Open Letter to Deadweights

(I'm unashamedly copying this straight from Free Republic. But then again, nobody writes this sort of thing for restricted circulation anyway, do they?)

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing,

we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see your rear fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, loot, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

(lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

Dueling & Manners

Shakespeare's works are too much neglected in our time, considering the wealth they have to offer us. I applaud Hollywood's (limited) effort to re-introduce them, with the release of Hamlet (both with Mel Gibson and with Kenneth Brannagh in the title role), King Lear with Ian Holm of Bilbo Baggins fame, Much Ado About Nothing with Denzel Washington and Keanu Reaves, etc. Even the hip-hop version of Romeo and Juliet was a noble effort to remake the bard's grand romantic tragedy in a form appealing to a modern audience, perhaps to strike in the young an interest in these masterpieces even at the cost of striking much of the genius from the work itself.

To the student of politics, Shakespeare's plays provide insightful commentary. Even Harry Jaffa, one of the greatest political minds of our time, finds much to learn from King Lear and its portrayal of a united England at peace under a monarchy.

But perhaps one reason why we neglect Shakespeare is that he gives us a window into a time very different from ours socially - very different and utterly abhorrent to our culture-manufacturers. The setting for many of his plays is a time in which honor and propriety were admired and respected, noted as much in their absence as in their practice. His is a description of the honorable in black and white.

It's not that the good guys and bad guys are easy to spot in Shakespeare. Often his great characters do bad things, and his henchmen repent of their evil deeds. But Shakespeare makes obvious the good and evil that men do: the evil is shown in all its ugliness as it destroys those around it, and the good is given the honor which we all recognize is due.

My friend Khaosx is a smart guy - and rather outspoken! He wrote some time back a rant that struck a chord with me:

It is entirely possible that the decline of manners in this country can be directly traced back to the fact that we no longer allow dueling.

Hmm...That reminded me of Senator Zell Miller's response to Chris Matthews' cowardly attacks and ungentlemanly treatment of Michelle Malkin: "You are not going to do to me what you did to that young lady the other day, browbeating her to death...I wish we lived in the day that I could challenge you to a duel."

It also reminds me of the code of manly honor of Shakespeare's day. For example: King Lear's truest and most loyal friend was the Earl of Kent. In reply to the disrespectful - even treasonous - treatment of the king, Kent challenges one of the rogues to a duel. When the knave refuses, Kent, with sword drawn but refusing to assault the fellow one-sidedly, continues to goad him to a fair duel by calling him to draw his sword and defend his honor. But the knave refuses still. When questioned by a standerby, Kent explains that he is outraged "that such a slave as this should wear a sword who wears no honesty."

In my copy of the play, the side-note explains that Kent is saying this fellow "wears the symbol of manhood without being honorable," and I think that sums it up nicely. As Khaosx observes, we would be inclined to mind our manners if we knew we might be called to defend our behavior as honorable.

A sword worn by a gentleman in service of the king or a nobleman was an honor earned, not a weapon purchased. Any man who engaged in dishonorable behavior disgraced the symbol and was apt to be challenged by men who, intent on defending honor from such disgrace, wanted that symbol stripped from such renegades.

We live in a day when we can behave rudely with no fear of consequences. We can slander, berate, curse and otherwise abuse without having to answer for it. When there are no consequences for betraying a standard, the standard disappears. Shakespeare shows us a standard our culture would rather not be measured by.

A Tax on Unpopularity

Following is a letter I wrote to my state representatives regarding the legislature's latest money-making scheme:

Thank you for your service in the interest of the great state of Texas and on the behalf of myself and other citizens whom you represent.

I am writing to encourage you toward fiscal restraint in our government. Money is not the solution to all our problems. Yet the constant message from Austin indicates a contrary view.

Our schools cannot teach effectively - so we're told - unless we give them more money. Well, having been educated in tiny Texas towns, I know better. And I suspect you do also.

And where is all this extra money going to come from? From wherever you can get it, right? So Austin plays the majority against the minority again. "Let's tax something unpopular," you say. "That always works."

I have nothing against democracy, mind you. But if the majority - or in this case, their representatives - are not restrained by principle, democracy becomes tyranny as the majority begin to seize the property and restrict the rights of the minority based on popularity contests.

Would it be right for an elected Congress to seize the fortunes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and divy them up among the rest of America? Of course not. But what if we instead launched a defamation campaign against their consumer habits and then taxed their purchases punitively? Would that be more just? Since they're a minority, who will stop us from confiscating their property? "Tax something unpopular," we say. "That always wins votes."

Obesity is (no pun intended) a growing problem. Why not follow Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's plan to make fatty foods unpopular, and thus create a whole new area of taxable consumption? It worked for cigarettes, after all, and Austin now intends to capitalize on the unpopularity and "political incorrectness" of smoking by making smokers pay for our schools.

Senator, take a stand against these "unpopularity taxes", and for fiscal restraint.

Ready for democracy?

What has liberty to do with democracy? Are people free only when they live in a democratic state? If our desire for our fellowman in other lands is freedom, is democracy their only hope?

The Declaration of Independence neither requires nor justifies democracy. Accepting that the rigths of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable in no way necessitates democracy as the only - let alone preferred - form of government.

Self-government as defined and defended in the Declaration is simply the inherent authority of the governed to overthrow any form of government which fails to secure these rights, and "to institute new government, laying its foundation on such priniciples, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Governments "deriv(e) their just powers from the consent of the governed," but what does this say about which form of government is preferred? So long as man's unalienable rights are secured, any form of government would satisfy the criteria expounded by Jefferson and his undersigning fellow revolutionaries.

Democracy, in other words, is not necessary to liberty, to the freedom which is an integral part of the pursuit of excellence, or "happiness". From Aristotle we learn of myriad forms of government, spanning the spectrum from simple democracy to tyranny, some of which protect the rights of man and others which do not.

Must the people determine and institute which form of government best serves them? If a dictator seizes power and provides for the security and liberty of his subjects, must he be overthrown simply because he is unelected?

Or, must the people govern, either directly or through their elected representatives? Must a benevolent monarch be dethroned merely because he alone rules? What is lacking, in such a system, that can be supplied only by democracy?

One might argue that democracy is the surest guarantee of the people's rights. Rulers being inclined to rule in their own interest, a nation of rulers (vis a vis, a democratic state) will be best able to preserve their own rights by (a la capitalism) each seeking his own interest. But there's a flaw in this concept, I think - one which others spotted long before me.

A ruler who cannot govern himself cannot be trusted to govern others, and so an extra vigilance is required of those who rule, lest justice be perverted. Where government is of kings or courts, dictators or lords, the need for this vigilant self-discipline is obvious, since all power resides in their hands. But where government is of the people, by majority vote, it's all too tempting to say, "I'm voting for what I want; you can do the same - and should do so in order to secure your self-interest." And, when the minority are plundered by the majority, we might justify this injustice with, "Well you should've voted against it," or "Sorry, you were simply outvoted."

No matter the form of government, its success in promoting the wellbeing of its subjects is determined by the virtue of its rulers. Is democracy any different? The success of a democracy is determined by but a single factor: the virtue of its citizens.

