands, producers, directors, and cast.

Bin Laden then contrasts this absurdly funny and egocentric statement by claiming that America is ebbing. What makes this gag work is America seems to actually be ebbing … they are removing some troops from Iraq due to having so few Al Qaeda personnel left to kill, the bulk of them fleeing or providing fertilizer to green zone shrubbery. Current events humor really is bin Laden’s style.

Bin Laden then takes a risk by doubling-up on that punchline, saying that America was unjust for invading Afghanistan in an attempt to kill the “only person responsible for 9/11.” I almost suffocated laughing at that one.  Perhaps that is bin Ladens new battle plan — make the West laugh itself to death.

Sadly, Al-Jazeera (who should rename their corporate brand to ‘Al Jester’) only provided exerts from the yet to be released full-length audio. Rumor has it that bin Laden has signed a recording deal with Atlantic Records, who has been the label for numerous comedians. Can we hope there will be a bin Laden Box Set for Christmas?

Bookmark to:

If you have wondered why television writers are striking, this little YouTube video (written by striking Daily Show writers) explains it quite nicely. It is time for writers to get their piece of the digital world’s action.

Bookmark to:

The test of a nation comes when its established principles are challenged and survive.

Today the United States Supreme Court accepted the Heller (formerly Parker) case, which is a pure test of the intent and original meaning of the constitution’s Second Amendment. This provision, poorly authored as it may have been, preserves the right of the average citizen to own (i.e. “keep”) and use (i.e. “bear”) arms.

I’ve written about this case and Second Amendment origins often enough, so today I want to explore this notion of protecting principles. Oft cited originalism for the Second Amendment shows it was considered a “natural right”, one that was inherent in the act of being (the founding fathers alternately attributed the right as God given, but God has not proffered an opinion on the Heller case, so his opinion is irrelevant).

Indeed, many rights embedded in the Constitution of of that ilk. It was and still is believed that for any sense of freedom to exists, certain rights must be preserved, even when they are generally unpopular (with upwards of 50% of all U.S. homes owning one or more firearms, the right seems to be very popular — certainly more popular than any television program on which Rosie O’Donnell appears). This includes instances of free speech that are patently offensive (but enough about any televised utterance from Rosie O’Donnell).

Take the Ku Klux Klan … and take them far, far away please. It is difficult to conceive of any form of speech more objectionable than the blathering of a Grand Wizard or similarly syphilitic intellect. Yet if I did not defend the right of Klansman to spew their perturbed pondering, then by default I grant the government the right to censor this blog, an occurrence that would make certain detractors delirious with glee, but which would certain ignite a second American revolution.

The Heller case then becomes not a test of gun control — that is the side show. It is a test to determine if the fundamental philosophy of a nation will be preserved. The founding question in this case is “do natural rights exist and are they sacred above the control of the national government?” Were the Supremes to rule against the individual rights theory of firearm ownership, they would be ruling against the very ideology of the nation and thus against the nation itself.

The Heller case is thus a pivotal moment in American history. The outcome will determine if the United States, as originally conceived, will continue, or if it will slowly parish under the vagaries of the judicial branch.

Choose wisely Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito.

Bookmark to:

The meanderings of the Parker (now Heller) case is enough to confuse God, were he paying attention.

For people distracted by American Idol and other drivel, the Parker cum Heller case is perhaps the single most important test of constitutional originalism to reach the ears of the Supreme Court since … well, since before I was born. The case pitted a few Washington D.C. residents against the city itself. The local government (you know, the one with coke snorting mayors) deigned that no resident should possess a working firearm. Somehow word of this legislation never reached the projects, where shooting your neighbor is such a routine event that it is listed in the Sunday church antisocial calendar.

So, Parker, Heller and a few other citizens — who wanted to arm themselves in self defense against the thugs who had already armed themselves — sued the city on the basis that the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. constitution said they could “keep and bear arms.” Such straightforward language, being foreign to the ears of D.C. politicians and others in the whoring caste, was naturally refuted. Parker, Heller, et all fought the local law and won.

The basis and initial lower court ruling are straight forward:

1. Washington D.C. bans handgun ownership, and forces citizens to make even long guns inoperative
2. The 2nd Amendment consecrates an individual right to own a gun
3. The court told D.C. to print out their gun ban rules, roll them up, and insert them into that dark hole where politicians reside

With fanfare heretofore reserved for marching bands and young men boasting of first time sex, D.C. politicians said they would appeal to the Supreme Court, and then proceeded to submit the weakest appeal possible. In fact their own appeal is filled with misinformation about the nature and letter of their own laws. The mad clan at the Volokh Conspiracy made note of this, the relevant blurbs being:

But when DC filed its petition, the petition flagrantly violated DC’s representations to the Court of Appeals. DC’s petition for a writ of certiorari presents one, and only one question: “Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns.” This question of course addresses the handgun ban, but does not address the separate holding of the ban on defensive long guns. By Supreme Court rules, the DC petition was required to list all statutes or ordinances which are at issue in the petition, and the DC petition does not list the ordinance containing the self-defense ban.

