Ray Brinzer

Well, yesterday McDonald v. Chicago was decided. The good guys won, and the 2nd Amendment was found to apply to the states. It’s not yet clear what this will actually mean in practical terms, but there’s hope that people in, say, New York City (where I am) will actually be allowed the practical means to defend themselves.

Now, I haven’t yet read the decision (it’s 214 pages, and only came out yesterday), but I think I can risk a bit of opinion while it’s still timely.

One of the really interesting things about the case is that Alan Gura, the attorney for the defence, argued for incorporation based on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than the Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas wrote a 56-page opinion “concurring in part and concurring in the judgment”, in support of this. Scalia wrote a concurrence, beginning: Read more »

USA Wrestling is a good organization, but it’s too hard to find information about them. The members of the organization generally have no idea how decisions are made, how money is spent, or how they can become involved.

Their website doesn’t help much; it’s focused on news and events, but tells little about the organization itself. This is, I’m sure, because people like this sort of thing… you drive traffic by emulating MTV, not CSPAN. Still, this leaves a serious deficit.

Thus, I’ve started what I’m calling The USA Wrestling Documentation Project. I’d like to see it become a clear, easy-to-use guide to USA Wrestling and the state governing bodies affiliated with it. By-laws, budgets, committees, officers, staff, and various other things of interest to the membership should eventually be there.

I’ve used the same software that runs Wikipedia, though I’ve restricted editing privileges to those with accounts; possibly this will change later, as I become more familiar with administering the project. If anyone would like an account, create an account at The Open Mat Forum and send a message to me there (my username is Ray Brinzer).

Happy Independence Day (if you’re an American). God Bless America, and USA Wrestling too.

Pardon the density of what follows; it’s not possible to write briefly of something like this without presuming some background knowledge on the part of the reader. It should be possible to presume a great deal less, in my opinion… but I hope to write of that later.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed down Arizona v. Gant, a search-and-seizure ruling. The matter came up in conversation, as the majority was unusual: Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg. So I went off to look at the decision. And lo! Scalia wrote a concurring opinion. The opinion was short, and and reasonably light, so I read it.
These words lept from the page: Read more »

It seems Pat Toomey is challenging Arlen Specter again in the Republican primary for the US Senate. Specter survived this challenge in 2004 by a hair. George W. Bush came to Pennsylvania to campaign for him in the Republican primaries, which was really the final straw for me; I voted Libertarian for president that year.

Pat Toomey is best known as a fiscal conservative. He actually seems serious about controlling spending, rather than just cutting taxes and keeping up a deficit, which goes a long way in my book. Possibly he’d even vote to support free enterprise, rather than to protect big business, though that’s a flight of real optimism.

I can’t wait to find out he’s actually a blockhead… probably a dreadful moralist, and I just don’t know it yet. It seems destined to happen. Still, so far, pimping marshmallow peeps on the floor of the House seems to be the worst of it. That’s ridiculous, but ultimately trivial.

Specter, for his part, wants to solve the problem by moving to open Republican primaries in Pennsylvania. That’s virtually enough said all by itself; consulting his dismal voting record is overkill.

This is a no-brainer for me. If Toomey wins the primary, the incumbent goes away no matter what happens in the general election. That really needs to happen. Republicans are talking about a new direction, but without new people it’s just talk.

Of course, it’s probably just talk with new people.

By way of InstaPundit, a quote from Dean Steacy, one of Canadia’s Human Rights Commissioners:

Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.

As Canada’s Commission on Human Rights is the same body which summons magazine publishers to hearings over distasteful cartoons, Mr. Steacy is to be applauded for his consistency. The right to prevent people from saying what one finds objectionable has a champion up north.

At any rate, this is quite flattering, though an American might sometimes wish we did a better job of earning such unintended praise. But by this point in history, freedom of speech is certainly no longer a distinctly American concept, but one of the hallmarks of civilized nations. Despite their continued tolerance of the CHRC, I have faith that this includes Canada.

I got a good laugh out of this bit from Ann Althouse:

How long does it take people to get something through their skulls? The Prez is black. I’ve been used to it since months before it happened. (And it seemed normal to me back when he was a long shot.) Are people really still going around dumbfounded, marveling that this — this! — happened in America? What is wrong with you? Get up to speed, people.