Harry Jaffa has observed that one of the difficulties in planting democracy in the Middle East is that the people haven't gone through an "enlightenment". In other words, they have not reasoned out, with Scripture and natural law, an understanding of the rights of man Jaffa considers prerequisite to an establishment of (or even a desire for) democratic self-government designed to secure those rights.

Rather than allow and encourage people in Mideastern culture to pursue those foundational principles, our foreign policy prefers to shortcut the process and go straight into helping them set up democracies. We encourage them to depose their existing governments. We seduce them with Levi's, Ipods and Brittany Spears. We feed them Ayn Rand's hyper-individualism to weaken and destroy the cultural grip of conformity. We subvert their existing systems of government by Westernizing their youth.

Does the student benefit when his teacher tells him the answer to a complex problem? The student now knows the answer, sure. But if he never learns how that answer is reached, has he learned anything of benefit?

Is democracy of any benefit to people who see no more worth in themselves and others than to be the subjects of overlords? Or if, when asked who they want to rule over them, they find human life and liberty of such little value that they elect a band of murderers and slavers?

With Harry Jaffa, I suggest that no people which has yet to discover the fundamental rights of man is ready for self-rule.

Despotic democracy

America was, for some 200 years, a land of opportunity. As I argued in a previous post, it is impossible to construct a government which can compel virtue and excellence in its citizens. The founding fathers instead settled for one which would permit such a pursuit, in the hope that the very opportunity would encourage that pursuit.

Safeguards for all freedoms requisite to this pursuit were established in the very foundation of the country - established so solidly that these freedoms could not be abridged without demolishing the country itself. And yet these requisite freedoms are taken from us, one by one, by a government intoxicated with power and abetted by citizens disinclined to pursue excellence.

America as bequeathed to us by the founding fathers guaranteed us opportunity. (Let's leave for another time the discussion of the evil of slavery, planted by the British, and the abolishment of which was sown at the nation's very founding.) Class distinctions were abolished. Speech, religion and private property were inviolably protected. Education was neither compelled nor denied by the state, nor were curricula dictated. Each prospered as he made use of his opportunity.

We see a different America today: What a man earns is taken from him, and spent on things he has no desire for. His children are compelled to attend school, and tuition is extracted from him. When his objectionable speech cannot be banned outright, it is censored via regulation. When his religion offends, his children are taken from him to be brainwashed. When his property is coveted, it is seized at the point of a gun. He is compelled to share the fruits of his labor with sluggards. He is taxed to provide relief from the destructive consequences of others' misbehavior. When his objectionable consumer habits cannot be outlawed, his purchases are punished via taxation.

Are such oppressions the natural consequences of democracy? Is it inevitable that the majority, when given the power to do so, will plunder the minority? Perhaps. Despotism is found not only in the king on his throne, but also in the citizen at the voting booth.

Nor is "equality under the law" an effective deterrent. The dictator, in his absolute authority, may place himself above his laws. By contrast, we perhaps suppose the citizen in a democracy to be subject to the same laws he makes for others. But is he? Do our laws apply equally to all?

• Is your income seized equally with mine? Or is more taken from you than me?


• Is your speech restricted while mine is not? Or are you more inclined to say things the majority find objectionable?


• Are your children re-educated by the state schools while mine hear the same thing in the classroom that they hear at home?


• Are you forced to pay punishment taxes on your purchases, while my purchases are deemed acceptable and thus exempt from punishment?


• Is your home equally at risk of seizure as mine? Or did your wise real estate purchase make it a prime target for covetous bureaucrats, while my humble home is safe from plunder?

"That government is best which governs least." The will of the majority requires no less restraint than does the will of a dictator. Democracy, however, requires far more vigilance, since its despotic impulse is far less obvious.

No gentleman

In a hospital parking lot one time, I pulled into a parking space in front of an older woman who was also looking for a place to park. I had gotten to the space ahead of her, so it's not as though I just "stole" it from her or anything. I got to it first, so I was right in taking the spot, wasn't I?

But I had seen her coming, heading for the same parking space. After she found a space further from the building and was walking a little ways behind me toward the entrance, she said to me, "You, sir, are no gentleman!"

Well I just blew her off as an old crank, who was just mad over losing the race for a parking space. But her words have haunted me for 15 years. If I saw her today, I would apologize for my ungentlemanliness, and thank her for teaching me a lesson it took me years to learn.

The supermarket where I do most of my shopping is located in an area where many old people live. (The suburbs where most young families live has its own bigger and fancier supermarkets, but the smaller one is more convenient to me.) From time to time, while walking through the aisles getting the few things I need, I've noticed old people moving to get out of my way, sometimes with a look of nervousness, trepidation, perhaps even fear on their faces.

Those looks of fear shocked me. Was it my manner causing that reaction? I don't order people out of my way. I don't huff at them or crowd past their shopping carts as they slowly go about the business of choosing which soup to buy. Have I become so callous that, unaware, some behavior of mine makes them afraid of impeding my path for fear of getting run over? Am I the SUV driver, tailgating some old lady in a Toyota, trying to bully her into getting out of my way?

I'm taller than most people - lanky now and not is as good shape as I once was, but still no doubt imposing in size to old men and women, and obviously younger and stronger than they. Does this mean it's okay for me to run roughshod over them? Should the old step aside - or be shoved aside - to make room for the young? Is it right that old women step aside to make way for me as I march down the supermarket aisles?

Or should I be the one stepping aside for my elders, waiting patiently while they ponder which soup is the better bargain? Should I be the one to pause and let them go ahead of me through the checkout line? Should I hold the door while they push their grocery-laden carts slowly out the door?

I asked a few people about this reactions I get from old people. A coworker told me that the British treat the old with much more respect than we Americans do. My brother said, "After the way they've been treated, it's no surprise they walk around fearful." How tragic is that!

Have we simply discarded all respect for age? Teenagers stand blocking the aisle with no consideration for me, and I frighten my elders as I rush by on my insignificant quest for potato chips and toilet paper.

I determined to walk more slowly through the supermarket, pause for the old man blocking the aisle, and let the old lady take her time writing out a check for her groceries. What's an extra 3-4 minutes to me? If my slower pace and respectful patience demonstrates respect for my elders, deference for their age, concern for the weakness, isn't it fitting and proper? Isn't it civility? Isn't it my duty as a man? Isn't it being a gentleman?

Another reply to Khaosx

* you want to explore sexist double standards confronting men during dating and in their relationships with women

Wouldn't be an issue if guys could just have a meeting and decide that date-rape is not, I repeat, NOT cool. No means no. Getting her drunk doesn't count. If she's so drunk that she says yes, but would say no when sober, then you fail the test. Oh yeah, preying on chicks with low self esteem is bad, m'kay? I should know.

Well said!

When we fail to police ourselves, we can expect - we need - somebody to get organized and come police us. And then we'll whine that the retaliation is over-the-top, that the "awareness" campaigns make us all look like predators, that women shouldn't lead us on and torture us that way, etc.

I tell ya, if we guys took the date-rapist out to a country road and beat the crap out of him, (A) word would get around that this nonsense won't be tolerated, and (B) women wouldn't have to demand justice. It would signal that we men are willing to take care of our end of things. And just maybe women would start doing the same.

