Right Wing Nut House

Faithful readers of The House will recall that in previous years, my “Liveblogging the Battle of Gettysburg” occupied this site at around this time. Sadly, I have taken that project about as far as possible and declined to involve myself with it this year.

You asked for it. You got it. Let’s go to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 4, 1776 and the background on how the final version of the Declaration of Independence came about. (I liveblogged the vote on independence here. And here is my post from yesterday.)

Scroll for updates below.

It’s 10:00 AM on Bloggers Row here in Carpenter Hall and for once, I find myself virtually alone. My blog friends have finally realized that just because Congress says that they will start deliberations at 10:00 AM every day doesn’t mean anything. Our Great Men enjoy long, leisurely breakfasts and have little interest in adhering to the dictates of good government by hurrying themselves along. The city could be on fire or worse, the British could be marching down Chestnut Street and I fear many members of Congress would tarry at their tables lest their digestion suffer.

I don’t really mind the delay that much. It gives me a chance to reflect on what has been accomplished these last momentous weeks here in Philadelphia and try and make sense of what the future might bring.

I had a long conversation with Tom Paine last night at City Tavern - well, in truth, Mr. Paine did most of the talking, lubricated as he was by several glasses of ale. Anyone who has read Common Sense knows the measure of this brilliant, erratic man. For in truth, I found that his speaking is much the same as his writing.

He touched on familiar themes; the inevitability of our separation from England as well as the certainty of our triumph. I tried to argue the Tory side but he cut me off peremptorily and quoted from his treatise, destroying my arguments in the process:

I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has flourished under her former connection with Great Britain, the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true; for I answer roundly that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power taken any notice of her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.

Mr. Paine makes an interesting point, one that I’ve heard some patriot merchants make on several occasions. Our connection to Great Britain with her restrictive trade practices and heavy duties on necessities has stifled the American commercial character. Might independence loose a torrent of business activity that will enrich our citizens from all levels of society? Paine is adamant that this is so. The man is too much a “leveler” for my taste but it’s hard to argue with his logic. Besides, it’s a little intimidating for this lowly blogger to be interviewing the man credited by many with moving the entire nation toward independence!

I received some disturbing news from my landlady this morning about a disturbance at the Shippen House late last evening. Evidently some drunken dock workers were shouting insults at the Tory family and went so far as to throw a few rocks at the windows.

No one was hurt but it raises some troubling questions; what to do with the loyalists?

Philadelphia has thousands of Tories. As I mentioned yesterday, I saw several loyalist families making preparations to abandon the city now that independence has been declared. But many more will no doubt stay - especially the families that own the great commercial houses that carry on with most of the business in the city. Should we place them under arrest? Should we force them to leave? What is to be done?

I never thought of this before but, in a way, this conflict will also take on the character of a civil war because there are so many among us who are still loyal to England. I have no doubt that my loyalist friend Thomas would fight for England if given the chance. Might we meet on a distant battlefield in the future, two friends who have known each other all our lives trying to kill each other?

A sobering thought, that. And that’s not the half of it. Thomas’s brother Joseph is a patriot and has already joined the Continental Army. Might the two brothers…?

Perish the thought. Some things we cannot dwell on lest the uncertainty of the future affect our present deliberations. And what we must concentrate on now is shouting from the mountaintops our determination to resist tyranny so that other nations can join us in our quest for liberty and independence.

But that won’t happen until we get Mr. Jefferson’s declaration passed in reasonably good order. I am told that Congress is determined to finish the task today so stay tuned for an update around 2:00 PM. We’ll see how far they’ve gotten.

UPDATE: 3:30 PM

The Congress is winding up its perusal of Mr. Jefferson’s declaration and from what I understand, the Virginian has been moping around the State House bemoaning the fact that his masterpiece of writing has been butchered.

As a writer myself, I can certainly understand Jefferson’s lament but frankly, he’s a little off base here. First of all, my take on his draft was that he was verbose and emotionally overwrought in some places. And if the Congress wants to exclude passages that are critical of the English people or that highlight the slave trade, that is their right as representatives of the people. I happen to think their judgment is sound on both points.

For instance, just a few minutes ago, Congress changed this passage from Jefferson’s draft:

A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. Future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered & fixed in principles of liberty.

To this cleaner, clearer, less emotionally charged sentence:

A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

I’m sure you can see where Congress, by condensing and clarifying Jefferson’s thoughts on King George, have improved the character of the piece. So Jefferson’s complaints, while understandable, are nevertheless not germane to the object of the matter.

Right now, there is an interesting discussion about the curious lack of references to “God” in Mr. Jefferson’s draft. Congress is looking at the closing paragraph to the declaration. Here is Jefferson’s version:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled do, in the name and by authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce all allegiance and subjection to the kings of Great Britain and all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve and break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states they shall hereafter have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.

Here is the altered final paragraph Congress wishes to insert:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare. That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The first major change Congress wants to make would substitute “in the name and by authority of the good people of these states”… and place in its stead “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”…

The issue of religion has not been raised in discussion of the draft but there is apparently a feeling that by calling upon The Almighty to bless the endeavor, it would have a salutary affect on our own people who are quite the religious lot. For myself, my mother’s family are Quakers where my father’s side don’t believe much of anything. I went to the Meeting House when I was younger but my mother (much to my grandmother’s horror) allowed me to make my own decisions about religion once I reached the age of 18.

Most of these Great Men make a show of attending religious services but as far as their personal beliefs, I’m not sure. I find it interesting that they don’t mention “God” per se in the draft but rather refer to “The Supreme Judge” or, as in this other change from Jefferson’s draft, “Divine Providence.”

Jefferson’s draft:

And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.

Revision by Congress:

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

Still no mention of God but everyone knows who they are referring to. Or do they? There is a current of thought abroad in Europe that sees not some Supreme Being watching over our lives but rather a great force of nature that rules the universe. “Providence” refers to this idea that our lives are governed by this force and that America is destined to succeed as a result of what has been set in motion already.

It’s a little beyond my understanding. But most people will see “Providence” as a code word for “God” which is the whole point of the exercise, I gather.

All told, by my count it appears that Congress has made 39 changes to Jefferson’s draft including striking out the passage on slavery. They are preparing for the vote on adopting the declaration - a pro forma action. And then the deed will be done.

I will have one more update shortly.

UPDATE: 4:30 PM

The declaration of American independence was approved unanimously in Congress just a few minutes ago.

All in all, a cracking good piece of writing and thinking. While Mr. Jefferson should get the lion’s share of the credit, there were many hands that improved upon his work who should also receive the favor of history. Adams and Franklin, definitely. And several members of Congress - including the President of Congress John Hancock who was supposed to have muttered while signing his name in huge script to authenticate the document, “I guess King George should be able to read that well enough!” (I have it on excellent authority - a Mr. Charles Thomson, Secretary of Congress, that this story is utter nonsense. Congress had already adjourned and, after making a few minor changes to the draft, Hancock signed it in the presence of Mr. Thomson without saying a word.) Now it’s off to the printer where we assume, Congress assembled will sign it at a later date.

“The favor of history” - that, ultimately, is what this document’s about. Jefferson obviously wrote this declaration with one eye on history and one eye across the ocean. If it ever becomes unclear in the distant future why we colonists rose up to throw off the yoke of British tyranny, all our great-great-grandchildren will have to do is dust off Mr. Jefferson’s handiwork and read it.

But will we be able to transmit to those distant generations what was in our hearts, our minds? Will we be able to make them understand how precious our freedoms are to us, how many of us would willingly die rather than lose them? The British didn’t just want to tax us. They wanted to take our property without our consent - a clear definition of tyranny and arbitrary government. What will those future Americans - and I feel certain there will be Americans in the future - think of our taking up arms and fighting for a new nation? Will they understand how we see ourselves as “new men” set down here by God in a new place, enjoying a bounty from the land gleaned by the sweat of our own brows on our own land? Will that be important to them? I hope so.

I have no idea what the future will hold. But I know we will never stop fighting until this new nation can take its place among the old ones as an equal. Empires come and go, nations rise and fall, but America - an idea more than a place - will always be with us.

Bloggers row is empty now. They are striking the tables and chairs and the workers are giving me “the eye,” telling me it is time to go. I’m off to enlist in the Continental Army, to share the dangers and privations of this war with my friends and neighbors. And one more reason to go off to war…

I have my own country to fight for.

I really wanted to spend this Fourth of July as I usually do here at The House; contemplating the past while trying to draw lessons from it that would resonate with Americans today. It’s one of the few days of the year that we explicitly celebrate our past and as a lover of history, I always find it invigorating to explore where we came from and try and connect it to where we are headed. We Americans tend to look to the future without giving much thought to events and people that preceded us. A price we pay, I suppose, for the raw dynamism of American society with its extraordinary pace and ability to turn on a dime, changing direction to suit the temper of the times in which we live.

I will allow myself the luxury of some of this today as I complete my series on Liveblogging the Second Continental Congress - July 2-4, 1776 (see here and here for the first two parts). I would highly recommend this kind of parlor game as a way to gain valuable insights - not just into yourself and your own attitudes toward history but also into how this country evolved into what it is today. For by placing yourself at the center of the action as a simple observer, you are forced to live a life not ordinarily contemplated today. If you’ve read Morrison, Page Smith, Zinn, Flexner, Trevelayan, Draper, and a few others and digest the letters and statements from ordinary folk about the revolution, you come away with a deep and abiding respect for those early Americans. Bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant in many ways and yet for all their faults, absolutely determined to to live in freedom.

The great military historian John Keegan believes that even if Washington’s little army had been destroyed outside of New York city in the summer of 1776 and members of Congress were arrested, tried, and executed, the war would have gone on until the British realized they no longer controlled the colonies and moved on. For in truth, the American people had willed the new nation into existence by the power of their imaginations and an abiding trust in what many of them called “Providence.” (For a great discussion of this theme, I recommend this podcast of my radio show where my brother, a life long English teacher and very smart fellow, holds forth at length on this purely American phenomena.)

But there is an intrusion into my reverie today - one so blatantly false and perfidious, that I feel a response is in order. The reaction by a large segment of the left to the commutation of Libby’s sentence has proved to be (as everyone predicted) an over the top extravaganza of hand wringing, bed wetting, spittle spewing and bile raising that is, at times, laughable while at other times has one concerned for the mental and emotional health of some of our liberal friends.

As an example of this truly frightening phenomena, here’s Taylor Marsh in what has to be the most hysterically overwrought post of the new millenia:

America wakes up in bondage today.

There’s no other way to see it. A president and vice president have taken hold of the helm of this country and are dictating by fiat the very freedom and air that people are allowed to breathe, while holding themselves and their own above the law. We are led by the most un-American of men. Let there be no doubt. But in the wake of inaction and a Congress only equipped to hurl words, the question remains what will be done about it?

[snip]

On this 4th of July, I. Scooter Libby may be free, but America is not. We the people are not. Most of the Senate certainly is not, tied down to some traditionalism that tacitly gives permission to the president’s lawlessness, because raising the Capitol dome is judged unseemly. House Democrats are at least standing up and shouting loudly, holding hearings and investigations, even if some can’t bring themselves to stand up and lose their jobs by doing their jobs, which is to preserve this republic at all costs, even your own. As for the Republicans in Congress, those Republicans, conservatives, as well as their right-wing pundits beyond who hail what Mr. Bush did in commuting Libby’s sentence as action of the good. They are now pariahs of The Patriots fighting to take this country back. People like you and me.

Wow.

I can’t fisk this or cover it in snark and ridicule. It is beyond my ability to explain, or even criticize.

For the record, we are still a free country - even the air we breathe is still free - and it was not “lawless” of the President to have commuted Libby’s sentence. It may have been stupid, or dumb, or even a wonderful thing. But it was entirely within the President’s purview to have done so. The Constitution, in one of its few clear and declarative moments, states that the President’s powers in this regard are absolute.

Liberals know this. They are fully aware of what the Constitution says. They even acknowledge it.

And then they go ahead like Marsh and ignore that salient fact and pretend that the Constitution doesn’t say what it says - that it either doesn’t say anything or that we should substitute their interpretation for what is one of the clearest sections in that 218 year old document.

To acknowledge the Constitution’s clarity in this matter would frankly, spoil the moment. Because as Keith Olbermann proved with his “Special Commentary” last night, this one event is the culmination of nearly seven years of effort by the left to prove to themselves and to the rest of us that, quite simply, they are a superior life form - that they can still mount the battlements and wave the bloody shirt, pleading with us peons to follow them while expecting us to worship their superior judgment and intelligence and gaze at them with a stuporous, doe eyed look of wonder. All because, by gum, they care! They really, really, really, really, care!

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison—at the Constitutional Convention—said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by” that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish—the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation’s citizens—the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

To paraphrase LBJ, when you’ve lost Olbermann, you’ve lost the middle of nowhere.

Sanctimony drips like tainted water from a toxic waste pipe in this entire, unhinged rant. I actually couldn’t watch the video and was forced to read a transcript, stifling my gag reflex to keep last night’s Jimmy John’s Italian Beef sandwich from making an encore appearance.

How truly heroic this former sports talking head sounds. The burden this man carries - saving us from total destruction at the hands of President Bush and his evil clique - must be getting awfully heavy. Is there no one in America who will help this magnificently valiant patriot carry the load? This doughty warrior for liberty whose herculean labors performed on behalf of the rest of us ignorant yip yips - we who are unable to grasp the monumental evil abroad in the land with Bush and his lawless gang running roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law?

What are we to do? Tell us, ye who is so obviously our better:

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

Watching Mr. Olbermann can certainly be eductional. I had no idea we fought a revolution for 8 years so that no one would be able to commute the sentences of criminals. Of course, those crazy, unpredictable Founding Fathers then went ahead and wrote into the Constitution those very same powers with a clarity and simplicity that all but a few delusional nitwits like Olbermann could grasp so I guess we have to say that we fought the revolution for nothing.

And do you notice that the more unhinged the left has become lately, the more they like to toss around the words “patriot” and “patriotism?” Not as a feeling, of course. Such silly sentiments are reserved for the great unwashed masses who are placed on this earth to worship the superior beings that liberals consider themselves. The left likes to use those words as clubs -as Olbermann proves with his riotously stupid statement about Nixon’s “patriotism” in resigning.

I hate to break the news to Mr. Olbermann, but Nixon resigned because if he didn’t he would have surely been impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. He did it to spare himself a personal humiliation. And don’t you think it’s a little late for anyone on the left to ascribe any sort of decency to anything Nixon ever did? Hypocrisy is the least of Olbermann’s sins in this screed but considering how the left has seen and reacted to Richard Nixon since he came to Congress in 1948 through even today, 13 years after his death, it is perhaps the most outrageous part of this entire commentary.

Except perhaps the last sentence:

And give us someone—anyone—about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

Someone? Anyone? Well, let’s think about that for a second. If the President resigns, the Vice President would become President. But wait! We can’t have that. Besides, Cheney should resign too. Whatever shall we do? Are we condemned to go presidentless until January 20, 2009?

In the event both the president and vice president are incapacitated through death or illness, the office would fall to a someone/anyone by the name of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the line of succession, and presumably someone we can all look up to a feel proud about being an American again.

Oh. Did I mention she’s a liberal Democrat?

Join me live today at 3:00 PM central for The Rick Moran Show on Blog Talk Radio.

As a special treat, I’ve invited my bigger, smarter, brother Jim as a guest. Jim is a life long English teacher and lately, has been making an impact on the American folk music scene as a member of the band Chilly Winds. He also has his own excellent blog, The Vivid Air.

We’ll celebrate the Fourth of July by having some patriotic poetry readings as well as some fascinating discussion of some patriotic songs and themes that have endured through American history.

If you’d like to join the discussion, you can call in by dialing (718) 664-9764. You can access the stream here. Or click on the icon below.

A podcast of the show will be available shortly after its conclusion.

UPDATE

This one’s a keeper. A great show with fascinating, scintillating commentary from my brother Jim.

Click on to listen or go to the link above to download.

Faithful readers of The House will recall that in previous years, my “Liveblogging the Battle of Gettysburg” occupied this site at around this time. Sadly, I have taken that project about as far as possible and declined to involve myself with it this year.

You asked for it. You got it. Let’s go to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 3, 1776 and the background on how the final version of the Declaration of Independence came about. (I liveblogged the vote on independence here.)

SCROLL FOR UPDATES

Bloggers row here at Carpenter’s Hall is beginning to resemble the Congress. Even though it’s 10:00 AM - the time appointed for Congress to open deliberations - most bloggers and delegates are nowhere to be found. I’m sure some bloggers (and no doubt some delegates) are recovering from having tasted a wee bit too much of “the creature” as my grandmother would say. There was a big celebration at City Tavern last night in honor of Mr. Adams and independence. I was there for a while but bowed out early to walk the streets and try and gauge the reaction among the population to the news that the American colonies had cut the apron strings and were no longer part of England.

There were many who appeared extremely pleased at the news. There was also a considerable number of people who appeared uncertain or even fearful. And there were some Tories who were already packing and preparing to leave the city. Judging by the rumblings I’ve heard from some patriots, it may not be safe for those whose loyalties still lie with King George.

For those who were happy at the prospect of independence, a giddy sort of confidence seemed to capture them and the thought of what lies ahead didn’t seem to faze them. This was not, I hasten to add, some kind of raw hysteria but rather a belief in themselves and their abilities to overcome the numerous obstacles that lie in our path.

I have noticed this trait in many of my fellow colonists Americans (!). When faced with a daunting challenge, they seem to have a supreme sense of being able to face the trial with a stout heart and clear eye. I suppose some of that comes from the fact that just a few short decades ago, this city was a dense wilderness full of savage beasts and even more savage men. Having hacked civilization from the primeval forests, perhaps we Americans feel that we can accomplish anything we set our minds to.

A Frenchman of my acquaintance commented on this very thing - and not very favorably I might add. He thought this confidence was insufferable arrogance. I suppose that’s one way to look at it. But I feel that if this is indeed, an “American” way of looking at the world, it will hold us in good stead during the tests we will have to face in the next few years.

My sojourn among the people of Philadelphia last night impressed upon me the unique character of the American race and convinced me even more of the worthiness of our cause. And that cause will be shouted to the world when Congress gets finished with rifling through Mr. Jefferson’s declaration proclaiming our independence. As I mentioned yesterday, I was able to get a brief glimpse of the secret document and from what I saw, it seemed a fair piece of writing and thinking by the Virginian.

You may recall that Mr. Jefferson was charged with drafting the document by the so-called “Committee of Five” - Mssrs. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Livingston (NY) and Sherman (CT) even though all were supposed to have a hand in creating the document. My understanding (and I’ll have more on this later in an update) was that Jefferson’s draft has already undergone some minor revisions by Franklin and Adams so that a “fair” copy was now in the hands of Congress. I may have some specifics later on the kinds of edits made by the Committee but that depends on whether I can get my hands on a copy or not.

Make sure you check back for updates later.

UPDATE: 12:45 PM

Congress is now in session and going over Mr. Jefferson’s declaration with a fine tooth comb. I was able to secure a copy of the Virginian’s original draft before the Committee of Five reworked it. I understand they made 49 mostly minor alterations. And in my opinion, improved on it.

For instance, here’s the introduction written by Mr. Jefferson:

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, & to assume among the powers of the earth the equal & independant station to which the laws of nature & of nature’s god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change.

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principles & organising it’s powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness…

And here’s the altered text after the Committee of Five made some interesting changes:

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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Note the subtle change in tone. And I especially approve of the change from the original of the passage “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable…” written by Jefferson to the much more demonstrative and confident “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

It appears that Jefferson could be long winded at times and I believe the Committee of Five wisely cut back on the verbiage, substituting short, declarative statements - perhaps sacrificing a little style but this isn’t a writing contest we’re in here. We’re trying to convince the world of the righteousness of our cause. Anything that helps in that regard should be embraced, although I hear that Jefferson is already grumbling about fiddling with his masterwork.

We’re getting an audio only feed from the State House regarding the changes being made to the Declaration. At the moment, the delegates seem stuck on some of the reasons Jefferson has given for the seperation. Many of them don’t like the way the document blames the English people for what they clearly consider a fight with Parliament and the King. Anything that seems to criticize our English cousins is being removed. A not unwise move but considering all the flak we’ve taken from the “English people” about the justice of our cause, I really could care less if we offend them or not.

I recall Dr. Samuel Johnson, the great man of letters, telling a correspondent a few years ago “Why is it we hear the loudest yelps for freedom from the drivers of Negro slaves?” That kind of offensive statement is exactly why most of us feel that the English people, while blameless to a certain extent, nevertheless should be chastized for their support of this parliament and their tyrannical actions.

And Dr. Johnson may get his comeuppance with Jefferson’s screed. There’s this passage about our “Negro slaves” that Johnson can take and stick where the sun don’t shine:

…he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

It is, after all, the Crown’s fault that there’s slavery here in the first place. And it has been British ships that brought the poor unfortunates to our shores. Why not blame England for this ” execrable commerce” as Jefferson calls it?

I know Ben Franklin has started up this “Abolitionist Society” which wil agitate to free the Negroes but to my mind, that’s crazy. Three million ignorant savages suddenly freed to fend for themselves? It would be madness!

No - better that they remain slaves. At least until we can educate them to be upstanding Christians and not animal worshippers.

Mr. Ruttledge of South Carolina has already told his delegation that he will pull South Carolina out of the Congress if this passage makes it into the final draft so watch out later for some fireworks.

I’ll have one more update close to supper time.

UPDATE: 5:30 PM

Great excitement! Mr. Ruttledge and Mr. Adams had a knock down, drag out shouting match over the slavery section I quoted above. Ruttledge feels personally insulted by the passage and threatens the unity of the Congress unless it is stricken from the declaration. Adams believes that we can’t ignore the issue of slavery. To do so makes us hypocrites in the eyes of the world.

What to do? Both men have a point. By condemning the slave trade, do you not also condemn those who buy the slaves? And how is it possible to claim our own country on the basis of freedom while keeping millions in bondage?

My own feeling is that the issue isn’t worth tearing ourselves apart. The slavery issue will probably solve itself if we leave it alone and let the states that allow it to deal with it in their own time. After all, I wouldn’t want some Georgia planter telling me how to live my life. I’m not about to tell him what he can do with what is, after all, his own property.

But Adams is adamant about keeping the passage in the declaration and Ruttledge is steaming mad. Keeping one ear on the proceedings, I see where even some northerners are siding with Ruttledge so it seems inevitable that the passage will be struck from the final draft.

This is one argument we can’t afford right now - not with the British Navy darkening the horizon in New York Harbor. Colonel Milford of the Continental Army told me this morning it is likely that General Howe has more than 25,000 battle hardened troops to throw against our little army of 15,000, mostly made up of poorly trained militia. I fear for New York and Washington’s little army but there’s nothing for it - Congress has deemed it necessary for the General to stand and fight and fight he will of that I’m certain.

A word here about Washington. I saw him last year when he arrived for the beginning of this Second Continental Congress. He would stride purposefully into the State House every day, a grave, serious look on his face and a martial bearing accentuated no doubt by the fact that he wore his Virginia militia uniform. Some said at the time that he was angling for the command of the army. I have no doubt that is true but it is also true that there isn’t another man in the colonies who could have accomplished what he has done in such a short period of time. He outmanuevered the British in Boston, levering them out of the city by fortifying Dorchester Heights right under their noses. And of course, during the Seven Years War his otherworldly courage displayed at the Battle of the Monongahela where he almost singlehandedly saved the British army from total disaster with a skillful retreat, had his name on the lips of everyone in America.

I like General Washington. He inspires confidence - a quality that doesn’t appear in either General Gates or that ridiculous fop of a General, Charles Lee. Whether that will be enough against a superior British force bearing down on him in New York remains to be seen.

Congress has adjourned for the day. There will be another session tomorrow so make sure you check back. I’ll probably have an update around 10:00 AM.

If you have a friend whose politics fall on the left side of the Great Divide, I would urge you to immediately go to them and make sure that all sharp objects, flammable fluids, poisonous liquids, and most especially their prescriptions for Zoloft and Valium are safely under lock and key.

And if they happen to have a ceremonial Japanese sword lying about, make doubly sure that it is rendered harmless by taking away The Guide To Committing Hara-Kiri Handbook:

President Bush commuted Monday the prison term of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, facing 30 months in prison after a federal court convicted him of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.

A conviction remains on Scooter Libby’s record, and he must still pay a $250,000 fine.

A commutation is distinct from a pardon, which is a complete eradication of a conviction record and makes it the same as if the person has never been convicted.

Bush has only commuted the jail term, which means that the conviction remains on Libby’s record and he must still pay a $250,000 fine.

Commutations are rarely granted, says CNN’s chief legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. A commutation is a total right of the president and it cannot be challenged by any attorney or court, he said.

If your lefty charge begins to exhibit signs of distress like hyperventilation or incontinence, please follow these instructions:

1. Place a paper bag over their heads to ease breathing problems. (Make sure you remember to take the bag off at some point.)

2. Have some Handy Wipes handy to wipe up the mess after the sputtering, spewing, spittle-flecked rants against Bush are done.

3. If they fall into a catatonic state, this may be a ruse. Make sure they’re not faking by sticking them with a pin. If they’re not faking, you can relax. They will stay that way until election day, 2008.

4. There’s nothing you can do when they piss or crap in their pants except recommend a good off brand of diaper. (Since many liberals have difficulty holding down all but the most menial of jobs, saving them money on diapers is the best you can do.)

I would also like to report that I just glanced out of my window and have not seen any goose stepping storm troopers as yet although reading what Granny Pelosi has to say about the Scooter Libby “Get Out of Jail Free” card dispensed by the White House, we can never be too careful:

The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.

The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.

Serious charges to be sure. And I would take them to heart if the President’s enemies hadn’t already made these claims a half dozen other times with regard to something Bush or his Administration has done. Duncan Black goes Granny one better by hinting at the deep, dark conspiracies that prosecutor Fitzgerald missed in his 3 year investigation into who leaked Plame’s name - information he had at the very beginning of that investigation. Mr. Black speaks for many on the left when he posits the idea that “President Bush engages in ongoing obstruction of justice by commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence.”

I guess Black believes that commuting Scooter’s sentence is some kind of payoff to the former Cheney aide for keeping his mouth shut. What exactly is Libby is holding back that would bring down George Bush and Evil Karl? Perhaps the names of high level staffers who slept with male escort/conservative journalist Jeff Gannon? Maybe Scooter has the date certain a military draft will be instituted? Or our attack on Iran (that has been postponed a dozen or more times if you have read how “imminent” that attack has been for the last two years.) Or perhaps the real story of how Diebold stole the 2004 election?

Pick your conspiracy theory to explain Scooter’s pardon. One’s as good as another.

Then there is Jane Hamsher. There is something fascinating about Hamsher that draws even righties like me to her website. Reading her is sort of like viewing that famous R. Crumb poster “Stoned Again” where the hapless hippie’s head melts one frame at a time.

Her meltdowns are equally entertaining. To wit:

Demonstrating his complete contempt for trial by jury, rule of law and his own Department of Justice appointees, George Bush thumbed his nose once again at the very concept of democracy and the Beltway Brahmins are cheering. The dirty unwashed masses who populate our juries are fit to judge each other, but evidently not the ruling class. David Broder can breathe a sigh of relief that People Like Him are safe from those overly zealous US Attorneys who might want to hold them accountable to the same absurd standards that the little people must live by.

How quaint.

The White House has turned off their phone lines. Evidently they don’t want to hear what you think. There will still be phones tomorrow, and I don’t imagine anyone who cared enough to drop Dubya a line is going to forget.

I hope all those who predicted that there would be such a cry of outrage over this that Bush will somehow pay a huge price are preparing to, you know, be outraged.

How a President exercising power granted explicitly by the Constitution is “demonstrating contempt…for the rule of law” or “thumbing his nose…at the very concept of democracy” may be considered by some to be hyperbolic, idiotic nonsense. Not so. All one has to do in order to understand Hamsher and other lefties is follow this simple formula: Imagine a conservative, then take away reason, logic, coherence, and most other cognitive functions of the human brain. What you are left with describes both liberals and Ariolimax columbianus or Banana Slugs.

Denied seeing Karl Rove doing the frog march off to jail (Jason Leopold, call your analyst.) or George Bush impeached for…well, we’ll think of something, liberals are now prevented from seeing Scooter being hauled off to some minimum security work camp in chains and an orange jump suit with delicious visions of Libby being strip searched dancing in their heads.

I almost feel sorry for them. I really do.

UPDATE

Oh my God.

Hamsher’s got nothing on Olbie and Wilson. Check out the video via Hot Air and tell me that these guys aren’t several martinis short of a good drunk.

Faithful readers of The House will recall that in previous years, my “Liveblogging the Battle of Gettysburg” occupied this site at around this time. Sadly, I have taken that project about as far as possible and declined to involve myself with it this year.

You asked for it. You got it. Let’s go to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 2, 1776 - the day that American Independence was literally willed into existence by the people of the United States through their representatives in the Continental Congress.

UPDATES WILL APPEAR ALL DAY LONG - SCROLL DOWN FOR THE LATEST FROM PHILADELPHIA.

It’s 10:00 AM here in Philadelphia on what is shaping up to be a pretty significant day. I’m sitting in Carpenters Hall down the street from the State House where the delegates to the Second Continental Congress are meeting to debate and, we hope, finally vote on whether the colonies should declare themselves free of Great Britain’s oppression and create our own country.

Bloggers row here is all hustle and bustle. As usual, my friend Clayton from South Carolina is late. His manservant Henry is setting up his laptop station while Clayton is holding forth as usual, declaiming to one and all that “I will not trade living under one tyrant 3,000 miles away for living under 3,000 tyrants one mile away.” I see Henry give his master a strange look upon hearing that statement (I read it in a Boston newspaper some months ago) - a look quickly wiped off his face as Clayton moves to his seat.

Clayton is only expressing the doubts that many of us have about this venture. In fact, most of the people I’ve talked to are more or less resigned to the fact that the rupture between our father, King George, and his children here in America cannot be repaired and that independence is therefore the only road open to us. When I heard in May that the King was negotiating with some German states to hire mercenary soldiers to fight here in America, I knew that a great chasm had opened between mother England and the colonies that could never be bridged. Damned Hessians! I hear they are savages when in battle, going so far as to murder the wounded. And what they have done to civilians is unspeakable. If this is what King George now thinks of us, he will get all the war he can handle.

And war it is. With the most powerful army in the world. General George is at the moment, finding out just how difficult a task defeating this army is going to be. He’s hip deep in Redcoats up in New York with rumors that the British will land very soon, probably at Staten Island.. I spoke briefly with General Gates a few days ago and he assured me that Washington would fail, that “the amateur” as Gates refers to our General is in over his head. I might add that Gates is angling for General George’s job so take his statements however you wish. But few military experts I’ve talked to give Washington much of a chance. In fact, I hear that Congress literally ordered Washington to try and hold New York despite it untenability. The “gentlemen” believe that it would be bad form to give up a major city without a fight.

I’ll have more thoughts in a bit once the delegates start arriving. Keep coming back to this site for updates all day.

UPDATE: 11:00 AM

The delegates are beginning to wander in. Several have come from City Tavern where I understand from a fellow blogger that there was a spirited debate over Mr. Jefferson’s draft declaration on independence which will be addressed later today. John Adams let me have a peek at Jefferson’s handiwork and I have to say it’s not half bad. The man has a way with words, no doubt about it. (Rumor has it that Jefferson blogs at the site Publius using the handle “Everyman” but no one has confirmed it.) But I suspect the delegates will all put their two cents in, mangling the piece until even Jefferson won’t recognize it.

Good news from Adams, by the way. As expected, Cesar Rodney from Delaware has made the torturous 80 mile ride to Philadelphia in order to assure Delaware’s vote for Independence. Tom McKean, the other pro-Independence delegate, assured me yesterday that Rodney, who has been in poor health due to his cancer, would be here for the big vote.

Is there a lazier specimen of humanity than these delegates to Congress? Here we are, nearly half past eleven and barely half of them have bothered to show up. The fact that they were supposed to convene at 10:00 AM tells you all you need to know about the work habits of our “Great Men.”

Looks like the vote will happen in the next hour or so. Keep checking back for further updates.

UPDATE: 1:30 PM

Trouble. Apparently both Pennsylvania and South Carolina are dealing with divided delegations and Mr. Adams is unsure how the obstacles can be overcome to bring those states into the independence column.

In Pennsylvania, it’s the brilliant John Dickinson who may singlehandedly derail the drive for independence. You may remember Dickinson’s Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms that he penned last year in response to British provocations. But he’s never been able to make the leap of logic and faith required to abandon the mother country and support America striking out on her own. He has argued passionately this last fortnight against Mr. Richard Henry Lee’s resolution of Independence, fearing a disasterous defeat at the hands of the British Army will be a huge blow to our freedoms. The specter of British troops garrisoned here for a generation along with more high handedness from Parliament has generated some sympathy outside of the State House but not much interest among those who have already cast their lot for freedom from tyranny.

At any rate, Dickinson isn’t budging and unless they can at least get him to abstain, the party may be cancelled.

South Carolina is a different kettle of fish alltogether. Arthur Middleton, an avowed patriot, is sitting in for his ailing father - a Tory of some influence in his colony. My friend Clayton assures me that South Carolina is “in the bag for independence” because Middleton is going to tip the delegation in favor of it regardless of his father’s wishes. I’m not so sure. Young Edward Ruttledge - a most able and accomplished man at 27 years old - believes that Mr. Middleton is having a hard time making a decision and he may recommend to Mr. Adams that the vote be put off for one more day. This would be a mistake in my opinion as it appears to me that independence is sitting on the knife’s edge already what with the trouble in Pennsylvania. We’ll know soon about both delegations so stay tuned.

UPDATE: 2:15 PM

Word from down the street is that a compromise in the Pennylvania delegation has been achieved. Both pro-independence member Robert Morris and Dickinson will abstain from the final vote on the Lee Resolution for Independence. This means that Pennsylvania is in the “yes” column.

And I’ve been able to confirm Clayton’s news about Mr. Middleton. He’s essentially telling his father to be damned and will vote for independence anyway. Make South Carolina a “yes” also.

So there you have it. New York has already indicated that they will abstain, having received no instructions from their legislature. However, I’m told by Phil Livingston that the entire delegation is personally for independence so that there will be no recriminations as a result of their abstention.

I don’t think it’s quite sunk in yet, this idea of declaring ourselves independent and facing the wrath of the mighiest empire the world has ever seen. One thing for sure; we’re going to need some friends and quickly. The Dutch have already been quite helpful. And I hear Ben Franklin is making travel plans for France. If anyone can charm the French into openly declaring for our side, it’s Franklin. He could charm the bloomers off a spinster - something I’m sure he’s done before.

I’ll have the official results of the vote when it occurs.

UPDATE: 4:00 PM

The Continental Congress has passed the resolution for independence by a vote of 12-0 with New York abstaining.

John Adams is all smiles - a rarity, that. Independence wasn’t his idea but it had no greater champion nor ardent supporter than the gentleman from Massachussetts. I overheard him dictating a letter to his wife:

“The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. . . . It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shows, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”

I suspect that may be true. I can hear a bells in the background ringing joyously. It appears that word has spread quickly that the United Colonies are now the United States of America.

But just what does that mean? I talk to bloggers from the other states and frankly, I can’t see that we have a lot in common. Oh, we speak the same language - except I can barely understand James from New York. And we seem to have the same ideas about liberty and freedom.

Is that enough to form a nation? I’m going to have a hard time coming to grips with this idea that someone from Virginia is part of the same country as me. Virginia is so far away and so…alien. They’re nothing like folks from Pennsylvania. I guess I’m going to have to get used to it.

One thing is sure; we need a new nation even if it’s hard to see how all the pieces will fit together. We are a different people than those in England. I saw that as far back as The Stamp Act when Parliament tried to ram those taxes down our throats. My cousin in England wrote me wondering why we couldn’t just accept the taxes as a price to be paid for English protection. I told her that accepting tyranny for safety was a bad bargain. She never wrote back.

A new people living in a new nation. It remains to be seen whether these “United States” can stay united in the face of what surely will be some difficult years ahead.

Join me tomorrow when Mr. Jefferson’s declaration comes up for debate. It will probably be pretty dull but perhaps not. I’ll have updates beginning at 10:00 AM tomorrow.

Ah! The absolute inscrutability of cats. They have fooled, manipulated, enslaved, and enraptured us for going on 12,000 years. And for all of our sophisticated techniques to unravel the mysteries of the universe, we’re still having a hard time discovering why these lovable, maddening, and unknowable creatures have deigned to share their milk bowl with us:

Your hunch is correct. Your cat decided to live with you, not the other way around. The sad truth is, it may not be a final decision.

But don’t take this feline diffidence personally. It runs in the family. And it goes back a long way — about 12,000 years, actually.

Those are among the inescapable conclusions of a genetic study of the origins of the domestic cat, being published today in the journal Science.

The findings, drawn from an analysis of nearly 1,000 cats around the world, suggest that the ancestors of today’s tabbies, Persians and Siamese wandered into Near Eastern settlements at the dawn of agriculture. They were looking for food, not friendship.

They found what they were seeking in the form of rodents feeding on stored grain. They stayed for 12 millennia, although not without wandering off now and again to consort with their wild cousins.

Fascinating findings. The date of 12,000 years is a little beyond what most scientists had surmised solely from the archaeological evidence - about 2-4 thousand years. The Egyptians were worshipping cats around 7,000 years ago so the date gleaned from DNA evidence is a little surprising.

It is a story about one of the more important biological experiments ever undertaken,” said Stephen J. O’Brien, a molecular geneticist at the National Cancer Institute’s laboratory in Frederick, Md., and one of the supervisors of the project.

“We think what happened is that cats sort of domesticated themselves,” said Carlos A. Driscoll, the University of Oxford graduate student who did the work, which required him, among other things, to befriend feral cats on the Mongolian steppes.

Stop right there. HOLD THE PRESSES! EXTRA! EXTRA!

SCIENTIST SAYS CATS “DOMESTICATED THEMSELVES”

I’d like to see a dog pull that off…

Seriously, what this proves is that scientists are extremely silly people. The truth is much more prosaic; cats domesticated us.

They probably saved early civilization by showing the stupid humans how dumb it was to keep the harvested grain on the floor of some mud hut where mice and rats would have easy access to it:

Large-scale grain agriculture began in the Near East’s Fertile Crescent. With the storage of surplus grain came mice, which fed on it and contaminated it.

Settled farming communities with dense rodent populations were a new habitat. Wildcats came out of the woods and grasslands to exploit it. They may have lived close to man — but not petting-close — for centuries.

Eventually, though, natural selection favored individual animals whose genetic makeup by chance made them tolerant of human contact. Such behavior provided them with things — a night indoors, the occasional bowl of milk — that allowed them to out-compete their scaredy-cat relatives.

For people, it was a great package — agriculture, food surplus (and all the civilizing effects that came with it), with domesticated cats thrown in to protect the wealth by eating the mice.

I wonder when they developed the ability to tug at our heartstrings with a well modulated “meow?” At what point did they realize that the simple act of looking us right in the eye, showing a face that defines animal beauty and comeliness, would make us fall in love with them? Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out when cats discovered they could get more by giving less; that the ability to manipulate us, wrap us around their paw meant that they could dole out their affections by the teaspoon rather than the bushelfull as lesser creatures like dogs do?

We will never know the answer to these questions because again, natural selection worked its magic in those areas as well. Slowly, over time, cats who were able to dominate the relationship with humans were more successful breeding due to longer life spans. Eventually, the genes that determined a cat’s behavior geared toward getting what they wanted from people won out and are with their domesticated grandchildren today.

The research shows that all domestic cats are descended from the East African wild cat. But there were wild cats in Europe and Asia as well. Why weren’t they domesticated also?

“When that technology was transferred to other cultures, so were the cats,” said Robert Wayne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California in Los Angeles. Therein lies the reason other cultures didn’t domesticate local wildcats, he said. “Why reinvent the wheel?”

This is not true with other acts of animal domestication.

Genetic studies have shown that cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and water buffalo were all domesticated at least twice in independent events. With horses, it happened many times.

And perhaps the most startling thing to emerge from this study, is that even after being domesticated, cats would escape the confines of human settlements to mix with their wildcat cousins in Europe and Africa:

The consequence of one other feline behavior — the average cat’s uncertainty about whether it wants to be indoors or out — was also written in the genes Driscoll studied.

He found that a significant fraction of wildcats in Europe, southern Africa and central Asia were hybrids. They carried genetic evidence of having tomcatted around from time to time with their domesticated relatives.

So far, genetic studies of dogs have not found this re-mixing with wolves or other wild dog species. But the geneticists have a much tougher task with dogs because it is believed they were domesticated at least 20,000 years ago and perhaps as far back as 100,000 years. And the task of tagging the DNA of all dog species would be a monumental effort.

All this is moot, of course, because cats could give a damn. They are what they are and they’re where they want to be. No power on earth can move them. And if, in the distant past, they wandered into some primitive human enclave to eat a few mice grown fat and slow from gorging themselves on the hard earned bounty of the land, I’m sure their initial impression of us must have been a good one.

Either that or they simply saw us as the only other creature on the planet who could truly appreciate their otherworldly nature.

I don’t know why some on the left insist on believing that they can impress the hell out of the rest of us lowly, scaredy cat peons by sticking out their chest and trumpeting to the skies how unafraid they are of terrorism and how anyone who even glances at a TV to find out what’s going on in London and Scotland is a moronic pants-wetter. All they are doing is making themselves look like idiots.

They laughably presuppose that our interest denotes fear. Why would they do that? Is it that their own carefully crafted, dismissive attitude toward attacks and potential attacks of this sort is actually designed to prove some kind of superiority they may feel toward the rest of us as far as having an excess of courage and wisdom ? How pathetic - I mean, truly pathetic this is. It shows an emotional immaturity and childlike desire to be recognized that in any other context would call for serious mental health intervention. Instead, they are asked on television as guests of Keith Olbermann:

Whom do you call on in a pinch for expertise about jihadist plots if you’re a guy who hasn’t taken terrorism seriously since 9/11? Why, a guy who hasn’t taken terrorism seriously since before 9/11, of course. It’s a segment six years in the making, starting with Crazy Larry’s now-legendary “stop worrying about terror” op-ed published in July 2001 and continuing through to this morning when he wowed the dKos faithful by pronouncing the car-bomb plot a “crock of crap.”

Olby seems a bit subdued here aside from an obligatory sneer at the “media nodding-head dolls” who don’t have the guts to embrace their paranoia the way he does. Eschewing his usual Trutherish shtick in these circumstances, he opts instead for a weak gotcha about how this single incident puts the lie to Bush’s claim that we’re fighting them in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them at home. No mention of the absence of attacks on America since the invasion, no acknowledgment that the guys behind this were probably homegrown and thus already here — the Murrow of our time doesn’t let such trivia get in the way of a good talking point. As for Larry, he sniffs about “yuppie terrorists” who drive Mercedes but naturally doesn’t mention that the Mercedes was ten years old, which means it probably cost considerably less than 10 grand assuming it was purchased recently. He also scoffs at the idea that a bomb this crude could have done much more than torch the car itself and maybe singe a few people within 20 or 30 feet.

For such a dangerous physical specimen as Larry Johnson - who knows the guys who killed cocaine trafficker Pablo Escobar (just ask him) - it may be simple for him to exhibit the cool, unflappable demeanor of a counter-terrorism warrior and penetrating analyst on the battle against radical Islamists.

Except that Larry appears to have put on a few pounds since his terrorist killing days and his ability as an analyst is, well - a little less than prescient. Recall our Larry writing less than 60 days before 9/11 that terrorism was far down the list of things we should be worrying about. And then, his take on this most recent incident, informing us that the terrorists were incompetent boobs who couldn’t harm a fly.

Ooops:

The (left-leaning) weapons experts at Danger Room, who are taking this very seriously, beg to differ, as does ABC News, which was told by British officials that the explosion would have been lethal within a “several hundred yard radius.” And then there’s this:

The cell phone had received at least two calls, which should have detonated several gallons of gasoline, but when the calls came in, the bomb failed to go off, the official said.
Had it done so, that blast then would have ignited six to eight tanks of propane in a mist to make a fuel-air explosion, creating a fireball the size of a small house and propelling 18 to 20 boxes of roofing nails around a large area at bullet speed, counterterrorism officials said.

Incompetence? Or just plain dumb luck that many of the 1700 people attending “Ladies Night at Tiger, Tiger escaped with their lives? For some on the left, it doesn’t matter. Even if the bomb had gone off, they still wouldn’t be “scared” and would feel a juvenile sense of superiority over the rest of us bed wetting yip-yips. All because most of us show a healthy amount of interest in this latest attempt by radicals to make Islamic Rage Boy feel a lot better.

The fact that there have been three attempted attacks in the last 24 hours doesn’t matter. One might wonder how many attacks or attempted attacks it would take before some of our lefty friends would deem it appropriate and give us permission to glance at the news and find out what the hell is going on without accusing us of being children cowering against the darkness.

We’ve seen this from the left before, of course. Our “inordinate fear of communism” was a meme used by liberals to show how brave they truly were while us righties were just a bunch of goober chewing, know nothing, bible thumping yawpers. Except while they were busy proving how unafraid they were of communists, conservatives supported leaders who actually confronted and defeated them.

Sound familiar?

By at 2007-06-30
Roger Federer will go for his fifth straight Wimbledon title this month.

My latest Pajamas Media sports column is up. It’s about Roger Federer and his quest for a fifth straight Wimbledon tennis title. A sample:

You can’t help but feeling sorry for his opponents. There is no weakness in his game to plan on exploiting. When he powers his 125 MPH serve, you pray your racket can find the ball. His cross court forehand – “The best shot in our game,” according to John McEnroe – has opponents giving up on getting to the ball before he hits it. And in recent years his backhand has improved so much that serving to it is just asking for trouble.

But what Roger Federer has that no other player of this generation of tennis stars can boast is the Tiger Woods-like ability to rise to the occasion when the most coveted titles in his sport are on the line. In an incredible run of success, Federer has won 6 of the last 8 tennis majors (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open). He was runner up the last two years in the French Open, including a memorable 4 set loss in 2006 to his chief rival and nemesis — the number two ranked player in the world — Rafael Nadal. In fact Nadal, a clay court specialist, kept Federer from holding all four major titles at once with that victory at Roland Garros.

If the reaction by the special pleaders in the civil rights lobby and their various mouthpieces in the media is any indication, one would think that the Supreme Court ruling striking down some race-based preference plans for purposes of “integrating” schools thus making them more “diverse” will bring back the bad old days of little black children being barred from entering the pristine halls of white schools while men with white hoods hover in the background with ropes and burning crosses.

In fact, the more exaggerated the response to decisions like this, you can bet that there is precious little the left can do to argue based on the facts. Substituting hyperbole and issuing dire pronouncements about the imminent return of segregated schools and the evisceration of Brown v. Board of Education only obscures the unsettling nature of the decision itself; and that is that quotas suck.

Now I’m not a lawyer. But I have been blessed with my fair share of common sense which, when talking about the law, should more than suffice in forming an intelligent opinion regarding the efficacy of one legal issue or another - usually. The problem (and I’ve written about this before) is that the American people have become disconnected from the law in a way that the Founders could never have envisioned. Its complexity, its obscurity, its sheer, mind numbing, all-encompassing embrace of every facet of our lives breeds ignorance and contempt for not only the law but those who seek to interpret it or use it for one purpose or another.

So all the overwhelming majority of us have when it comes to trying to gauge the fairness or unfairness of the law is our common sensical notions of right and wrong as well as a dependence on those who do, in fact, have the expertise to interpret it. The problem, if you’ve read enough about this school quota system case, is that not everyone sees the decision the same way. There are different interpretations, different issues emphasized.

In the end, even after educating ourselves, all that we non-legal experts are left with is good old fashioned American ideas about fairness and justice. Come to think of it, that’s not such a bad way to interpret the law in the first place.

As mentioned above, the left is having an apoplectic fit:

The Supreme Court ruled 53 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education that segregated education is inherently unequal, and it ordered the nation’s schools to integrate. Yesterday, the court switched sides and told two cities that they cannot take modest steps to bring public school students of different races together. It was a sad day for the court and for the ideal of racial equality.

Since 1954, the Supreme Court has been the nation’s driving force for integration. Its orders required segregated buses and public buildings, parks and playgrounds to open up to all Americans. It wasn’t always easy: governors, senators and angry mobs talked of massive resistance. But the court never wavered, and in many of the most important cases it spoke unanimously.

Yesterday, the court’s radical new majority turned its back on that proud tradition in a 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts. It has been some time since the court, which has grown more conservative by the year, did much to compel local governments to promote racial integration. But now it is moving in reverse, broadly ordering the public schools to become more segregated.

Is that true? Did the Supreme Court of the United States really throw out 50 years of desegregation law and order schools to “Resegregate” as the New York Times helpfully coins the word of the day?

Not so fast.

Race conscious policies using non racial means are favored and must be attempted first; race based assignment policies that target individual students (as opposed to structural reforms like school siting policies) are permitted if they make individualized determinations and use race as only one factor.

Oh my, here goes those evil conservatives again, wanting to treat people as individual human beings rather than as a member of a “group” or “class” or “protected group.” What’s a civil rights lawyer to do?

There’s much more at that Balkinization link and you should read the whole piece because Mr. Balkin and others (including Paul Mirgenoff at Powerline) are training their legal eyes on the concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy who Eugene Volohk points out, has been the swing vote in every single 5-4 decision this term.

As I understand it (and anyone out there is more than welcome to correct me if I’m wrong), while the majority opinion - written here by Chief Justice Roberts - forms one leg of the law, concurring opinions can be given weight by lower courts as well - assuming they are well written and clear enough in where they dissent from the majority opinion. In this case, Justice Kennedy concurrence becomes extremely important because he dissented from Robert’s opinion in a couple of key areas. Powerline has one:

Today’s Supreme Court decision in the race-based school assignment cases turns out to be a disappointment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote an excellent opinion explaining why the two plans are unconstitutional, and four other Justices agreed with the result. However, one of them, Justice Kennedy, would not sign on to a key part of the Roberts opinion — the part that says assigning students to schools by race cannot be justified as a means of achieving a racial balance in particular schools that reflects the school district’s racial demographics. This leaves the door open for school systems to develop different types of plans for assigning students by race for that purpose, and then to try and persuade sympathetic lower courts that the plan in question does not run afoul of what Kennedy said in his concurrence.

Beyond the inherent undesirability of this result, Kennedy’s opinion strikes me as a poor vehicle for it. Unless I’ve missed something, Kennedy does not provide much guidance about the kinds of plans for assigning students to public school using race as a factor he would uphold. Kennedy’s opinion will become the touchstone by which the constitutionality of racial discrimination in public school assignment will be judged. Having conferred this role upon himself, he should have been more clear about what he will and will not accept. His lack of clarity may leave school districts confused and lower courts unbound.

Sabotage by Kennedy? Or common sense? Here’s Jack Balkin again:

Nevertheless, Kennedy has no problem with race-conscious policies by school boards that don’t involve the specific assignment of individual students to schools based on their race. That means that race conscious policies that site new schools or move old ones based on expectations about likely racial makeup are permissible. Policies that assign students randomly by lottery or use factors like geographic distance from a school are also perfectly permissible, even if they are designed to achieve a more diverse balance of students by race and ethnicity. For example, a school district that used magnet schools with assignments based on nonracial factors to promote racial diversity would be permissible under his model.

This seems eminently fair and equitable to me. I have no problem with diversity in our schools as long as it is achieved with a minimum of fuss and a maximum of common sense. Steven’s concurrence would seem to fit that definition although Paul’s caution about the vagueness of his wording should be taken to heart. But at least the Roberts opinion puts a brake on purely race based decisions by school boards - something that is long overdue.

What has happened to the idea of judging someone “not by the color of their skin but the content of their character,” as Martin Luther King pleaded for in front of the Lincoln Memorial so many years ago? We have gotten so far afield of the idea that the law’s protections are ultimately extended to individuals, not groups that when a ruling like this comes down, a “protected class” as defined by the law howls bloody murder.

No, we are not a color blind society - far from it. Institutional racism is not a thing of the past nor is it likely to decline without at least some intervention of government and the courts. This, ultimately, was what Brown v. Board of Education was all about; a recognition that only the federal government was powerful enough to overcome 300 years of bigotry and racism.

But in the last few decades, this intervention by the courts had proved in some cases to be arbitrary, capricious, and just plain unfair. The American people - both black and white - sensed this on more than one occasion and protested - to no avail. Pushed by the special pleaders in the civil rights lobby as well as a liberal credo that demanded we pay homage to “white guilt” while working toward a more “diverse” and “multi-cultural” society, “civil rights” lost its meaning and became just one more issue that high paid lobbyists worked the Hill to grab whatever goodies and special benefits they could from Congress for their constituencies.

Any opposition to orthodoxy as dictated by the special pleaders - be it on issues like affirmative action, or employment law, or any other issue they deem it necessary to apply their narrow interpretation of “fairness” or “justice” - will bring immediate cries of “racist” in order to tar their opponents with the slimiest epithet in the American political lexicon. This makes discussion impossible - unless you are willing to accept the parameters they set for debate.

This Supreme Court decision will cure none of this, of course. But it injects a little much needed common sense into our debates over how best to make the words in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution live for everyone and not just those who by accident of birth enjoy certain advantages over their fellow citizens.