It does, indeed, appear that racists of the traditional American sort are vastly outnumbered by the people obsessed with them. We had an election, votes mostly followed party lines, and the stronger candidate won. This is a dog-bites-man story.

Republicans in the U.S. House voted unanimously against Obama’s stimulus package. Unanimously — wow!

This might seem a stirring show of fiscal restraint… if these were not, for the most part, the same people who capped an amazing run of spending increases with a $700 billion handout in October.

So, having lost, the conventional wisdom in the party is that they must inspire their conservative base. I am suitably inspired… to think that the Republicans are only really useful as an opposition party. Expecting the hoi polloi of the party to believe that the congressfolk we still have in office have suddenly acquired principles, and should be trusted with power again, is absurd.

I’m afraid my sense of civic responsibility wasn’t up to the challenge of last night’s presidential debate. During the portion we did watch, the main thing I got was a reminder of what a drab contest this was before Sarah Palin’s nomination.

During the debate on Iraq, both of them beat their drums: if we’d listened to Obama, we’d have lost in Iraq, and if we hadn’t listened to Bush and McCain (who are exactly the same), we wouldn’t have been there in the first place. Nothing new or interesting was added.

Obama was, predictably, much better-spoken, but also seemed to be playing an academic game of presenting the best answers that hindsight could contrive and that his record would allow. I expect this was the most hawkish position he’s ever taken up in his life, but that doesn’t mean he won’t keep it up; the requirements of the presidency certainly seemed to pull Bill Clinton in that direction. McCain pulled out the “name an ordinary American in a touching situation” trick, which I loathe, talking about the bracelet given to him by the mother of a fallen soldier. Obama responded, rather absurdly, with a similar bracelet of his own. At least we’re not seeing near as much of this sort of thing as in 2000.

The best part, I thought, was McCain’s peppermint-striped tie, which I found slightly astonishing. I can’t quite say I liked it, but I’m divided on liking McCain for wearing it. Obama’s suit was noticeably sharper; at least if he wins, we’ll have a dapper, eloquent president.

After a bit we changed the channel, and found the UFC a considerable improvement. It’s not like I’m undecided: Obama’s lawyerly nature and background as a constitutional scholar convinces me that he’ll do a great job of picking judges I’ll regret. But there’s little for folks on the libertarian end of the Republican party to be excited about. Whoever wins, the country will shuffle along.

Another somewhat belated reflection, which has been lingering in my mind.

During Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he said, “For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face.” No surprise there; nor when, shortly thereafter, he called the Iraq war “misguided”.

“We are the party of Roosevelt,” he continued, though of course the Republicans are the party of Roosevelt, too (between the two, I vastly prefer Teddy). “We are the party of Kennedy. So don’t tell me that Democrats won’t defend this country. Don’t tell me that Democrats won’t keep us safe.”

The party of Kennedy… huh. Perhaps Obama was just citing the name of a president who is recalled favorably by most, but the first thought that came to mind was, “He thinks starting the Vietnam War was a good idea?” One could certainly hold that going to war in Vietnam was good, while starting the present war in Iraq was bad, but I’d be surprised to hear Obama take up that position. It’d surprise me even more to hear the crowd at the DNC cheer for it.
Read more »

Pointing out that Colonel Jeff Cooper was a good writer shouldn’t be necessary; however I cannot ever recall meeting someone who knew of him that was not a gun enthusiast. There is a great deal of interest in his work beyond the nature and use of small arms (on which he was one of the world’s great experts): Cooper’s writing is about competence, confidence, self-reliance, and courage.

Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries are an easy start. They comprise 13 years of monthly newsletters, each a series of short reflections, and are available for free online. They’re exceptionally interesting, and follow no particular order — picking a random starting point and spending a bit of spare time reading is always rewarding.

It’s difficult to choose a characteristic quotation; most of the entries are quotable. So I’ll conclude with one which will be useful to me a few years hence:

We can debate at length about a boy’s first gun. There are all sorts of opinions about this and many of them have merit, but in my view, the kid’s first firearm should be a single-shot 22 fitted with aperture sights and a butt-cuff. If the boy is a respectable citizen, intelligent and well disciplined, he may be turned loose with a single-shot 22 (by himself) with perfect safety, as long as he has memorized The Four Rules. I do not think there is any reason to assume that all children are idiots. That many of them are is more of a reflection upon their parents than upon themselves.