It begins with us.

Reply to Khaosx

I think you're right on the money. Right on the money.

Except for one point:

* you are a divorced father fighting for child custody or more time with your children

Those guys stay in the main building, they get the best resources that can be offered, and they also get a picture on the "Wall of Responsible Men, who did The Right Thing" (tm). In my opinion, that's about the best thing such an organization could provide.

Granted, many fathers - including their plaintiff - want nothing to do with their children. (These renegades need to be forced to wear a scarlet "D" around their necks so everyone will know they're deadbeats.) And we should certainly applaud those who love and want to be with their kids.

But a father who wants to take his kids away from their mother is, I think, worse than a mother who wants to take her kids away from their father. (All reasonable factors being equal, of course: barring abusive situations, etc.) Forget for the moment the entertainment-as-indoctrination "Mrs. Doubtfire", "Liar, Liar", etc. and ask yourself which parent has the greater natural ability to raise children? The mother, ja?

Leaving that question aside for the moment, I still have to disagree with you, Kha. We men have a propensity for wildness. You, Jav and I can testify to that tendency, and it's a general problem. We need taming. Women and children provide that. When we get married and have children, we tend to redirect our energies into useful, productive endeavors and restrain our tendencies to run amok. (You two have wives; tell me if I'm wrong.)

The home is what keeps men in line. If we can run wild without losing our wives and children, we just might. If we can commit adultery without consequence, what's to keep us from "getting a little on the side"? We shouldn't and we know it. But when our internal restraints fail us, we need external restraints. One of those external restraints should be the fear of losing our homes, our families.

I've argued that men are the more powerful sex. But that's not to say that women aren't (or shouldn't be) capable of exercising sanctions against us. (Fiddler on the Roof has some of the best illustrations of the balance of power between the sexes, and one of the best examples of manliness in many respects.) Those sanctions can of course be overridden by the man when it's right to do so. But to override them otherwise is to render the woman powerless, and thus to eliminate that restraint on the man's tendency to wildness. Not exactly the best idea, ja?

My wife went to court to have our marriage dissolved. When the court saw I was not interested in fighting for my home, it found no reason to rule against the divorce request. Had I felt otherwise, the court would have been morally (if not legally) obligated to allow me the chance to salvage the marriage, and to compel my wife to allow me that opportunity. She and I didn't have any children; but how much more so ought we as a society (and courts as our instruments) offer the husband and father the opportunity to get his act together and save his family, and compel the mother of his children to allow him that chance? If it is the home that restrains the man and makes him behave responsibly, we shouldn't let the irresponsible man run off and take his home with him. By no means! Rather, once he has been properly chastised by the loss of his home, let's allow him the opportunity to regain it.

I've already stated my view that he needs to reconcile himself to his wife. I don't know if we'll disagree about that, Kha-o. But if default custody for the mother prompts a father to "get on home to his family," I say let the mother have custody.

Khaosx chimes in

In reply to "National Center for Men (sic)", Khaosx writes:


Frankly, I have trouble taking these chumps seriously.

C'mon...we're actually having a serious discussion about a group of people who sell bumper stickers on their web site? We're engaged in a dialog about a men's advocacy group that withholds their single viable resource (a document which they claim can be admitted in "any court with jurisdiction in family matters", but also which they admit is completely irrelevant, legally speaking) for a donation?

Hello? These guys are probably selling some snake oil liver ailment cures out fo the same wagon.

I know I'm skirting most of the issues that you two have been kicking around while I've been out of town, but this list got me thinking. I think a men's advocacy group is a pretty darm good idea. But I think that we'll need to pare down their list a bit.

* you are enduring a difficult divorce

I like the idea of a resource for men going through a divorce. Even if the resource is a swift kick in the pants, it's a good idea.

* you are being forced into paternity and/or a child support obligation against your wishes

That one has to go. It's just plain stupid. Without going to some Scott Turow, Presumed Innocent, Rube Goldberg extremes, you cannot be forced into paternity. I don't know a single woman who would take the time to pull that one, and I know some downright freaky-insane women. Likewise, you cannot be "forced" into a child support obligation. You put it there, you made the baby, you own the responsibility. End of story.

"But your honor, she told me she was on the pill". Consider it an object lesson, and invest in Trojans, skippy.

* you are a victim of domestic violence

The idea of a resource group for people who have been abused (please note my deliberate omission of the phrases "Survivor of" and "Victim of") is probably a good thing for some, though my personal opinion is, as it has always been, "Come down off your personal cross, use the wood to build a bridge, and get over it". That one stays, but we seperate those guys off in a different wing of the headquarters building, agreed?

Skipping around a bit, for organization's sake...

* you are a divorced father fighting for child custody or more time with your children

Those guys stay in the main building, they get the best resources that can be offered, and they also get a picture on the "Wall of Responsible Men, who did The Right Thing" (tm). In my opinion, that's about the best thing such an organization could provide.


* you want to escape the narrow gender (sic) role restrictions imposed on men,
* you have been hurt by a false accusation, parental alienation or employment discrimination,

I've lumped these two, because to be quite frank, I don't know what the hell they're talking about. Narrow gender role restrictions? Are you freakin' kidding me? We're men. We get to blow stuff up. I was actually going to write a serious note to tie this one up, but I couldn't come up with anything better than "WE GET TO BLOW STUFF UP".

* you want to discuss any area of men's liberation, including men in skirts or men working in non-traditional job

If it's not a kilt, you've got no business wearing it. Period.

* you want to explore sexist double standards confronting men during dating and in their relationships with women

Wouldn't be an issue if guys could just have a meeting and decide that date-rape is not, I repeat, NOT cool. No means no. Getting her drunk doesn't count. If she's so drunk that she says yes, but would say no when sober, then you fail the test. Oh yeah, preying on chicks with low self esteem is bad, m'kay? I should know.

* you suffer from the lingering effects of conscription or circumcision or any other form of sexism or violence against men

OK, seriously now. Conscription? What are they talking about? As the man said "You been freeze-dried, or doing hard time?". I'm assuming they're talking about the draft, and there hasn't been one of those in a while.

And circumcision...I don't wanna get too deep into this, but I've taken an informal poll (no pun intended) on this one. The only lingering effect of circumcision is that women aren't grossed out when the little soldier salutes.

Again, these guys are just a bunch of pansy-ass chumps. Where have all the good men gone? (Stop me before I sing that one). What happened to Gary Cooper, the strong-silent type?

We live in a world where people believe that they are entitled to feel good. There should never be a consequence attached to an action. Never any RESPONSIBILITY for an action. We should have what we want, when we want it. Someone else should take care of providing me liberty. Someone else should take care of my bastard child. Bill Gates should pay my taxes.

The sooner people get back to understanding that life just ain't fair, and as Thoreau said, "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation", the sooner we'll start shifting the tectonic plates of society back to something that actually works.

National Center for Men (sic)

Jav, I found the website of the National Center for Men, which is filing this lawsuit. It doesn't sound like a tongue-in-cheek, making-a-statement sort of deal.

