"Maybe I’m old-school, but 'President fires CEO' looks as wrong as 'Pope fires Missile.'"

Lileks.

The headline.

A little photowalk to test out what my new 24 mm lens can do.

Here's the new lens. (It was the right answer to the question "Notice anything?" — a post that got a lot of comments. It seems you like these puzzle photo posts.)

So I was testing out the lens today. First, as I was sitting in my favorite café, I caught a woman glancing over the top of the NYT to check out the fashion on the street.



Yes, we're wearing leggings in Madison. But the main thing I wanted to test out with the lens was architecture. Like this:



Yes, we're flying the French flag here in Madison. The reason I was concerned about the lens and architecture is that I want to be prepared to take photographs on the Wright & Like tour this Saturday. Check out the houses you can tour. If you come to the right Frank Lloyd Wright house at the right time, I'll be the docent showing off the living/dining area. I won't be combining photography with docenting, but I will on my own go to all the houses and photograph the exteriors (as I did on last year's tour: here). To join the tour:

Tour Headquarters | The Gobbler Restaurant, I-94 and Highway 26 Centrally located in Johnson Creek, WI

The Gobbler Restaurant, a not-to-be-missed futurist style building, will be our one day tour headquarters. The site is located south of Interstate Highway 94 (Exit 267) off Hwy 26 and will open at 8 a.m. for ticket and merchandise sales. Same day tickets are $55 (non members) and $50 (members).

James Lileks wrote about The Gobbler here: "This site is an appreciation of a lost slice of American architecture and design - a period when just about everything had run off the rails, and good taste, restraint and classic traditions were utterly abandoned." Ha ha. Please go over there and click through all the pages. It's hilarious. Anyway, there will be bad taste and good on the Wright & Like tour.

Here are some daisies with an adorable tiny bee:



And here's a fly who has no idea he's not as cute as the bee:



And here's a tree that's not cute either. In fact, it seems vaguely obscene:



Just a walk around 2 blocks with a new 24 mm lens in Madison, Wisconsin.

IN THE COMMENTS: I'm told it's not a bee. It's a hoverfly. I apologize to the flies. Apparently, some of them are very cute. And maybe some insults need to be hurled at bees. Zachary Paul Sire says:

Bees are not cute. They are ruthless killing machines. Trust me on this one.

Revenant say:

bees = the devil

Chip Ahoy say:

We're taught those wonderful bees pollinate flowers and that's a good thing. But then once I noticed one particular bee positively rape a flower bud. It didn't wait for the flower to bloom. It forced open the bud and climbed in, buzzed around inside, bzzzzzz bzzzzzz bzzzzz, came out covered in sticky pollen and looking kind of drunk. Bees are naughty.

"Ladies! Please!"

Oh, no! Mr. Whipple died!



Dick Wilson, who was 91, made over 500 commercials as Mr. Whipple, the man who tried to stop women from squeezing the Charmin. What was squeezing Charmin all about? Whipple was an agent of sexual repression, wasn't he? But he was so delightful, and he never succeeded in stopping the ladies from.... squeezing the Charmin.

ADDED: James Lileks thinks very deeply about Mr. Whipple:

Mr. Whipple [was] the fellow who tried to impose rules he himself could not follow, and thereby revealed not only the essential hypocrisy of the puritan impulse, but the uselessness of imposing any sort of “standards” on human behavior....

Uncle Jay Explains the News.

Today's key word, kids: Blogosphere.

ADDED: Beltway Blogroll transcribes my favorite part of the video:

Among the thousands of political blogs, he said, there is "one for every type of political prejudice." He divided them into helpful categories and flashed screenshots of examples for each category:

1) The "godless, socialist, hate America, Bush-is-Hitler, cut-and-run, nanny state, tree-hugging, amnesty, traitor, left-wing, scumbag blogs": Crooks & Liars, Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo and TalkLeft.

2) The "neocon, corporate, racist, Bush-is-god, flag, Bible, homophe, cold-dead-hands, transfat, right-wing scumbag blogs": Instapundit, La Shawn Barber's Corner, Little Green Footballs, Michelle Malkin and SteynOnline.

3) And the "more independent-thinking, left or right, perhaps libertarian, make-up-your-mind, who's-side-are-you-on, mamby-pamby, scumbag blogs": Ann Althouse, BuzzMachine, Lileks.com and Andrew Sullivan.

Turning Japanese?

The comparison of American law to Japanese things in the last two posts was purely coincidental. The post quoting Ted Olson was already up when I read the email calling attention to the Lileks quote. So don't be expecting a theme day.

"Rational basis" and the "origami project."

As we were talking (and talking) yesterday about whether there's a rational basis for excluding same-sex couples from the benefits of marriage, a California appellate court issued a decision analyzing exactly that. Despite the numerous comments here yesterday, I did not think anyone had articulated an impressive basis for the law. Nevertheless, "rational basis" is a low standard, so I didn't think that a court would have much trouble declaring that it's found one -- assuming that the court was inclined to leave things to the legislature.

Here's how the California court put it (PDF):

[T]he opposite-sex requirement in the marriage statutes is rationally related to the state’s interest in preserving the institution of marriage in its historical opposite-sex form, while also providing comparable rights to same-sex couples through domestic partnership laws.... (See Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. at p. 585 (conc. opn. of O’Connor, J.) [stating in dicta that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest].)...

In addition to tradition, the Attorney General argues the marriage laws are justified by a related state interest in carrying out the expressed wishes of a majority of Californians....

Of course, the mere fact that a majority wishes it so cannot save an otherwise unconstitutional law. Majoritarian whims or prejudices will never be sufficient to sustain a law that deprives individuals of a fundamental right or discriminates against a suspect class.... But, in reviewing a challenged law under the rational basis test, we must give due deference to the Legislature’s considered judgment....

So there you have it. (Satisfied, Professor Schweber?)

An emailer points out that the concurring opinion by Judge Parrilli quotes a phrase from blogdom's James Lileks:

If respect for the rule of law is to be maintained, courts must accept and abide by their limited powers. The Constitution is not some kind of “origami project” to be twisted and reconfigured to accomplish ends better left to the democratic process.

Of course, it takes no origami level expertise to fold the judge's words back on themselves and accuse the court of twisting and reconfiguring the law to avoid interfering with what the majority wants. The key phrase is "better left to the democratic process." The judges think this matter is better left to the democratic process, and the Constitution can be folded into that shape. Predictably, the judges pat themselves on the back for this handiwork. They have, they tell us proudly, upheld the rule of law by accepting their limited powers. But we onlookers know all too well how to refold that one and say that the rule of law requires not only that a judge resist acting where there is no legal right, but also that a judge must say what the law is and do what it requires.