Mazurland Blog

Make A Difference!

Apparently, ESPN is allowing write-ins for their Heisman Trophy voting. There's a new internet surge of support for the dark horse, Barack Obama. Go here to cast a vote, and to give him the victory he hopes to some day earn!

Who knows? Stranger things have happened...

Do Not Blame Barack

I stumbled upon this article at AmericanThinker.com, and it's a great summary of how we got to this point in American politics. It places the blame of the Obama presidency squarely on the average voter, who has been complicit for some time in creating our societal malaise. The piece is titled "Do Not Blame Barack":

"Contrary to what my title indicates, I probably judge Barack Obama more harshly than most reading this page. I don't think he is just a misguided ideologue or merely a creature of expediency. I believe, practically speaking, he is an evil man. That is to say, while he is largely ignorant like so many others, he has developed an affinity for evil. He mistakes it for good.

Yet, to be blunt, Obama doesn't alarm me as much as the average American. To explain why, I'll present something Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero said 2000 years ago when lamenting Julius Caesar's rise to dictator:

Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions . . . . Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.' Julius was always an ambitious villain, but he is only one man."

It's well worth reading the entire thing. Near the end, the author says that to turn this around we need to increase the "weight of our virtue":

"But if we want to have any chance of winning the war, we must move on to graduate work and fight it on the deepest levels, the spiritual and cultural. We must scrutinize ourselves and evaluate how we have been complicit in empowering the culture that spawns Barack Obamas. We must remember that those of us who are engaged are a minority weighed against an apathetic majority. A few stones however, can be substantial enough to tip the scales against a million pebbles. But this can only happen if we so greatly increase the weight of our virtue that it outweighs the vice that is everywhere."

But the other part of the problem is that we conservatives tend to be too polite. We may be "virtuous" and believe everything the article says. We may even have turned off the TV, stopped buying MSM newspapers, stopped going to movies. Maybe even home schooled. We may be seething inside, but are often too polite to tell others "THIS IS WRONG!" We've been indoctrinated by the PC crowd to believe in moral relativism. That it's wrong to criticize anyone else's "values", or hurt their feelings. We need to learn from our opponents and, as Barack suggested to his supporters, "get in their faces" a bit.

We need to stand proudly and state loudly that yes, there is right and wrong. There is black and white, good and evil. Certain things are simply wrong, and it needs to be said, no matter whose feelings are hurt.

Another Gun Case

Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of McDonald v. Chicago, which challenges Chicago's handgun ban and their onerous registration process. As you may remember, last June the Supreme Court made its historic Heller decision which ruled that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership (at least within the home), and that it is unlawful to ban an entire category of firearms in common use. That ruling, although extremely important, only limited the federal government's ability to enact laws which might infringe on gun rights. The McDonald case will address the issue of incorporating the 2nd amendment against state and local governments. Here is the wording of the question that the Supremes chose to address:

"Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home."

So clearly, this case will finally resolve the incorporation issue, and gun rights advocates are very optimistic that they will win. But the second part of the question turns out to be a very interesting constitutional matter-- which 14th amendment clause might be used to incorporate the amendment? It turns out that previous incorporation has been done via the "due process" clause, but McDonald's attorney, Alan Gura, along with legal experts from across the political spectrum, have expressed interest in reviving the "privileges and immunities" clause, which has been dead wood since the 1870s. Doing this may allow future courts to open up a floodgate of un-enumerated "rights", which is why many liberals support McDonald, in the hopes that it will revive this clause.

Confused? Here's an excellent summary, from Reason.com, of the case and its constitutional implications. Interestingly, 33 state attorneys general have already come down in favor of incorporation:

"The state attorneys general were also bold enough to bring up a classic gun rights argument that's often mocked by liberal intelligentsia—the idea that weapon rights aren't just about self-defense against crime, but are also about defense against tyranny: The brief states that 'the right to bear arms provides the foundational bulwark against the deprivation of all our other rights and privileges as Americans—including rights that have already been incorporated against the States by this Court.'"

Look for oral arguments to occur early next year, and a ruling in June.

A Real Treat

I just saw a fantastic concert last night. Certainly one of the top ten in my life. And I'm still trying to figure it out...