Rather, they state, "We will ask that women be required to share reproductive freedom with men." In other words, they have no opposition to abortion (aka "reproductive freedom"), but instead want to be just like women in reneging their responsibilities. Absolutely deplorable.

More on the purpose of their organization:

We can help you if...

* you are enduring a difficult divorce,
* you are being forced into paternity and/or a child support obligation against your wishes,
* you are a victim of domestic violence,
* you want to escape the narrow gender (sic) role restrictions imposed on men,
* you have been hurt by a false accusation, parental alienation or employment discrimination,
* you are a divorced father fighting for child custody or more time with your children,
* you want to discuss any area of men's liberation, including men in skirts or men working in non-traditional jobs,
* you want to explore sexist double standards confronting men during dating and in their relationships with women,
* you suffer from the lingering effects of conscription or circumcision or any other form of sexism or violence against men,
* you want to learn more about gender (sic) politics or any other aspect of the movement for men's equal rights.

"Men's liberation"?? "Men in skirts"?? "Lingering effects of conscription or circumcision"?? Give me a break.

Yes, they actually do feel so impotent that they're asking for "equal rights" with women! They're not men. They're a herd of sissies. And this "lawsuit" looks like nothing more than a publicity stunt by a bunch of boys who're scared of girls.

My reply on "Men's Rights??"

I understand your point now, Jav. Isn't it a sad day when American men think we are the ones who need an Equal Rights Amendment? And I'm afraid these fellows filing this lawsuit must truly believe that. *boggle* Maybe you're right that women need us to file this lawsuit. But surely men don't, do we?

Men can bear great burdens. We have broad shoulders, as the saying goes. And so we ought to bear them. If the load falls disproportionately on our shoulders, so be it. Suck it up, grit your teeth, rise above it. All those things we tell our sons when they want to run crying to us like they always ran crying to their mothers. In short, be a man.

The lawsuit spokesman on the radio yesterday said their advocacy group helps divorced fathers who have been denied custody of and given little visitation rights to their children. And y'know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if such hardships on men aren't perhaps a good thing.

It's not because men need hardship to toughen us up; indeed we do. But if the only reason a man has any contact with the woman he married and who bore his children is because of his children, he's a renegade. (I'm speaking broadly here, so bear with me.) He needs to get his butt back home!

My wife divorced me because I was an a**hole. That realization hit me hard, and when I finally tried to fix that problem, it was too little too late. I never have and never will remarry, because the woman I married is the only woman to whom I ought to be married. She knows this. And I have gone as far as she and my concern for her wishes will allow me in trying to patch things up between us. If we had children though, her wish for me to "just stay the blankity-blank away" would not have affected me. No, instead I'd have been on my knees begging for forgiveness and reconciliation of our family.

When losing our wives is easier than losing our children, we've got problems. But if we have to lose our children before we'll open our eyes and see what a**holes we are, then by all means, take our children!

There's wisdom in the saying, it takes two to break a marriage. If I had been a man, I'd have fought the divorce tooth and nail, pleading with the judge to delay it, buying time for me to get my act together and convince my wife that I could and would change. That's every man's duty. But I reneged. And there was no society of men around me to say, "What the blankity-blank are you doing, son?! Get back home to your wife!"

All these guys who go around starting families and then walking out on them, they need to have their paychecks taken from them and given to their kids. And if their wives divorced them for being a**holes, these husbands need a swift kick in the pants to send them back pleading for reconciliation. Humility is not undignified, not unmanly. We'll sacrifice our lives for our wives and children, won't we? How much less is it, then, to sacrifice only our pride to save our families?

Sure, I've generalized to make this point, and not all families are broken by nor can be saved by the husband alone. But when the shoe fits, we need to tell one another to get wearing it.

I'm with you, Jav, when you say, "I would hope such a law would NEVER come to pass." In those cases where the wife is implacable, where nothing the husband does will cause her to reconsider, the law needs to be changed to override her obstinance. But the reason the law currently leans in her favor is because we men have abused our power. If we clean up our act, only then will we be justified in changing the law. This is why I stand firmly opposed to this lawsuit - particularly because when I had my chance, I played the renegade too.

Jav again on "Men's Rights??"

Well, I don't know where these men are willing to take it. My point isn't to even get such a right passed.

The so-called Women's Lib movement is premised on the misguided notion that men and women should be equal and are equal. My point is that such a case shows them that if this were the case then law would dictate that men could abandon their children in much the same way women do with abortion. Legally, they should have that right (assuming the premise that women should be on equality with men in every way).

I'm totally with you on the merits of the case and what it means for men to do this. My point is, hold this up as a ruler of sorts. "Women, society must understand the differences between men and women and respect them. Without them, the law would be compelled to grant men the same equal right that you have, namely a writ of abortion."

I would hope such a law would NEVER come to pass. However, given women's groups propensity to use "fairness, equality, and law" to get their way, this might be a mirror to hold up and say, "Look what you're really saying."

I didn't mean to imply that I would advocate the law come to pass, rather that it's basis in fairness and supposed equality would show the danger of making everything "equal."

JP

Who's running this show anyway?

What does it say about men when we let the mothers of our children kill our kids?

We all sat in shock listening to the news reports of Andrea Yates drowning her five children in the bathtub. How could a mother do that?! What I found equally shocking was hearing the father of those children defending and supporting this murderess. My deficiency in the area of self-restraint will be obvious when I tell you that, had I been her husband Rusty Yates, that woman might be safer behind bars than running around loose where I could get my hands on her.

But we've become a nation of henpecked men. Like Justice Marshall, we go home and ask our wives and daughters how to decide important matters like abortion. We sit around in support-group circles while women instruct us on expressing our feelings. We stand on the front porch holding our infant children and say "Wave bye-bye to Mommy" while she marches off to war in her Army fatigues. We help our girlfriends paint their protest signs and march dutifully behind them at baby-killer rallies. We pack their lunches before they go off to earn a living for the household, then we sit around watching Oprah and chuckling at "Mr. Mom" movies.

This is not about "man's work" and "woman's work". It's about whether or not men can even do the job assigned to them.

Jav is absolutely right when he says, "Don't get me wrong, (the father) should support the child. He's hardly a man if he doesn't." And the spokesman for the "men's rights" lawsuit said the same thing, admitting the difference between the moral issue and the legal issue. But when we're willing to distinguish between the two, when we're reduced to going to court trying to "make a point" in this battle for our kids' lives, we're hardly worthy to be called men.

I'm not saying we should be above pleading for our children's lives. Any man worth his salt would sacrifice even his own life for that of his child, let alone beg his wife to spare the child's life. By all means, let's plead on our knees! And as soon as Roe is dashed to the ground, let's bow our heads in tears as our wives are dragged away to prison for their savage crimes. But let's not cry and moan to a judge (our new Mommy) that "it's just so unfair" that we're forced to act like fathers when they don't have to act like mothers. Let's not sulk because our women took our pants and started making the rules and bossing us around.

Jav, you haven't forgotten what God expects in a home. When the man relinquishes his position to his wife, it's the children who suffer. And when men relinquish their position in a society to women, it's again the children who suffer. We don't even have to look in the Bible to learn this; we see it all around us. We've got renegade males everywhere we turn: gangs of bandits, sodomites and pansies of every sort, rapists of females age 3 to 83, guys who don't even know what sex they are. (And don't even get me started on the growing male-cosmetics market!)

I know I'm being harsh, but I'm not trying to attack you, Jav, just the argument. You're no wimp. But maybe like the rest of us you've been sold the male-impotence line of propaganda we've been spoonfed since grade school.

Here in America we like to make jokes about rifle-dropping, white-flag-waving, wine-and-cheese France. We need a mirror.

My reply to Jav on "Men's Rights??"

On a local talk show this afternoon, I heard an interview with one of the spokesmen for this men's advocacy group. He made the very same points in support of the lawsuit that you have just made.

Pardon my bluntness, Jav - none of us three have ever needed to mince words - but it's a whiny argument. For me to just reply, "Life is unfair" won't cut it, of course, because that presupposes an equality between the sexes - which you won't assume any more than I will.

This isn't a lawsuit between equals, however, but between men and women. The inequality of position results in inequality of responsibility. We hold a position of authority, strength, and power. Thus we have greater responsibility.

The pro-abortion position might be weakened by the arguments in this suit, but that doesn't validate them. No more than a boy whining, "But she hit me first!" As men, we're expected to endure it without retaliation, because women cannot endure our retaliation.

No, I believe abortion must be attacked head-on, not with behind-the-lines sabotage. (That was my argument in Roe Delenda Est.) As long as it stands, Roe is a mocking embarrassment to American men's impotence for all the reasons you gave. But what does it say about us when the best we can muster is a plea for "fairness"?

Our children are depending on us. Their very lives are at stake. And if we have to fight their mothers, it's not a battle of our choosing but one we from which we must not shrink.

But there's got to be a better way to save our kids than by simply abandoning them in order to make their mothers suffer.

Jav on "Men's Rights??"

(Jav, I'm going to continue, in a new post, my reply to your comments. So rather than relegate your comments to "understatus", they get their own post.)

For continuity's sake: Here is Jav's reply to my post, "Men's Rights"??:


Without knowing the details of the case, I can't say for certain what the intent might be.

I have advocated something very similar for years. Let me finish. I always felt that the best way to attack abortion what to expose it on the issue of fairness.

A woman and man meet, have a drink, have sex. She gets pregnant. At that moment she has fundamental rights that the man does not. She's a potential mother and he a potential father. Thanks to Roe v. Wade, however, she has all other rights. She can abort and relieve herself of the "burden" of raising the child. If he wants the same thing, it works out well for him. However, if he wants the child he has no claim to it. Turn it around. She wants to keep the child but he does not. She has the power under the law to force his support.

Don't get me wrong, he should support the child. He's hardly a man if he doesn't. I'm arguing from a legal position, however, that abortion law does exactly what women's groups wanted: it gives HER the choice and power. If this power were to be equalized, say by giving the father the power to abort perhaps in the form of a right or writ, what would be the effect?

I suggest that suddenly women's groups would find themselves in a pickle. If they oppose it, then they are conceding that women should have special rights. If they agree to it, then they are relinquishing something that women often count on: support.

I think this could have a devastating effect on pro-abortion rights.

About men

I've asked my two dearest and truest friends to jump in and discuss the subject of the society of men with me. It's a subject I've pondered off and on ever since my college psychology professor introduced me to it some 21 years ago. There are no doubt many books written on the subject, and I'll try to find them. But sifting out the good from the politically correct might prove a challenge.

Why is this such an important topic?

I mentioned in my post "Men's Rights??" that men have superior might and can revert to oppressing women anytime we please. We can, but we must not. Manliness entails restraint, and therefore oppression of the weak is unmanly. The Muslim savages who yank out the fingernails of women who dare to paint them are not men. Forcing women to have clitorectomies and smacking them on the ankles doesn't make you a man, it makes you a bully, cultural diversity be damned.

All the (valid) ranting about "feminazis" notwithstanding, we men need to give some attention to our own sex. (Not "gender", mind you. Gender is for grammar class.) We need to reclaim the society of men. Y'know, boys clubs, boys schools, men's clubs (not the innapropriately named "gentlemen's clubs" either), hunting trips, cigar clubs, camping trips where we sit around the fire and talk guy stuff. (I'm not talking about men's support groups either. The very fact that we have men's support groups tells us we've got a problem!)

We need to develop a respect for one another as members of male society, and in order to do so we must exclude women from this society. Since women can't fit in, they need to be told to quit trying to. They don't have to be a part of every single facet of male life. They're not like us. They never will be like us. And we better tell them to stop trying to make us be like them.

Women have castrated us. They have stolen our pants and handed us aprons. They have feminized our schools and turned our sons into "emo kids" who're obsessed with their hair and want to wear their sisters' clothes.

In one ancient society, the kids (both boys and girls) were raised almost solely by their mothers. But when a boy reached a certain age, his mother had to give him up to the male society. This loss endured by the mother is understandably traumatic, and an entire ritual developed around it: The men of the community play the part of savages and vicious beasts. They dress up in their savage costumes and, beating their drums and doing their savage dance, come and "kidnap" the boy from among the assembly of women. The women, playing their part in the drama, cower in mock terror, and then howl in grief and despair as the boy is taken away from them, comforting the grieving mother.

What is necessary is also often painful. Such rituals "validate" the mother's pain at the loss of her son. Surely that's the least we can do to make endurable what is necessary.

After all, what's the alternative? If we don't reduce the influence of mothers over their sons and increase the influence of their fathers, we'll create a society filled with "mama's boy" sissies. And nations and tribes crumble when their men go soft. Mothers can give their sons only so much of what is required in the transition of boys to men. Beyond that, they must get it from men.

Dr. Thaxter Dickey, my psych professor, has done some study of rites of passage to manhood, and notes the glaring lack of such rituals in modern Western civilization. (He used to have an essay on this subject posted on his website, but that site is down at the moment.) We've all seen the PBS documentaries on these rites of passage in primitive cultures: A young man goes off into the wilderness with only a spear, and is expected to bring back a kill for the tribe to eat. Or he is expected to face down a charging lion armed only with his spear. Or he build a tower out of trees, climbs up to the top, attached a vine rope to his ankles, and jumps off headfirst bungee-like. Or he goes off alone into the desert with no food or water and endures the elements and his hunger and thirst for days.

Whatever the particular task, its accomplishment initiates the boy into manhood, into the society of men. The task might be a test of his endurance, or his self-discipline, or his courage, or his ability to provide for the community. These are important qualities of manliness, and vital to a society. These are characteristics of a man which merit the respect of both men and women. Is there any man, real or fictional, whom we respect and admire who doesn't possess these qualities?

Without a rite of passage, we're left to determine manhood based on what? age? A fellow reaches age 18 and now he's a man? He doesn't have to demonstrate manliness, but just has to wait long enough and then he's a man? Now he's worthy of our respect because of some arbitrary chronological measurement? Now he deserves a place in our society whether he's an asset or a liability? I say let him prove himself before asking us for our stamp of approval.

Waller E. Newell said,

There is an unbroken pedigree in the Western conception of what it means to be a man. Honor tempered by prudence, ambition tempered by compassion for the suffering and the oppressed, love restrained by delicacy and honor toward the beloved.

Seen any young men around lately fitting that description?

I sure wasn't one of them at age 18 - or anytime soon thereafter either! Nobody demanded it of me. Nobody said, "Prove yourself to us, young man, before asking a place in our society. Prove yourself before you ask for a marriage license. We want to see whether you can handle a man's responsibilities."

"Men's rights"??

Some "men's" advocacy group is filing a lawsuit alleging that legal paternal obligations (such as mandatory child support) violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, some guy gets a girl pregnant, and, rather than having the child executed, the mother decides to raise the child, expecting - demanding - the father at the very least contribute monetarily to the child's care and upbringing. But this "men's" advocacy group whines, "That's so unfair!"

I use quotes to describe these "men" because there's nothing manly about their cause. They're little boys with peckers, sticking them where they don't belong - not so confused as sodomites, fortunately! - and then trying too late to pull out.

It's bad enough that such boys-with-peckers have run so roughshod over women that, rather than raising fatherless children, women now resort to murdering the bastard offspring of these renegades. Now these same renegades want total immunity for anything they might do while under the direction of their peckers.

Time was when we men stood up for those who couldn't stand up for themselves, when "shotgun wedding" was a literal term, when a young woman's brothers would, one way or another, see to it that the young man in question did right by her, thus giving the fellow a swift and compelling initiation into the society of men, responsible and upright husbands and fathers.

Gone is this society of men for whom a young woman's pregnancy guaranteed a husband for her and a father for her child. And if these little boys get their way with their whiny "I'm such a victim!" lawsuit, gone also is the small comfort of a check every month to help buy food and clothes for her child.

Yeah, I know women have a whole lot weighing on their side. (Any women reading this, feel free to skip the rest, because you might find my chauvinism shocking or something.) As a friend once put it, they have half the money and all the you-know-what. Well the simple fact is, we men could get all the power and money back any time we please. The simple fact is, women have whatever they have because we let them have it. They can't compel anything of us, but we can compel it of them.

How can I say that? Simple: Everything comes down to might, to force. Everything. America could build a world empire; we have the might. Since the Soviet Union's demise, we are unmatched in military might. If Iran goes nuclear, it'll be because we witheld our might. If North Korea starts to really get on our nerves, we could squash them like a grape. If we get desperate for cheap gas, we can march into the Middle East and Venezuela and take their oil by force. We don't, and we won't, but we could. Nobody could stop us.

Women vote because we men let them. They've infiltrated our military because we let them. They're on our sons' football teams because we let them. They're our coworkers and bosses because we let them. They win alimony and child support suits because we let them. They're in Congress and on the Supreme Court because we let them. And if one ever ascends to the Presidency, it'll be because we men let her.

Men have superior might than women. We're created bigger, stronger, faster, and, when it comes to warfare, smarter than women. We have greater tolerance of physical pain and strain, and the ability to shut down emotions when necessary. You can appeal to decency, fairness, human rights, women's rights, the Constitution, etc. all day long. But in the end, those are just ideas, and can be (and sometimes are) simply rejected. They have no inherent force. When men decide they want women back in subservience, back in subservience women will go. They could put up a fight, sure. And they would lose. When it comes to a contest of might, they can't compete with men.

Women, naturally, come to us with appeals to our fairness, kindness, nobility. And we accede to their requests when we understand it is right to do so. But when we've had enough, we have the might to demote them to the same demeaning stature that Muslim barbarians do. (I pray such a day never comes that men in America use our superior might for such ends. But if we are restrained from it, it's not out of fear of women's might.)

Knowing all this, men have a fundamental obligation to govern ourselves, to restrain our superior might, to use it to provide for and protect women rather than mistreat them. And we have a responsibility to hold one another accountable, and compel one another to fulfill our duties toward women. To do otherwise is to show ourselves unworthy of the authority nature's God gave us.

FAIR's unfairness

What does it tell us when a lawsuit brought by 36 law schools and their faculties is soundly thrashed by a unanimous Supreme Court?! Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in Rumsfeld v. FAIR was brief, straightforward and easy to follow. (I'm gonna like this guy.) His arguments were a bit chiding at times, and apparently with good reason since not even the most Left-leaning members of the Court found any merit in the law schools' or amici's nonsensical arguments.

To answer my own question: This drubbing demonstrates that the law schools were more interested in their pro-sodomy/anti-military social agenda than in the Constitution. Had it been education schools that brought this suit, such a revelation would have surprised no one; they make no secret of their teaching priorities. But law schools professors receiving such a scolding! As George Will put it, "The professors deserved - no, let us just say they needed - better legal advice than they were able to give themselves.

Roberts' opinion shed some new light on my still-developing understanding of the First Amendment. In barring military recruiters from their campuses, the law schools were trying to "make a statement" against anti-sodomy employers. Congress compelling them to include such employers was represented as forcing them to make a different "statement". The question, therefore, was whether "making a statement" is protected under the First Amendment. The answer is a resounding, "No, of course not. Duh."

This gets to the gist of my disagreement with "symbolic speech", as Roberts calls it and which even Scalia upheld in Eichman. Although "words can in some circumstances violate laws directed not against speech but against conduct" (R.A.V. v. St. Paul), they still find in the First Amendment a basic protection of "expressive conduct". ("Parades are...a form of expression, not just motion, and the inherent expressiveness of marching to make a point explains our cases involving protest marches," Roberts quotes from Hurley.)

I'm sorry, I just don't see that in the First Amendment. Maybe "marching to make a point" does need to be protected. Fine. If "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" doesn't cover it, let's do something to remedy the problem - preferably something besides bending the Constitution and stretching the definition of "speech", precedent be damned.


ADDENDUM: James Taranto, in today's OpinionJournal "Best of the Web", put it this way:

Only one law school, George Mason in Arlington, Va., filed a brief on the winning side. Given that not a single justice agreed with the views put forward by profs at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, NYU, Chicago, Penn, etc., it seems fair to say that George Mason has the most competent professors of any law school in the nation.

:-)

You promise?

Planning to sit down and write a bit this afternoon about Monday's Supreme Court decision justifying the Solomon Amendment, I went to grab a cup o'java and got distracted. I noticed on the back of the Cremora jar an icon that said simply "upromise", and underneath, "Join free / upromise.com". So, naturally, ...

From their website:

We believe that every child should have the chance to go to college. Upromise was established to give families an easy way to save - every day - and encourage them to start early by investing their own money for college on a regular basis. Our Rewards service offers money for college from America's leading companies...

Not what I was expecting, but a good idea, sure. My first thought was that it was something along the lines of "The Promise-Keepers". (It's an interesting play on the childhood question, "You promise?")

What strange times we live in, that we have organizations to remind us of our duties to one another, even help us to make promises to our spouses and children. Whereas societies and communities once established, encouraged and enforced the most basic duties of their members, now we see movements within our society and communities to organize intracommunity groups whose members will adhere to fundamental virtue.

I'm no sociologist, so I don't know whether these organizations and their adherents should be called sub-cultures or what. But their very existence - and there are probably others like them I haven't heard of - says something about the vast cultural chasm in America.

It also speaks volumes about the cultural damage our nation has sustained in recent decades, that we cannot even marshal a consensus condemnation of antisocial behavior and impose corrective sanctions on the renegades. As William F. Buckley put it, "A man who fathers a child whom he proceeds to ignore is a second-class citizen. How should we discourage second-class behavior?" And again,

Why are we so determined to "understand" those whose behavior is anti-social, whether sowing disruption in classrooms or seeds of life in lackadaisical engagements? A good society needs to be hospitible to virtue, which is the easy part; but shouldn't it also be inhospitable to dereliction?

Promise-Keepers. Upromise funds. Methinks our desperation is showing.

Live free or die

If this weren't such a lonely blog, by now someone would've posted something like, "But hang on a sec...If we're paying for these folks' food, insurance and health care, can't we expect and even compel them to maintain a reasonable level of health?"

To which I would reply: Aha! We've made one of the classic blunders! We've turned to the state to take care of us, and in so doing have surrendered far too much of our liberty. Our "great patron" now dictates our behavior. And this surprises us why?

Or someone would've said, "Hold on... Just the other day you seemed to find it acceptable to pressure people to conform by losing weight."

There's a fundamental difference between societal pressure and the power of the state - so fundamental, in fact, that societal pressure is in many cases restrained by the power of the state. (More on that later.)

Few people are so opposed to Bill Cosby's comedy routine that they would want him censored - certainly not enough, in any case, to constitute a majority. No, it's only when he speaks out against the NAACP and destructive black culture that his opponents want him shut up. And were it not for the protection provided by our Constitution, the masses might have him silenced.

The Washington Post is unlikely to suffer backlash over publishing the latest "Dilbert". But when they expose illegal break-ins into the Democratic Party campaign headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, the protection of the Constitution may be a reassuring bulwark.

The fellow who owns property in the barren desert of the West is not in jeopardy of an eminent-domain eviction. For no private developer covets his land. It's only the folks who own riverfront property in Connecticutt whose homes are in jeopardy. Fortunately the Constitution prohibits the seizure of their property by the envious masses seduced by tax revenues.

The majority need protection only from a tyrannical, powerful minority. But the unpopular face a double-threat: This minority also needs protection from a tyrannical majority.

The political threat posed by Gov. Huckabee, et al. is backed by two forces:

1. The powerful minority, in the form of state power.

2. The majority that, under the influence of "political correctness" propaganda, will cede even more power to the state.

It remains to be seen just how far the state, with the backing of the people and the repeal of the Ninth Amendment, will go in coercing "right" behavior. But since all three branches of the federal government have reneged their oaths to uphold the Constitution, and since the only remaining restraint on their power is poll numbers, the fate of the American way of life will be determined by a propaganda war.

How far we've come from the founding, that our liberty now hangs in the balance of "political correctness"!

Means and fried rights

Let me make it clear that my post Roe Delenda Est was in no way intended to criticize legal prohibition of abortion. Abortion's mass slaughter is, in my view, worse than those perpetrated by Lenin, Stalin and Hitler - although abortion's marketing campaign draws upon many of the same propaganda techniques as Nazism did.

Nor am I advocating an end-justifies-the-means argument for dismantling a Supreme Court ruling. Rather, the end ought not disregard the means. In other words, inasmuch as Roe was the legal door through which this evil innovation gained free course into our nation, it must be slammed shut, locked and double-bolted if we're to have any hope of eradicating this plague from our borders.

Our Constitution simply does not authorize many of the governmental innovations we see around us. The framers, it's true, failed to anticipate a few problems. But where others are concerned, they were astoundingly prescient, bequeathing to us a remarkable philosophy and form of government, which, were they upheld, would prevent all manner of abuses, many of which currently afflict us. But our ignorance of our history, political philosophy and constitutional government, combined with our desperation to solve the problems which beset us, have led to tyrannies large and small in America. Take, for instance, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who has spearheaded a statewide "get fit" campaign.

Anyone familiar with the obesity problem in Arkansas (or much of the deep south, for that matter) might, upon seeing impressive results from Huckabee's campaign, applaud it heartily. The CDC has recently released astounding statistics concerning America's obesity "epidemic". And rather than dispute the reasonableness of their criteria which pronounces Michael Jordan "obese", let's focus instead on whether weight reduction and improved health (the end) justifies Huckabee's program intended to achieve it (the means).

In a speech to the National Governors Association, Huckabee unashamedly outlines his propaganda campaign. First, we must make obesity politically incorrect. Next, we implement incentives and disincentives to encourage proper diet and exercise. Finally, once the majority have surrendered, we'll be able to revoke the liberties of the minority and coerce their acquiescence.

Sound extreme? It shouldn't. As Huckabee illustrates in example after example, it works like a charm. For instance, seatbelts. For decades, in many (if not most) cars, seatbelts were available to safety-conscious consumers only as after-market products. Then in the mid-60s, manufacturers were compelled by law to begin installing them in all vehicles whether the consumer wanted them or not - and the auto-makers passed the savings on to you. Then came the public service announcements, school films, etc. - all paid for by you. Next came the legal coercion to buckle up, with accompanying fines for driving "dangerously" down the block to your friend's house without a seatbelt. (Since you're obviously incapable of caring for your own welfare, you by default cede that authority to the state - which gladly assumes the role.) Finally, under the "roads are government property" doctrine, the seatbelt police can now stop you for suspicion of unbuckledness and ask to see your "papers".

Take another example - smoking. It wasn't so long ago that smoking was a popular pleasure. Then came evidence that the costs outweighed the benefits, and the anti-smoking campaign began. School films, blah blah blah. Fine. Education is a good thing. It enables people to make educated decisions regarding their own welfare. But that's not enough, since too few folks were making the "right" decision. So smoking in government office buildings was outlawed. ("We can do that.") Then smoking in all office buildings and other places of employment was outlawed. ("People have to be there who don't like cigarette smoke.") Then smoking in restaurants, apartments, hotels, parks, etc. was outlawed. ("People who don't like cigarette smoke are more important, and we can't expect them to choose available alternatives.")

And as with seatbelts, the state applied additional punishment for noncompliance by levying oppressive taxation. Federal tax is $0.39 a pack, and state tax varies. As of 2002, Washington had the highest at $1.425 a pack. In Texas where I live, the total tax (not including sales tax) is $8 a carton, which accounts for roughly 1/3 the cost - a 50% tax. That's some serious coercion! But as Minn. Gov. Jesse Ventura says, "If you don't want to pay it, don't smoke." Thanks for the tip, King George III.

Picture the tax collector standing next to you at the checkout counter: "Oh, you'd like a $2.00 gallon of milk, eh? Well let's see...That's gonna cost you 3 bucks. If you don't want to pay it, eat your Wheaties dry." Or... "So you'd like that new $30,000 Honda Accord, would you? That'll be $45,000 please. Got a problem with that? If you don't want to pay it, take the bus."

How do you think Huckabee and his ilk plan to coerce you into eating "right"? He proposes (among other measures) starting off with a food-stamp tax. You see, folks dependant on the state are prime targets. First we give them food stamps, and then we'll be able to tell them what they can and cannot buy.