Instead, DC falsely told the Court that a person in DC “may lawfully possess a rifle or shotgun to protect himself.”

D.C.’s lawyers are not idiots, despite the evidence provided in their oral arguments before the lower court. So this horrific appeal for writ of cert is confounding at first glance.

At second glance, it may well be a smart way to dodge a metaphorical bullet. I predicted as much last May.

I am told by some constitutional law professors that the Supremes are picky people. They do not take “dirty” cases with unresolved extenuation. When the city sloppily appealed their case, they gave the court ample reason to not write a writ. At least four justices have to agree that a writ of cert is warranted. Rigging the appeal as D.C.’s lawyers did gives activist judges reason to refuse the case and in so avoid risking a majority ruling in favor of an individual right to arms.

Sneaky. But the opposing legal team — the ones who engineered this elegant test of the constitution — were on the ball. In written arguments they addressed the calculated inconsistencies proffered by the District, and in addressing them may well eliminate the con.

Parker-Heller is too juicy for a jurist to ignore, and being a betting man, I wager come this week the Supremes will add this case to their 2008 docket.

Glenn Reynolds, who knows more about law, the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment than I ever will, is taking my bet. In a recent email debate sponsored by the Federalist Society, he speculates that the Supremes will duck the issue because they cannot risk making the right to keep arms as equal to unenumerated rights:

I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that the Supreme Court will deny certiorari on this case. I think that’s likely because of the difficult position the Court would be placed in if it failed to find an individual right to arms under the Second Amendment. … The decision would have far-reaching effects, particularly in the event of a reversal. Here is one way to think about the message the Supreme Court would be sending if it reversed the D.C. Circuit on the merits in Parker . . . That’s a comparison between the Court’s handling of the enumerated rights claim at issue in Parker, and its demonstrated willingness to embrace even non-enumerated individual rights that are congenial to the political left, in cases like Roe and Lawrence. “So the Constitution says Roe, but it doesn’t say I have the right to keep a gun to defend my home, huh?” The Court’s jurisprudence of unenumerated rights (with which I’m largely in agreement, by the way) would make it politically very difficult for the Court to eviscerate a clearly enumerated right to which many Americans attach great importance. At the same time, I don’t think the Court is willing to affirm in Parker. If I’m right, a denial of certioriari is the only way for the Court to avoid a very difficult situation.

Interesting times.

Bookmark to:

Writer’s groups serve a purpose … I am told.

I’ve been lucky in my lone-wolf mentality, having never been unsure about my ability to craft prose. Early on a kind but likely deranged editor paid me cold, hard cash for several hundred words, which assured me that I had enough skill to make a buck or two writing. Aside from occasional sanity checks, I have never leaned heavily on other writers (with the exception of a former lady friend whose PhD in lit gave me a source of quality editorial in between mad, fevered love making — kinda surprise I got any writing done during that period).

So at a recent literati conclave (the first I’ve ever bothered to attend), I visited a panel on the subject of writer’s groups. The moderator asked those in the audience — who barely outnumbered the panelists — why we came, as if we were being held in suspicion. I wanted to know the benefits and value of such groups, having heard wildly different conclusions.

In one extreme there are those who believe writer’s groups are useful sounding boards for serious word mechanics, who want professional outside perspectives to assure their final product is readable, entertaining, and marketable. At the other end of the literary rainbow, writer’s circles are poorly masked psychological support groups, whereby failed writers and writer wannabes abuse one another with their bruised verse.

One of the panelists was somewhat taken aback by my derogatory tone tied to the assertion of the latter type of group, indicating she knew me not for acerbic statements are entertaining to my ear. She and another gal then proceeded to waste the better part of the hour and my patience by waxing philosophic about the lonely nature of the writing craft, and how communing with kindred spirits (i.e., under-published wordsmiths) helped to bolster their resolve and give them the motivation to write.

Frankly, I don’t understand either part of their belief system. Writers don’t write because they want to, they write because they have to. Take away a real writer’s word processor and their skulls will explored, spewing blood, gore, pithy quotes, and unfinished manuscripts across the room.

The other factor — motivation — is what separates real writers from sober society. The panel before this writer group grope was composed of working writers, who had regular columns and assigned pieces from national periodicals. A recurring theme among this caste was that deadlines are wonderful motivators. They maintained that real writers can summon prose on demand, and all it takes is desire or a little pressure, such as an editor who can utter that magic phrase “you’re fired.”

If you ever quit taking your meds and seek a writer’s group, the best two tactics you can adopt are to know what you want to achieve by being a member of a group, and then shop around (writer’s groups are like kudzu - there’s a new thatch sprouting up every few seconds). Even if you are greenhorn writer, find a group with people who have paychecks to prove their chops, because getting advice from fellow amateurs becomes a self reinforcing cycle of disappointment.

Bookmark to: