The advertising above is just a source of revenue, and sometimes, I don't know what will appear there.
Unique grips and accessories for your 1911!
Relocating to Boise? Use my realtor, neighbor, and friend, Cindy Smith csmith@1realtyone.com.
Magazines for cheap!
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through.
Labels: telescopes Labels: child sexual abuse
Never forget!
I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win
I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
Sorry, high pressure isn't included.
My nephew Shippy makes very pretty ceramic items. Click here to visit his online studio. Give someone one of these, and you can be sure that they don't already have one!
Click here to find out why the Amazon.com Honor System paybox is no longer here.
RSS feed
Other blogs you may enjoy:
My civilian gun defense use blog
My daughter's blog
Pete Drum's Web Page
Gun Laws Don't Work
instapundit.com
Dissecting Leftism -- By John Ray
A courageous Briton arguing for relaxing Britain's gun control laws
Right Thoughts
Final Protective Fire
Amitai Etzioni's Blog
Scrappleface -- Dangerously Clever Satire
Michael Williams -- Master of None
Another Conservative Blogger
A Group Blog By Iraqis
THE MESOPOTAMIAN: TO BRING ONE MORE IRAQI VOICE OF THE SILENT MAJORITY TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WORLD
Specializing in discussions of discrimination and affirmative action
An Iraqi dentist
Promoting children being raised by their own parents
A federal law clerk opines about the law
Michelle Malkin's blog
Impearls: a blog as electic and interesting as mine
Proving that the United States military does more than kill people and break things.
May not agree with this group on everything, but stopping the ACLU is high on my list
A conservative/moderate black blogger.
Another sensible American
Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party
Music, Politics, Motorcycles
Maggie's Farm: Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
A blog dedicated to "Documenting Saddam Hussein's support of Terrorism"
The blog of one of my fellow bloggers on the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
J. Norman Heath's Blog--a circus rigger and Second Amendment scholar (really!)
Buckeye Firearms Association, for you Ohio gun owners and activists
Click here for a FREE NEWSLETTER on Ohio Gun Rights from Buckeye Firearms Association!
Another conservative.
Neocon Blues
Conservative Oasis
Other Idaho Bloggers
Bubbleheads is a retired submariner
An Idaho State University student. A Democrat. Someday, she'll start paying income taxes and change.
A retired Las Vegas stagehand, of all things.
archives
Search only this site: Click here and enter your search string at the beginning of the search field.
The League of Ordinary Filmmakers
At least, that's who I blame for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. My wife and I, when we first saw the previews for this, became quite excited. One of my wife's specialities is Victorian literature, and her master's project was about Robert Louis Stevenson's battle with tuberculosis, and its impact on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The premise of the picture--a bunch of the more interesting and tormented characters of Victorian literature come together to save Europe from a disaster (I won't tell you what kind) in 1899--is very intriguing. I told my wife after the second time we saw a televison ad for it, "This could be really, really good, or really, really bad."
The first 20-30 minutes actually work well--considering the premise, bringing together Mina Harker from Bram Stoker's Dracula, Allan Quatermain from H. Rider Haggard's novels, Captain Nemo from Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and Mysterious Island, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from Stevenson's novel of that same name, H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man (well, sort of), the depraved Dorian Gray from Oscar Wilde's short story, and Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer--now with the U.S. Secret Service. Here you have the intersection of some of the finest of Victorian science fiction, horror, and adventure. (I confess that I haven't read any of Haggard's novels in which Quatermain is a character, although all the rest of these works are old friends.)
Unfortunately, as splendid an opening as it has, with sets that play well into how Verne might have envisioned Nemo's The Nautilus, the first sign that the screenwriter went astray comes when we meet Dr. Hyde. I have two possible explanations for what happened with this character:
1. The screenwriter hasn't read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde since high school, and thinks that Stevenson's description of Hyde as atavistic means that he wasn't quite human, when really, Hyde's grotesqueness was because of his sinful and twisted heart. Hyde's exterior really wasn't so different from Dr. Jekyll.
2. They got a really good deal on the special effects software left over from making The Incredible Hulk movie, and just couldn't resist.
From here on, the movies sinks below the waves (and not just in the Nautilus). The plot is part Englebrecht's The Merchants of Death (1934) and The Assassination Bureau (1969)--but without the serious intent of Englebrecht, nor the amusing wit of The Assassination Bureau.
Look, my wife and I weren't expecting Pushkin, but most of these characters have psychic pain that just screams for exploration. Mina Harker's situation is not of her doing, and not repairable; Dorian Gray's twisted soul is entirely of his knowing and conscious decisions; Dr. Jekyll's problem is a mixture of arrogance and bad choices. Readers of Mysterious Island will recall Captain Nemo's demons. Only Secret Service Agent Tom Sawyer isn't angst-ridden, and to his credit, Shane West plays him with boyish grins and cheerful enthusiasm appropriate to his character.
So what happened to the time exploring deeper thought? This movie seems to fall into a poor quality action adventure, with action sequences so dark and poorly edited that I was often unable to determine who was fighting whom, and with what. I think the director was trying for some sort of comic book effect in terms of the violence, but it really didn't work well. The Nautilus art cost a fortune, and they just couldn't resist too much time on the long shots that might have been better spent on character development, or a more convincing plot.
I wish I could spend this kind of money and use such talented actors to make a movie like this; I'm sure that I could do at least as entertaining and yet still thoughtful of a film.
For those hoping to see more of the lovely Peta Wilson (Mina Harker) in that low-cut gown--she's wearing very proper Victorian dresses throughout the movie.
The University of Idaho's First Graduating Class
I took a picture of the University of Idaho's first graduating class, in the 1890s, when I was up there last weekend. It was really quite startling because, contrary to what some people would like to you believe about the bad old days, when women were fearfully oppressed and discouraged from getting an education--half the class are women. Two men, and two women.
I recently had occasion to see the commencement program for the University of Texas from the late 1940s. (A friend's mother, from a very poor family, graduated from there, and still had her commencement program.) At the time, Texas was still a fiercely segregated place by race, and I am quite sure that there were no blacks attending the University of Texas. (After all, Texas built a whole law school for blacks, rather than have them attend classes with whites.) When you read the list of graduates, it is quite astonishing how common Hispanic names were. I wasn't expecting it. The past is a more complicated place than some ideologues would like you to think.
Need A #4-40 Thumbscrew
No, not the medieval torture instrument. There is a little set screw that holds eyepieces in place on my telescope. It's about 1/4-1/2 inch long, with a knurled head that makes it easy to tighten down on an eyepiece. A few months back, this little thumbscrew fell in the deep grass in my back yard, and has been MIA ever since. I am using a #4-40 screw as a replacement, but it's not quite as convenient. Unfortunately, local hardware stores don't carry anything quite this small with a knurled ending, or any other sort of easy to turn head on it. If you have one that fits this description sitting around your workshop--or can tell me where to buy one--I would very much appreciate it.
Part Of Why I Don't Live in the Bay Area Anymore
There's a group out there called San Francisco Women Against Rape. That sounds pretty laudable, right? Their web site tells us that they "support survivors of rape and sexual assault, their friends and family members, and to use education and community organizing as tools of prevention." Who could be against that?
But then the rhetoric starts that makes you wonder if this is a parody: We believe in self-empowerment and support each survivor in the choices that she or he makes. We believe that sexual assault exists within a web of many oppressions, and are committed to working against all oppressions as a part of the process of ending sexual assault.
Over here, you find out:SFWAR seeks compassionate women who want to:
It gets better. From the application form to get involved:
• support survivors of sexual assault
• challenge all forms of oppression against women, people of color, poor people, youth, elders, people with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and all people who face oppression and human rights violations
• learn valuable skills and develop your leadership
• be a part of a radical activist community working for social justice!
We have volunteer opportunities available in: hotline counseling, medical advocacy, in-person counseling, community outreach, fundraising & administrative work. Our volunteers constantly tell us that they grow enormously personally and politically from the volunteer training, and find the work to be tremendously important and rewarding. Bilingual/ bicultural volunteers are especially needed (stipend available). Women of color, immigrant women, young women, elder women, queer women, transgender women, working class women, and differently-abled women are prioritized for membership in volunteer trainings. SFWAR also believes that it’s important for us to be informed about and take action on other social justice struggles that relate to our work. We ask that volunteers participate in political education discussions and presentations offered by SFWAR. In the recent past, these discussions have been about protesting the war, and supporting Palestinian Liberation and taking a stance against Zionism. In the near future, we will address reparations for slavery to African Americans. Can you commit to participate in these political education activities? r Yes r No
My, they seem to be getting pretty far afield on this rape issue. What part of Zionism requires you to support rape?
Oh yeah, that application form is also pretty clear: men need not apply.SFWAR seeks compassionate women [emphasis added] who want to: \ support survivors of sexual assault \ challenge all forms of oppression against women, people of color, poor people, youth, elders, people with disabilities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, and all people who face oppression and human rights violations \ learn valuable skills and develop your leadership \ be a part of a radical activist community working for social justice!
Your tax dollars at work:SFWAR appreciates the following agencies and foundations whose support in the past year helped sustain our programs and development activities. In particular, we acknowledge the Office of Criminal Justice Planning and the San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women. Support was also provided by: Adobe Systems, Bothin Foundation, California Endowment, DFS Corporation, Five Bridges Foundation, GATX Capital, Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, Hilton Hotels Corporation, Hitachi America, Ltd., Live Oak Fund of the Tides Foundation, McBean Family Foundation, San Francisco Arts Commission, San Francisco Foundation, George H. Sandy Foundation, Union Bank of California, V-Day Foundation, Van Loben Sels Foundation, Vanguard Public Foundation, Bernard E. and Alba Witkin Charitable Trust and The Women's Foundation.
Concerning Liberty
I received a letter from a reader, and the questions he asked were thoughtful and useful. Hence, my response:Dear Mr. Cramer.
Yup. And how many states have laws prohibiting women from wearing pants today?
I have been thinking about your discussion of the Lawrence decision.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_07_06_archive.html#105787783143876001
I was intrigued by some consequences of this ex post facto theory of liberty. According to you, the supreme court may not pass an ex post facto grant of liberty to undo a conviction if every state had outlawed a behavior in 1789, and no new amendment to the federal constitution has been passed to overrule such a law
I may have a concrete example to illustrate its flaws and limitations.
Imagine that, at the time the Constitution was ratified, all the states had laws banning the wearing of pants by women.
From your theory, it follows that women do not have the same liberty to wear pants as men, even today. The 9th an 10th Amendments secured that liberty to men, since the states didn't regulate this activity at the time, but it was seen as a legitimate state interest to restrict the rights of women. What if one state had not restricted the rights of women in this way?
It might just be evidence that not every state bothered to regulate it.
I don't think you could argue that one state lacking such a law qualified as recognition that such a right existed. If you think that the tally of states has to be unanimous to erase the liberty of women to wear pants, this theory is interesting. If it takes just a majority, or just one state, to take the power to regulate or guard such liberties from the federal level, we run into several problems: how much of a majority? If the existence of a liberty depends on the whims of the majority, what is the purpose of federalism? How do the Constitution's strict limitations of majority power square with the ex post facto theory of liberty? If a majority of states could remove a liberty in 1789 without amending the constitution, how can those same states, where the liberty is now recognized, be required to amend the constitution to make it a subject of judicial review? If the legalization of wearing pants became unanimous in 2010, does the liberty flash into existence, or is it ephemeral, and rooted in the decisions made by all states in 1789.
The Constitution is a contract between government and the people. Like any contract today, once you make a contract, it's not easy to change that contract. We don't require a simple majority, nor do we require unanimous agreement. But we do require a relatively high level of agreement (2/3 of Congress, and 3/4 of the states) to prevent temporary whims or narrow majorities from changing the fundamental rules of the game. If you limit this argument to laws where the states were unanimous in 1789, there are other problems. Say that the case is about the length of a skirt, rather than the wearing of pants. Surely, states in 1789 unanimously thought that the regulation of women's clothing was a legitimate area of state interest, given their statutes on the wearing of pants. But what if no laws on hem lines were written? Do women have the liberty to wear any length of skirt they want, but not pants? If sexual activity was regulated but not contraception per se, would the use of contraception be a liberty?
You've built the entire argument on the notion that states had laws requiring women to not wear pants. I'm not aware of any such laws (though if you found them, I would be only a little surprised). Even then--where's the support for such laws today?
The use of contraception, to my knowledge, was not regulated by any of the states in 1789, and if there were state laws in 1868 on the subject, they don't seem to have been universal, or even close. (If you know differently, give me some citations.) That seems like a liberty to me--it's a shame that the Griswold decision wasn't written explicitly based on this idea--it would have made it a stronger argument. Fundamentally, the argument seems to deny the existence of liberty at all. These liberties did not exist in the past. Now in some states they do. The state could easily take them away again, and no one could complain on the grounds that it's a violation of their liberty, unless there's a federal amendment passed in between. You worry that all that's left after Lawrence is power and its abuse by the minority decision of 5 supreme court justices. I worry that, according to this doctrine, all that's left is power and its abuse, by the majority of state legislators. Seems to me that it's a matter of picking the poison.
The states could easily take away all the freedoms we enjoy that aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, or that we enjoyed in 1789 and 1868. That's always a risk in democracy--not very likely, but still possible.
Similarly, five Supreme Court judges could decide tomorrow that child molesters have a constitutional right to have sex with any child that they want. It's not very likely, but still possible.
Would I rather take my chances with an elected state legislature whose membership faces election every two years, or unelected judges that sit for life? I would prefer not to have to make that choice, but really stupid laws do get repealed when there's enough upset about it. Think of the national speed limit imposed in the Nixon Administration. It's gone now. If a federal court had ruled that there was legal obligation to impose such a speed limit ("the right to not be killed in unnecessary highway deaths") it would take a generation to fix this. Don't let that you liked the result of the Lawrence decision control your answer. Which sounds more dangerous to you?
Al-Qaida Demonstrating Its Strong Understanding of Public Relations
Worrisome story that demonstrates that al-Qaida really doesn't understand how to make Americans sympathetic to their cause: National forests in the West were considered targets for al-Qaida attacks, according to an FBI memo to law enforcement agencies dated June 25.
Well, yes, I guess it would cause U.S. citizens to put pressure on the government to change its policies. But probably not in the direction al-Qaida wants.
A senior al-Qaida detainee told federal investigators he had developed a plan to set midsummer forest fires in Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming, according to the document, obtained by The Arizona Republic.
"The detainee believed that significant damage to the U.S. economy would result and once it was realized that the fires were terrorist acts, U.S. citizens would put pressure on the U.S. government to change its policies," the memo said.
I keep seeing signs like this that al-Qaida doesn't understand the West at all. Killing civilians in the World Trade Center? Trying to destroy the Capitol? Setting massive forest fires in the West? None of these were, or would be, knockout blows to the U.S. They just make us more determined to crush this swarm of savages underfoot. But al-Qaida apparently thinks that it would make us more sympathetic to their concerns. It rather sounds like al-Qaida's leadership has grown up in a dominance/submission fetish culture, where the more the master mistreats the slave, the more the slave loves the master.
What Did Bush Say to the First Lady?
From a news story about the Bushes' visit to a wild animal park in Botswana:Further down the dusty track, Bush came face to face with a rhinoceros and her calf munching on a bale of hay. Moments later they spotted four elephants surrounded by a gaggle of attendants.
Hmmm. The more I hear, the more I like Bush.
Although the animals appeared to have been pre-positioned, their carnal instincts were beyond official control. After Bush posed for photographs with his hand on a tusk and climbed back into the truck, one of the elephants mounted his mate.
That prompted the president to whisper something to his wife. The first lady responded by slapping him on the leg.
Need A Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering?
A friend of mine is looking for work:CAREER ABSTRACT:
If you can help him out, email me, and I'll put you in touch with him.
Thom Ives' design methodology skills are in part evident through his receipt of three US Patents. More patents are likely to be received in time through the submission of nearly 30 confidential disclosures to HP. His most recent modeling and design efforts were applied to HP's multi-million dollar R&D project, Atomic Resolution Storage (ARS), which was a large scale MEMS project, recently dropped due to funding issues. His modeling of this system included thermal dynamics, bit mechanical structures, mechanical dynamics, electrostatic motor performance, and charged particle emitter focus investigations. He is capable of simulating system, and component, performance using both element level modeling techniques (such as FEM, BEM, FDM) and lumped parameter techniques and a combination of the two.
Thom's career at HP has also included a wide variety of other engineering tasks as he has sought to apply his unique blend of design, modeling, coding, computer, mechatronics, and team coordination skills. Thom also applied these skills within a small company working on automated tools for the semi-conductor industry.
In his Ph.D. program at Texas A&M University, he applied his modeling and design skills to the challenge of predicting performance of hybrid vehicle power plants with an emphasis on using a modeling approach that would be appropriate for a multi-discipline modeling team. The models were unique in that they successfully dealt with multiple physical realms and were modular so that many hybrid power plant configurations could be investigated, and they also successfully dealt with unique connection issues that remained transparent to the end user. In his M.S. program, his work surrounded the science of determining more accurate kinematic models for robotics and auto manufacturing systems to reduce robot teaching time and increase the speed of manufacture.
At the beginning of his graduate school degree, he managed the operations of a research reactor, receiving qualification as a Senior Reactor Operator under the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Prior to graduate school, Thom worked for Westinghouse Electric Corporation and became a Nuclear Plant Engineer within the Naval Nuclear program, having gone though roughly the same amount of training that a Naval Nuclear lieutenant would have accomplished with the addition of becoming a Shift Test Engineer who oversees the difficult testing phases of naval reactor plants coming out of overhaul.
Thom Ives received his B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas, Austin where he was frequently on the Dean's List, and where he led a team his senior year in the design of an Icing Rate Detector for ships and rigs in the Atlantic. His leadership skills began at a large public High School in Dallas, Texas, where he was Senior Class President over a class of 700+ students and received a scholarship for his performance in that role.
Interesting Article About a Clever New Spamming Strategy
This article describes how spammers are taking over PCs on the network and using them to send out their pornospams. It raises some interesting questions about how certain we can be that illegal pornography on any particular PC was actually intentionally downloaded by its owner. It is possible that they have been a victim of this sort of unauthorized use:The hijacked computers, which are chosen by the hackers apparently because they have high-speed connections to the Internet, are secretly loaded with software that makes them send explicit Web pages advertising pornographic sites and offer to sign visitors up as customers.