The performer was Andrew Strong. He is best known as the lead singer in the movie "The Commitments" (1991), which is about a group of Irish youngsters who start a R&B band, and make a stab at getting famous. Andrew was only 16 years old when the movie began filming, which is amazing, when you hear his mature voice. Afterwards, he went on to tour internationally (with the likes of The Rolling Stones, Elton John, Prince, and Ray Charles), be nominated for a Grammy, and have platinum record sales.

Anyway, that voice is still as strong as ever. His performance consisted mainly of the R&B classics that we Baby Boomers yearn for; covers of greats from the likes of Wilson Pickett (Mustang Sally), Otis Redding (Try A Little Tenderness), Al Green (Take Me To The River) and Joe Tex (Show Me A Man That's Got A Good Woman), just to name a few. He even threw in a little Steppenwolf (Born To Be Wild) and Hendrix (Fire). Although in this performance Strong might technically be considered a "cover band" (he didn't perform any original songs), that's a little misleading; almost like calling Joe Cocker a "cover artist". Andrew added his own unique, stylistic interpretations to each song. Or, as my son Matt said, he "owned" them. The band for this tour was chosen when Strong came to the US a few days early just for that purpose. Guitar, bassist, drummer and keyboards-- all very competent.Strong also played guitar, but in the end, it was all about his voice.

What I'm still trying to figure out is this. How was I, sitting on a plastic chair in a tent with a total of 50 (you read that right) people, watching a show of this caliber? This is a guy who's playing Boston, NYC and Philly in the days surrounding our event. I knew Strong had a fair amount of international acclaim, and before his set, my son and I wondered about how it must feel for him, with his list of successes, to walk out to an audience consisting of a handful of Vermonters on folding chairs.To Andrew's credit, he was wonderful. He seemed like he truly appreciated being there. He performed with the energy he would have used with an audience of 50,000. He clearly loved what he was doing. He was warm, and funny. And he sang his heart out. It was simply a great show. 

But I couldn't help think that someone screwed up. His manager? The local promoters?  This concert was to benefit the UV Rock School. It was held at the small Upper Valley Events Center. Do the math. The tickets were $30 each. They may have taken in a couple thousand bucks, gross. There were no other sales of food or merchandise. What's it cost to bring in an artist like this? Did he do this for nothing? Is this a tax write-off for Mr. Strong? I can't help but think that, if done differently, this concert could have filled our 2,000 seat Opera House, making the artist more comfortable, and bringing in more money for the school. I just don't get it.

Anyway, I'm very happy for the blessing. I love small venues, but unfortunately, in order to see great talent, you often have to go to big arenas. So there's this "artist quality to venue size" ratio that needs to be maximized. My experience last night blew it out of the water.

A Squandered Opportunity

So last night's beer summit is history. After all the hype, we now need to ask, what have we learned from this "teachable moment"? The answer is, probably nothing. None of the three men apologized, and I'm almost certain no one changed their opinion. Sure, there was "dialogue" at the table, but we, the American people, were not privy to what was being said. And most significantly, all the prejudices that started this fiasco have not only persisted, but have probably been amplified. So it seems that all the damaging stereotypes will persist despite, or because of, Obama's best efforts.

But what about the 4th party in this brew-haha? The woman who originally started it all; the "Eve" of this national sin. The one who remained above the fray. Can we learn anything from her that may help us to lessen our poisonous profiling? Well, here she is with the typical whiny, overly-emotional, spiteful display of victimhood that you'd expect from a broad:

Doesn't like beer?! Well I'm sure the White House can dig up a wine cooler that she could share with Michelle... Ah well. America moves forward. Unscathed, yet still unchanged.

The Suspense Is Killing Me

There's been a lot of talk about the choice of beers for tonight's summit on race at the White House. Beer is something Mazurland can, and should, comment on. Apparently, President Obama has chosen Bud Light, probably because it's the most popular beer in America. I have read that Prof. Gates has chosen Red Stripe, and Sgt. Crowley has chosen Blue Moon. It's a shame that none of these selections come from an American-owned brewery, but who am I to begrudge someone their choice of drink? Although a nice cold Yuengling, from America's oldest brewery, would've been hard to beat. It might also have been funny if one of these three chose a Black & Tan, just for yucks.

But the thing I'm actually more curious about is their choice of drinking glass. Now, I realize that Sgt. Crowley is probably a straight out-of-the-can type of guy, but he's going to meet the president after all. He's gotta "clean up" a little bit. So, will it be a goblet shaped glass befitting the formality of the White House? A straight 16oz pub glass, as a hat tip to the only white guy's blue collar roots? A tall pilsner glass, to add to the growing list of Obama's faux pas? A pragmatic mug? A multi-national stein?

The suspense is killing me. There's gotta be a lot of lobbying going on. Future glassware sales ride on this decision.

Raise Your Hand!

I found this video intriguing. Janis Joplin didn't do a lot of duets, but she had some respect for Tom Jones, referring to him as "The Voice". Some even say they were quite "close" (nudge, nudge), but this assertion isn't uncommon with regards to Janis.

I like the way the stage audience begins to dance insanely, mid-song.

Enjoy:

Good Gun News

On Monday, the US 9th Circuit Court came out with an important gun ruling in Nordyke v. King. The ruling, unless overturned, "incorporates" the 2nd Amendment to apply to all states within their Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington). Here are a few snippets from the decision:

"We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” ... The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."

"The salient policies underlying the protection of the right to bear arms are of inestimable importance. The right to bear arms is a bulwark against external invasion.We should not be overconfident that oceans on our east and west coasts alone can preserve security... That we have a lawfully armed populace adds a measure of security for all of us and makes it less likely that a band of terrorists could make headway in an attack on any community before more professional forces arrived. Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence."

I've always thought that there were several steps which need to be accomplished in assuring our gun rights. The first was determining that the 2nd Amendment applies to an individual right, unrelated to militia service. This was successfully accomplished by last year's Supreme Court DC v. Heller decision. The second was incorporation, meaning applying this limitation on government interference to the states. This has now been accomplished, at least for the time being, within the 9th Circuit by Nordyke. The third step will be to determine what level of scrutiny courts need to apply when looking at laws that restrict 2nd amendment rights. The best outcome would be "strict scrutiny", with which the courts/legislatures would need a very compelling reason to limit the right. The Nordyke decision briefly touched on this:

"Fundamental rights usually receive strict scrutiny as a matter of substantive due process doctrine. See, e.g., Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 721. But where the Due Process Clause incorporates one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the standard of review becomes that appropriate to the specific right. For example, First Amendment rights, whether against the states or the federal government, trigger the same standards of review. We find no reason to treat the Second Amendment differently."

And here's the Cato Institute's Robert Levy (who personally bankrolled Heller) discussing the Heller decision, and level of scrutiny:

The fourth, and final, step will be to apply the first three steps to the myriad of gun laws that already exist, or that will be written in the future. In the Nordyke case, the bad news is that the plaintiff lost. In other words, despite all of the above, the court still felt it was a "reasonable restriction" for a county to ban gun shows on their property. These are the type of legal limits that will be debated for the remainder of our country's existence. But Heller and Nordyke have laid a great legal precedent for the good guys, thus assuring that the country's existence will be quite a bit longer.

Talking Proud

When someone asks about my hometown, Buffalo, I like to say "It's sort of like Cleveland, but without all the glitz". Even though Buffalo fully deserves it's name of "The City Of No Illusions", it still seems like we could learn a thing or two from the "city of lights", and maybe benefit from a more aggressive marketing campaign:

Out Of The Mouth Of Babes

Last night, my 6 year-old daughter and I were watching this music video together, and she said "I don't understand it, but I love it". That statement captured much of my approach to art over the years. From music to painting to literature, my appreciation is often largely a gut reaction. Afterwards, I have to analyze the experience, and attempt to understand why I liked it so much. So I told Anna "Your job is to try to understand it. And to try to understand why you love it. It'll get easier as you get older".

What I didn't tell her was that as you get older, things don't get any simpler. As the music critic and football commentator Hans Keller once warned; "As soon as I detest something, I ask myself why I like it."

You see, that would've just been messing with her head.

Happy Sunday.