Unless the owner of the hijacked computer is technologically sophisticated, the activity is likely to go unnoticed. The program, which only briefly downloads the pornographic material to the usurped computer, is invisible to the computer's owner. It apparently does not harm the computer or disturb its operation.
The hackers operating the ring direct traffic to each hijacked computer in their network for a few minutes at a time, quickly rotating through a large number. Some are also used to send spam e-mail messages to boost traffic to the sites.
I Always Wondered Why Santa Rosa Junior College Wouldn't Hire Me...
I mean, after all, I only had an MA in History, five books published and a very long list of scholarly and popular publications. Clearly, I lacked the qualifications and good sense of this guy:A political science instructor at Santa Rosa Junior College is being investigated by the Secret Service for telling his students to compose an e- mail to an elected official that included the words "kill the president, kill the president," a school administrator said Wednesday.
This article gives Ballou more of a chance to defend himself, but he still sounds like the sort of leftists who utterly dominate education (and everything else) in Sonoma County.
Michael Ballou, a part-time lecturer who teaches an "Introduction to U.S. Government" course at the college's Petaluma campus, intended the assignment to be an "experiential exercise that would instill a sense of fear so they would have a better sense of why more people don't participate in the political process," said Doug Garrison, the vice president and executive dean of the Petaluma campus.
The Iraq, Bin Laden Link
Maybe this has since been discredited, but this is an amazing newspaper story written by a federal appellate judge who is now in Iraq, helping reorganize their judicial system. In it, he tells of how an Iraqi newspaper last year published an "Honor Roll" of the most important officials of the government--and one of them was described as a link to bin Laden's organization. The newspaper was immediately pulled from circulation, and existing copies were taken back from those who had received them--but not all copies:The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.''
The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein. The story of how the document came about is as follows.
Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.
On the front page of the paper's four-page edition for Nov. 14, 2002, there was a picture of Osama bin Laden speaking, next to which was a picture of Saddam and his ''Revolutionary Council,'' together with stories about Israeli tanks attacking a group of Palestinians.
On the back page was a story headlined ''List of Honor.'' In a box below the headline was ''A list of men we publish for the public.'' The lead sentence refers to a list of ''regime persons'' with their names and positions.
The list has 600 names and titles in three columns. It contains, for example, the names of the important officials who are members of Saddam's family, such as Uday, and then other high officials, including the 55 American ''deck of cards'' Iraqi officials, some of whom have been apprehended.
Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.'' (For more about the list, see accompanying article on this page.)
Proposed California Quarter Design
As you know, every state creates the back side of the quarters the Mint is issuing. Click here to see some proposals for the California quarter.
Blog Rankings
I'm pleased to see that The Truth Laid Bear's rankings of blog popularity (based on Sitemeter) puts me at #66 in the lists. I must confess that I don't have the wicked sense of humor of Scrappleface, or the multitasking output of Volokh Conspiracy. (And what drugs is Instapundit taking to be so productive?) But hitting #66 is good enough for me.
Nevada Supreme Court Taking Lessons From U.S. Supreme Court
Eugene Volokh and Instapundit are upset that the Nevada Supreme Court has ordered the legislature to violate the Nevada state constitution. The state constitution requires a 2/3 majority to pass a budget, and the Nevada Supreme Court has decided that this is mere procedural detail. But why should the Nevada Supreme Court be different from the U.S. Supreme Court, which puts its desire to see state sodomy laws go away, and doesn't let little details like lack of authority get in their way? What's the difference between ignoring the state constitution for something really important (funding public schools) and ignoring the U.S. Constitution's granting of authority to the states to do something really important (strike down a sodomy law based on a falsification of American history)?
A few years back, I read a very thoughtful Wall Street Journal piece by Instapundit about the attempt to pass a federal law concerning abortion was a violation of the principles of federalism. I expressed my opinion in a forum where Instapundit and I were generally on the same side, that yes, he was correct, and I changed my position on this particular federal statute. The principle of Constitutionalism, and its components, federalism and separation of powers, is what matters--not whether you win a particular political point.
Once "ends justify the means" becomes an adequate reason for judges to make decisions, all that's left is raw power and its abuse.
DOLPHIN STRESS TEST
This is a simple test designed to indicate whether you have too much stress in your life.
It is a picture of two dolphins. They appear normal when viewed by a stress-free individual. This test is not accurate enough to pick up mild stress levels.
It is quite simple. If there is anything that appears different about the dolphins (ignore slight color differences) it is an indication of stress related problems.
Sit upright and, viewing the screen head-on, take a deep breath, breathe out, open the picture and look directly at it.
If there is anything out of the ordinary then you should consider taking things a little easier..
click HERE to take the test
Wishful Thinking About Lawrence
Randy Barnett's National Review Online column would have us believe that libertarians have taken over the Supreme Court. No, the case is revolutionary because Justice Kennedy (and at least four justices who signed on to his opinion without separate concurrences) have finally broken free of the post-New Deal constitutional tension between a "presumption of constitutionality" on the one hand and "fundamental rights" on the other. Contrary to what has been reported repeatedly in the press, the Court in Lawrence did not protect a "right of privacy." Rather, it protected "liberty" — and without showing that the particular liberty in question is somehow "fundamental." Appreciation of the significance of this major development in constitutional law requires some historical background.
What's wrong with Barnett's analysis of this particular decision is his claim that Lawrence is derived from a right to liberty--that the Court has decided that when a law is passed by a legislature, "the onus then falls on the government to justify the restriction of liberty." This is a perfectly fine libertarian idea--that the government should have to justify any law that it passes that interferes with any individual's non-injurious actions. But the Constitution is not a libertarian document. There are certainly components to it that confer considerable liberty on individuals, but Barnett's argument is that, both the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment authorize the protection of unenumerated (and unenumerable) liberty rights "retained by the people." The Ninth protects against federal violations of liberty rights; the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects against violations by states like Texas of liberty rights plus the Bill of Rights and other privileges or immunities of its U.S. citizens.
But what liberty rights were "retained by the people" in 1791, when the states ratified the Bill of Rights, or in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment became the law of the land? Not the liberty to engage in sodomy. It was a criminal offense in every state in 1791, and in 1868. All the high-minded talk about liberty won't cover over that there was no such liberty retained by the people. If they had, their elected representatives would have repealed the existing state laws on the subject.
Barnett goes on to say, For Lawrence v. Texas to be constitutionally revolutionary, however, the Court's defense of liberty must not be limited to sexual conduct. The more liberties it protects, the less ideological it will be and the more widespread political support it will enjoy.
And this is exactly the problem. The left controls the media in the U.S. They are not going to allow this libertarian notion to be applied to say, gun control laws, or revive the Lochner (1905) decision to strike down state regulation of working hours and conditions.
A Supreme Court that took this "liberty interest" argument and applied it to gun control would strike down every state law that licenses gun ownership in the home, and perhaps strike down every concealed weapon regulation as well. Gun control laws are a lot like homosexual sodomy laws--you can make a case for both based on the public health consequences of STDs and gun violence. Every homosexual isn't Patient Zero, and every gun owner isn't a murderer. In both cases, these are relatively small fractions of these groups--but enough so that the concerns that motivate both sets of laws have a rational basis. This doesn't mean that such laws are necessarily the most effective method of solving either of these problems, but to pretend that the concerns involved are without merit is absurd. (One difference: the right to keep and bear arms is actually in the Bill of Rights; there is no written guarantee of a right to sodomy.)
You could make the case using this "liberty interest" argument to strike down just about every law regulating working conditions. After all, what happens between an employer and employee in agreeing to wages, working hours, breaks, etc., are private acts between consenting adults. Sure, they have some externalities (just like homosexual sodomy has some externalities, or allowing convicted felons to possess handguns has some externalities), but this liberty interest, to hear Barnett tell it, is so strong, that you have to actually injure someone before it turns into something that is a legitimate area for governmental action.
Professor Kleiman Seems Confused
He blogged a week ago that: 2. Clayton Cramer notes Rosen's (and my) agreement with him on the legal reasoning, even while disagreeing strongly on the substantive point. I share his pleasure that for once our views coincide. But he seems confused about the Biblical status of the ban on male-on-male sex when he says that the decision makes it no longer the case that the Ten Commandments are at the foundation of our legal system. In fact, that rule is exactly in parallel with the rule against eating shellfish: both are said to be "abomination," which seems to be a technical term meaning roughly "otherwise harmless things forbidden to Jews as Jews, but not to human beings generally." Compare this with a really fundamental rule, part of the Noachic covenant and therefore, in the Jewish understanding, incumbent on all people alike: the ban on eating meat au jus, or as the King James version has it, "with the blood thereof." The capacity of human beings to attribute their own prejudices to their sacred texts is really quite astonishing. I wonder what Clayton's position on usury is?
1. He links to an article that I wrote about the Ten Commandments monument dispute in Alabama--but I never mention Lawrence in that article.
2. The rule against eating shellfish is part of the Levitical dietary restrictions that Christians abandoned quite early on, and that nearly all Christians agree are properly understood only as place and people-specific rules.
3. Neither the dietary laws nor the usury laws are part of the Ten Commandments. More importantly from a Constitutional standpoint, borrowing and paying interest were legal when our Constitution was ratified (although there were limits on how high the interest rate could be). If someone tried to make a Constitutional argument against usury laws of the sort that many states still have, I would laugh at them, even though I think usury laws are stupid.
I think that Professor Kleiman's point was that laws against homosexuality are part of the same set of restrictions as the Levitical dietary laws and usury laws. But he certainly didn't make that point very clearly.
More Careless & Convenient History
History News Network recently put up the brief by a bunch of historians asking the Supreme Court to strike down Texas's sodomy law. I was wondering where some of this nonsense came from. It came from historians whose work is, shall we say, a little weak on factual correctness.Colonial sexual regulation included such non-procreative acts as masturbation, and sodomy laws applied equally to male-male, male-female, and human-animal sexual activity.
Nope. Connecticut's 1650 Code is very explicit on this. "If any man lye with mankind as he lyeth with a woman both of them have committed abomination, they both shall surely be put to death." Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1:77. You can read it here.
Plymouth Colony also distinctly separated sodomy and bestiality (described as "buggery" in New England--extracts from Plymouth statutes are here).Even in the New England colonies, whose leaders denounced “sodomy” with far greater regularity and severity than did other colonial leaders and where the offense carried severe sanctions, it was rarely prosecuted. The trial of Nicholas Sension, a married man living in Westhersfield, Connecticut, in 1677, revealed that he had been widely known for soliciting sexual contacts with the town’s men and youth for almost forty years but remained widely liked.
Let's see, it's not only a sin in a profoundly Puritan community, but a capital offense--and this guy had been widely known for soliciting homosexual sex for almost forty years? Does anyone besides me find this in desperate need of independent verification? Over in Plymouth, not terribly different either theologically or legally,John Allexander [and] Thomas Roberts were both examined and found guilty of lude behavior and uncleane carriage one w[ith] another, by often spendinge their seede one vpon another, w[hich] was proued both by witnesse & their owne confession;... The said John Allexander was therefore censured by the Court to be seuerely whipped, and burnt in the shoulder w[ith] a hot iron, and to be perpetually banished the gouernment of New Plymouth, and if he be at any tyme found w[ith]in the same, to bee whipped out againe by the appoyntment of the next justice, et cetera, and so as oft as he shall be found w[ith]in this gouernment. W[hich] penalty was accordingly inflicted.
You can read more discussion of the punishments for what seems pretty clearly to be homosexual behavior here. Another indication that the sodomy statutes were not the equivalent of a statute against “homosexual conduct” is that with one brief exception they applied exclusively to acts performed by men, whether with women, girls, men, boys, or animals, and not to acts committed by two women.
Nope. This is wrong also. The Connecticut Code of 1650 punished homosexual sex quite separately from bestiality. See Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut 1:77. Two completely separate crimes.
Similarly, Maryland refers both to the crime of sodomy (made capital at Archives of Maryland 1:192) and the crime of buggery (see Archives of Maryland 7:393, where William Boarman requests payment for hanging William Sewick for buggery).
Look, I know that integrity and competence among professional historians is pretty low--but when it is this easy to demonstrate that the claims are at least partly incorrect, it doesn't say much for the quality fo their research. I don't know how accurate the rest of this statement is, but let's face it--historians are primarily in the business of political agendas these days, and little falsifications are becoming the norm.
UPDATE: More evidence that the brief submitted by the historians is a little weak on accuracy. I dug out The Book of the General Laws of the Inhabitants of the Jurisdiction of New-Plimouth... (Cambridge: Samuel Green, 1672). Under capital crimes, chapter 2: the statute prohibiting bestiality is completely separate from the statute that prohibited homoseuxal sodomy--and yes, it punished specifically homosexual sodomy. It did not roll all the laws against non-procreative sex into a single statute. 9. If any Person lyeth with a beast or Bruit Creature, by Carnal Copulation, they shall surely be put to Death, and the Beast shall be slain and buried and not eaten.
The same statutes appear in The Book of the General Laws of the Inhabitants of the Jurisdiction of New-Plimouth... (Boston: Samuel Green, 1685).
10. If any Man lyeth with Mankinde, as he lyeth with a Woman, both of them have committed Abomination; they both shall surely be put to Death, unless the one part was forced, or be under fourteen years of Age: And all other Sodomitical filthiness, shall be surely punished according to the nature of it.
UPDATE: Curiouser, and curiouser. The historian's brief makes the claim:The trial of Nicholas Sension, a married man living in Westhersfield, Connecticut, in 1677, revealed that he had been widely known for soliciting sexual contacts with the town’s men and youth for almost forty years but remained widely liked.
Nicholas Senchon (apparently the same guy) is listed in Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut 2:524--but as a freeman of Windsor in October of 1669. (Wethersfield freemen start on this page, but Senchon is clearly listed on the Windsor listing, which starts on the previous page.) If he had been soliciting sexual contacts with the town's men and youth for almost forty years, it must have been while visiting from Windsor. Someone really needs to check the accuracy of their work.
The Evils of Slavery
A child is sold, separated from his mother. Does this sound like a 19th century abolitionist sob story? A history book? "Ripped from today's headlines," unfortunately: Brianna Marie Burns, 23, of Craigsville, was being held at Central Regional Jail in Flatwoods on total bail of $105,000 stemming from charges in Nicholas and Webster counties.
It's amazing what people will do to support their drug habits. Yes, if should could buy this stuff over the counter, she wouldn't have needed to sell her son to get it. But what does it tell you about the power of addiction that it would lead a mother to sell her son?
According to Nicholas sheriff's Deputy Walter Shaffer and officers from the Central West Virginia Drug Task Force, Burns allegedly made a deal with her grandmother to sell her son for $500. After the exchange of money was made and custody of the child signed over, Burns was immediately arrested.
According to the officers, Burns gave a statement that she sold the child to have money to buy OxyContin. Burns was charged with felony counts of sale of a child, forgery and uttering. Nicholas Magistrate John Morton also arraigned Burns of charges of fraudulent schemes and petit larceny. Her bond was set at $67,500. Additionally, Morton arraigned Burns on two counts of petit larceny and one count of unarmed robbery in Webster County. That bond was set at $37,500.
There are those who think that all drugs should be legal because it's less destructive than the current system, and they may be right about some of the less addictive drugs, like marijuana. But there are also those who think that all drugs should be legal because it's no one's business but the addict's if they want to get addicted. Think long and hard about how addictive OxyContin is that it would destroy what is (whether you are an evolutionist or a Bible-believer) clearly the strongest bond of all: a mother's love for her child. Think real hard about this, and ask yourself if you really want to live in a society where addictions this powerful and destructive are available without any questions at the nearest drug store.
False Testimony in Capital Cases
Eugene Volokh writes about California Penal Code sec. 128, which makes it a capital crime to testify falsely so as to cause the execution of another. The law was originally adopted in 1872, and it doesn't surprise me. After all, it comes from the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
Just another reminder that our legal system used to be based on a Judeo-Christian worldview. No longer; from now on, it's whatever five Supreme Court justices decide feels good.
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
Another Criticism of the Lawrence Decision
From the Legalguy blog, saying much of what I have been saying about this decision: Much has been written about the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas, but there has been one theme throughout many of the commentaries that I find quite disturbing: A focus purely on results. Most commentators are either liberal/libertarians or conservative/libertarians and loved seeing Texas’s moral legislation struck down as unconstitutional.
Legalguy goes on to point out that the parallels to the Lochner decision of 1905, that struck down pretty much all state economic regulation as a violation of freedom of contract.
...
The commentators further sneered at and celebrated Scalia’s ruing of “the end of all morals legislation.” But should those who do not like sodomy laws really be celebrating? I suggest not. Why? Because I believe that what has ultimately been sacrificed by Lawrence was the Constitution’s greatest asset – its procedures. Furthermore, even for those who applaud the decision in Lawrence, all they have gained is a flimsy, logically unavailing, and eminently fragile victory because the decision can be just as easily overturned as it was created.
UPDATE: Not only are the predictable sorts like Jonah Goldberg riding the Lawrence decision as an example of the dangers of a "living Constitution", but even some people that I wouldn't expect are saying the same thing, like Charles Krauthammer's column in the Washington Post.Conservatives are distressed and liberals ecstatic about the outcome of recent decisions of this allegedly conservative court. In a few short years, it has enshrined in stone (1) abortion on demand, (2) racial preferences and (3) gay rights -- the liberal trifecta, just about their entire social agenda, save shutting down the Fox News Channel.
My concern about the court is less the outcome of these cases than the court's arbitrariness and imperiousness. In 1992, I voted (in a Maryland referendum) to maintain legalized abortion, and yet I believe that Roe v. Wade was an appalling act of judicial usurpation that deserves repeal. And had I been a Texas legislator, I, like Justice Clarence Thomas, would have voted to repeal the sodomy law, but it was not the court's place to do the people's work when it struck down all such laws under an infinitely expansive notion of "privacy."
Racial Differences
I may regret this tomorrow.
I don't follow baseball--or any other sport--so I don't have any idea who Dusty Baker is. I do recognize liberalism at work, however, in the response to his comments about heat and race (discussed on Volokh Conspiracy). What do I mean by "liberalism at work"? I mean the triumph of ideology over inconvenient facts.
Baker made the claim that black and Hispanic ballplayers handled the heat better than whites. I've read that experiments done during World War II by the U.S. Army found that blacks tolerated wet heat better than whites, who tolerated wet cold better than blacks.
Melanin in the skin provides significant protection against skin cancer for blacks--but also reduces the amount of vitamin D produced by sun exposure. This is generally believed to be the reason that the original populations of the temperate zones have less melanin--it is less needed for protection from skin cancer, and an excess of melanin in a low sunlight environment reduces vitamin D production.
One of the reasons that Europeans imported blacks to work in the cane fields of the Caribbean and the tobacco fields of the South was because blacks were perceived to tolerate the heat and sun better than whites. Contrary to popular impression, blacks weren't imported just because it was cheaper to buy slaves; until at least the middle of the 17th century, it was something of a toss-up as to whether to use indentured white servants from Europe, or indentured black servants from Africa. (Yes, they were slaves on the ship, but at least at the beginning, Africans in Virginia were treated as indentured servants, and became freemen when their terms expired.)
Another factor influencing the use of blacks for this sort of work was malaria, a scourge of many regions of the United States right up to the end of the 19th century. (I know a woman who grew up in Texas in the 1930s. She tells me that quinine in hot chocolate was a regular part of the summer, and part of why she can't stand the taste of chocolate today--it brings back memories of the bitterness of quinine.) It turns out that if you inherit the gene for sickle cell anemia from one parent, it provides a remarkable level of protection from malaria, and this is almost certainly the reason that the sickle cell anemia genes exist in such a large percentage of the West African population. It's not tied to race; in a number of parts of the Mediterranean Sea, there are whites with sickle cell anemia genes as well, although not in as high a percentage.
There are real racial differences. Until a post-World War II conference, geneticists didn't know that there were two types of ear wax. Japanese geneticists were aware of it, because there was a large fraction of the Japanese population with dry/feathery ear wax, and just assumed that this was common in all populations. There are plenty of inherited diseases that common in some races, but rare in others. Unfortunately, the legitimate study of these differences became disreputable because of Nazi pseudo-science and genocide. Liberalism, in its pursuit of a world without racial prejudice, has latched onto the idea that racial differences (which does not necessarily need to produce racial prejudice) must therefore not exist.
Blow-Outs Are Contagious?
I blogged a few days about an interesting blow-out we saw on the road to Pullman, Washington, and today, my wife's Malibu suffered a somewhat less spectacular blow-out on the I-84, headed into downtown Boise. I had noticed when I drove the car last night that it felt a little odd--a bit more vibration than normal, but I dismissed it as just that I hadn't driven her car recently. My wife also noticed an increased vibration in the last few days, but didn't think much of it. I suspect that these were warning signs of imminent tread separation. Unfortunately, Firestone has a reputation with respect to tread separation leading to blow-outs because of the Steel Radial 500 fiasco some years ago (not entirely fair, I think), and the more recent Ford Explorer fiasco (perhaps deserved).
I replaced the two rear tires with Goodyear Eagle GAs--an H-speed rated tire, and one in which I have more confidence. A tire that is designed to operate continuously at 130 mph is probably less likely to fail than a tire that only has to meet the P-metric or T-speed rating standards.
The Firestones are the original tire with the car, so 35,000 miles isn't bad (they were ready to be replaced anyway). I just wish the tire had failed a little less vigorously.
Why It's Okay to Intervene in Liberia, but Not Iraq
Electric Venom asks why it is okay to intervene in Liberia, but not in Iraq. I think it is because Liberia's Charles Taylor doesn't have the money to buy off the right people in Europe.
Peter Jennings Turns American
I can't decide if I am touched or infuriated that another part of the leftist hegemonic media elite (did that sound academic enough to suit my new part-time employment?) has decided to take up American citizenship:After pondering the idea seriously for a decade -- and weathering a recent controversy in which his Canadian roots were an issue -- ABC News anchor Peter Jennings has become an American citizen.
The Toronto-born journalist, who was raised in Ottawa and still retreats from fame every summer to a farm in the nearby Gatineau Hills, said yesterday the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. and his recent travels throughout the country have made him feel "much more connected to the Founding Fathers' dreams and ideas for the future."
...
"The process to become an American citizen is neither quick, nor easy," he added. "Among other things, you have to take a test. I'm very proud: I got 100. Good thing, too, as I'd just finished a book on America with a friend of mine."
In fact, says Mr. Jennings, it was while travelling to write and then promote the book -- titled In Search of America -- that he decided to apply for U.S. citizenship.
"I think that 9/11 and the subsequent travel I did in the country afterwards made me feel connected in new ways," he said. "And when we were working on the America project I spent a lot of time on the road, which meant away from my editor's desk, and I just got much more connected to the Founding Fathers' dreams and ideas for the future."
The South As Libertaria?
Eugene Volokh was taken to task for suggesting that the Confederacy existed to defend an evil institution. Eugene defends himself, but I thought I would chime in with an additional point: the South was not libertarian--in spite of what some modern Southerners would like to think. I don't just mean that it wasn't libertarian because it held slaves--although that would seem a more than sufficient refutation by itself. I mean that the South didn't believe in a number of key tenents of libertarian thought:
1. It opposed free speech. Distribution of abolitionist literature was determined to be promoting servile insurrection, and made a capital offense. Walker's Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World (1829) was blamed for Turner's Rebellion as an incendiary piece of literature. It's well worth reading; it's about as incendiary as an Oxford debating point.
2. The Southern states were in the lead on gun control. All of the gun control laws that I can find before 1840 are from Southern states, or states dominated by Southerners at the time (such as Indiana). Many of the horrible precedents that justified later gun control laws come from these state supreme courts.
3. The South vigorously opposed private property rights. After 1830, most slave states prohibited masters from freeing their slaves, except with permission from the state legislature. If you wanted to free one of your slaves, you had to take him or her into a free state. After 1831, nearly every slave state prohibited teaching slaves to read or write--thus prohibiting masters from enhancing the value of their property.
4. The slave states were strong on government regulation, with rules regulating the race of the overseer on plantations, and some of the first city police departments in the U.S. (to check passes of slaves passing from home to work).
Yes, there were aspects of the South that were libertarian, such as no mandatory (or even available) public schools, and an opposition to protective tariffs. But there are many aspects that are more appropriate to another form of government. George Fitzhugh's Cannibals All! (1857) was one of the most popular defenses of slavery when it was published; Fitzhugh considered slavery to be a form of socialism, and one that he believed compared favorably to the evils of Northern capitalism (which is to what the "Cannibals" of the title refers). If you want to know more about this, read my book Black Demographic Data, 1790-1860 (Greenwood, 1997).
MSNBC Pulls Michael Savage's Plug
Eugene Volokh mentioned this FoxNews story about how MSNBC cancelled Michael Savage's talkshow for his remarks directed at a homosexual listener. I used to listen to Savage's local radio program when I commuted in the Bay Area, usually because there was nothing else on--the last step before turning off the stereo completely. I can't say that I ever listened to him for more than about ten minutes, because I found him too irritating. He was to conservatism what Michael Moore is to intelligent leftist analysis.
Savage dripped insincerity. He struck me as someone who, 20 years ago, would probably have been one of the obnoxious insulting leftist talk show hosts that were all the rage at the time. I don't ever sense that Savage believed terribly deeply in anything he said--he was just saying it to get a rise out of his audience, and it worked.
What I find especially interesting, however, is that it took one of Savage's remarks about homosexuals to get him pulled. I don't know what sort of content Savage was using on his MSNBC program, but he regularly talked about "Mud People" on his local radio program in San Francisco. This was usually about the point where I turned him off, but it was pretty clear that by "Mud People," Savage didn't mean kids playing in the mud in the back yard, but non-whites. I can't count the number of times Savage engaged in this form of not even thinly veiled racism, pandering to the vilest sentiments of his audience--and that wasn't enough to pull him off the air, or prevent MSNBC from carrying him. I certainly won't defend Savage's nasty remarks on the air (although it sounds from the description as though the caller had said something to Savage that didn't meet broadcast standards), but I will say this: he could have blathered on about "Mud People" degrading our society (as he often did on his local program) for decades, and not lost his platform. He responds to an apparently nasty remark from a homosexual caller with another nasty remark about homosexuals, and poof! Away he goes.
Perhaps it says something about the relative acceptability of racism vs. "homophobia" to the mainstream media?
The Trip Itself
I rented a car for the trip to Washington State University, Pullman, and Eastern Washington University, in Cheney. (Spelled like the vice president, but apparently pronounced more like "Chee-knee".) There were some documents at both WSU and EWU on micro-opaques that these libraries will not inter-library loan, so I had to go and visit the libraries.
The Car
National Car Rental rented me a Chevrolet Impala. Regular readers of my blog probably know that I sold my 2000 Chevrolet Impala LS to buy the Corvette. What I rented was the base model of the Impala, with a smaller engine (3.4L vs. 3.8L), a softer suspension, and a bit less in the way of bells and whistles.
The smaller displacement engine was noticeably weaker, but tolerable, even on U.S. 95, a twisty two lane road for most of the distance between Boise and Pullman. The softer suspension wasn't dramatically less capable, but I did definitely notice the difference, with more body roll than I like. Otherwise, it's a nice car, especially for a long trip with my wife and son along.
Adventures on the Road
Do you remember the Mitsubishi Colt? Yes, there are some of them still on the road. One ahead of us near Midvale, Idaho, suffered a catastrophic blowout on the rear right tire, with chunks of rubber and steel flying 15 feet into the air ahead of us. We stopped to render assistance, and it was a good thing we did. As they limped to a stop, the gas tank emptied, with gasoline pouring in large volume down the road surface--enough that we could smell it even before we got our car stopped.
The driver was real new at this--she was still on her learner's permit. I had to explain to her boyfriend that it would not be wise to start up the engine, since we could see gasoline everywhere, and we weren't sure from where it was coming. We pushed the Colt down to a wider part of the shoulder.
I thought at first that one of the fragments of tread (which include steel cord) might have punched a hole in the gas tank, but it was actually a bit more interesting. There is a rubber hose that goes from the gas tank filler to the gas tank, apparently rubber so that in an accident, it won't tear and allow gasoline from the tank to go everywhere. The flap of tread still hanging on the tire had hit this rubber hose hard enough, or often enough, that it disconnected the hose from the gas tank. I didn't see any sign of anything but friction and hope having held this hose in place--no evidence of clamps. Unfortunately, the occupants of the Colt had no phones, so we let them call the girl's parents with ours to come and retrieve them.
The Landscape
Boise is a high desert, and ugly. About 40 miles north of Boise, Idaho turns into beautiful pine forests. North of Lewiston, you find yourself in the Palouse, a wheat growing region of Eastern Washington and western Idaho. I'll be putting up some pictures shortly--rolling hills, covered in wheat. The phrase "amber waves of grain" in the song America the Beautiful never meant anything to me before; now I know to what it refers. I don't think the video clips I took with my digital camera will capture the beauty of the wind swaying the wheat back and forth like ocean waves, but if you haven't ever seen this, you should. It is awe-inspiring in a way that I can't logically explain--but I can feel it.
Moscow, right across the state boundary from Pullman, is a beautiful little college town. I would love to move there, so that my wife and I can work on our PhDs. However, until long-term A-rated corporate bond rates hit 9%, or my loyal readers drop another $300,000 on me, I guess I won't be moving.
We stayed at the Hampton Inn in Moscow--a really nice place, with a rate through Travelocity.com so low that it took my breath away.
The Libraries
WSU Pullman has a very nice library, and in one of those serendipitous discoveries that usually accompany historical research, I went looking for one document, and found a number of different documents on the same reel that were useful. More about that later.
EWU in Cheney was another surprise--a beautiful campus in a small town a few miles south of Spokane. Again, I went in looking for five documents in the Early American Imprints, 2nd series collection, and discovered that they had lots of early Republic business directories. I only had time to check one Boston and one Charleston city directory before I ran out of time, but in both cases, I found gunsmiths that do not appear on any other lists of early American gunsmiths. I think I will return to EWU one of these weekends, and work my way through the rest of these early Republic business directories.
The Soon-To-Be Fiance
Signs that you are getting old: you get to meet the family of the guy to whom your daughter is considering marriage. ("Consdering" means showing us the engagement ring at the jewelers, and discussing wedding invitations.)
Back From My Research Trip...
I'm back, but I've been digging through a pile of email, and McAfee SpamKiller has been digging through mountains of spam. I have some interesting stories to tell, and interesting sights I saw--but that will have to wait. It's bed time.