"But we already do that. They can't buy beer, etc." Ah, but we're now taking the state's power even further. Of course we want parents to feed their families with the money we give them, not get drunk. But now we're going to dictate their diet. Since they're clearly incapable of making the "right" decisions about what's for dinner, the state will do it for them. We'll make $1 in food stamps buy $1.25 worth of the "right" foods but only $0.75 worth of the "wrong" foods. (What're they gonna do? Take their business elsewhere?)

Huckabee's plan also offers health insurance rebates to state employees who follow his fitness program. (Nevermind the actual fitness of the employee, whether on or off his program. Just like every other insurance plan, it's all statistics anyway. Nevermind that I've never in my life had a moving violation or filed a claim, I still have to pay $400 a year for the bare minimum liability...just because.) So now, rather than the group-insurance burden being spread evenly among the participants, those who don't join the official fitness program will bear a larger share, paying for those rebates. A lethargy tax, we might call it.

Now Huckabee can get away with the lethargy and food-stamp taxes because the subjects of these taxes are under his thumb, serfs dependant on the state. And many will no doubt cave in to the coercion. But will he stop there? Ha.

Huckabee plans to change attitudes about "wrong" fitness levels and eating habits. And once overeating and lethargy are made politically incorrect, all Arkansas citizens can reasonably expect to see their liberties similarly curtailed. After all, where can you draw the line?

Restaurant serving fried foods? Tax it. Supermarket selling Hershey bars? Again, tax it. School vending machine selling Cokes? Get 'em out. (Oh wait, we did that already.) Big Mac and fries? Don't get Huckabee started! "Let's see, we could sue McDonald's to recover public health costs. Or impose a 5-buck-a-burger tax. Or just use the good ol'fashioned zoning laws to drive the quarter-pounder-pushers out of the state."

When the ignorant masses use their liberty to make decisions you don't like, there's more than one way to use the power of the state to punish them. If you can't prohibit it outright, you can always penalize their "wrong" choices via taxation. And hey, if they don't want to pay the fat-fines....

One of these days, under the oppressive regime of these grease police, we'll hear patriots exclaim, "I don't like cheeseburgers, but I'll defend to your death the right to eat one!"

Roe Delenda Est!

So Congress has decided it might be a good idea to build a fence between our country and Mexico. "Good fences make good neighbors," so says the rural proverb. To all the citizen-patrols, to those who live near the border, to those who've watched their schools and hospitals bankrupted and their income confiscated to care for illegal aliens, to those who have decried the gaping national security holes on our southern border - to all these folks, this legislation is validation of their complaints.

It won't completely solve the problem, of course. There are holes in our border that won't be patched by a fence. But it's a start - and a significant one because it admits that a border/immigration problem exists, and it refutes the policy beneath the President's "guest worker" or "amnesty" program.

Anne Henderschott, in her excellent book The Politics of Deviance, demonstrates how public policy can influence our attitudes and, in turn, our behavior. When Congress gives force to the people's wish for immigration-control, it may cause many of us to take the matter more seriously that we would otherwise have done. Such a shift in popular attitude can reinforce and strengthen immigration-control policy. Each of these forces - public policy and popular will - thus urges the other forward. This is why tentative, "half-measure" legislation can sometimes be very potent.

"But hang on a sec...Just the other day you were decrying our 'journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step' approach, right?"

Some public policy errors are, in my estimation, of such moment that a piecemeal approach to correcting them can actually do harm - specifically when this approach fails to restore, uphold and defend our fundamental principles of government. Slavery was one such error; abortion is another.

The Supreme Court's Dred Scott debacle attempted to settle the ongoing public debate regarding slavery by permanently codifying a fundamental, nationwide policy on the issue. It's true the nation's founding could not been achieved without compromise on the issue, but the very foundational structure thus established encouraged discourse and allowed for subsequent policy change. And that discourse did, in fact, lead the nation toward policy change regarding slavery.

The Court's preemption of constitutional democracy was an affront to America's foundational principles; and thus, for the preservation of the nation, it called for repudiation in no uncertain terms. What was required was a direct confrontation of the error; no "single-step" half-measure would suffice. In view of Dred Scott and the secessions, the abolition of slavery might even be considered a secondary objective. Not insignificant; no, not at all insignificant. But secondary to the preservation of the nation and its constitutional democracy.

The republic had already endured for some 70 years with the "peculiar institution". But as anti-slavery sentiment grew, the desperation of slavery's proponents compelled them to subvert the nation's foundational principles. Should Lincoln and the Republican Congress have, in deference to the Court's decision, taken a "single-step" approach to abolition?

Perhaps such an approach would have eventually ended slavery. Burdensome regulation of the slave trade, intrusive inspections of facilities, oppressive taxation of slave-owners, barring the transportation of slaves on public roads and waterways, banning the splitting up of slave families - perhaps these and similar measures could have squeaked by the Court and dismantled the institution a la "death by a thousand cuts". But pursuing such a course would have conceded to the Court and its courtiers authority reserved to the people and their representatives. And that concession would have done more damage to the nation than slavery.

Is slavery more offensive to natural rights than murder? Is taking a man's liberty from him a worse crime than taking his life? The legal code God dictated to Israel prohibits murder outright, pronouncing it a capital crime. But the Law merely regulates slavery and servitude, injecting into the institution fairness and mercy. Should America be less vehement in our efforts to rid this land of the scourge of abortion, our "peculiar institution", than were the abolitionists?

In Roe, the Court again bypassed public debate and subverted constitutional democracy in permanently codifying a fundamental, nationwide policy. But as with slavery, the people will not be silenced by the Court's tyrannical edict - no, not even with the accompanying censorious orders to "shut up and just let it go."

The masses of Americans opposing abortion, and the volume and duration of their protest, would indicate to any observer the enormous weight of this issue. At least the Court's attempt to silence this opposition is consistent with their philosophy of supra-constitutional authority. But America's outrage at this error should be neither suppressed nor ignored - nor will it be.

Nor is the desperation to "save a few lives" with single-step measures hard to understand. Congress and state legislatures continue to enact laws intended to restrict and curtail this peculiar institution - hoping, perhaps, to effect a rebuke like that resulting from the border-fence act, and in so doing turn the tide of battle and begin to retake some ground one tiny step at a time.

Abortion is such an affront, though, to America and her Constitution - to even civilization itself - and Roe, Plessy and the whole gamut of abortion jurisprudence so subversive of constitutional democracy, that the single-step approach will never enable us to topple the abortion empire. Instead, we will be induced to accept a truce which limits the body count to a tolerable number, while leaving key outposts in the enemy's hands and their most strategic weapon - Roe - intact.

No, this is not a thousand-mile journey we should begin with a single step. Roe must be faced head-on, challenged forthrightly, exposed for the legal farce it is, and its hollow shell paraded about as a warning to others whose hubris and disdain for the rule of law would lead them to similar acts of tyranny.

CORRECTION: It was Gertrude Himmelfarb, in her book One Nation, Two Cultures, who discusses "legislating morality" - not Anne Henderschott. Both very smart women, and both books well worth the reading.

The rebuke of the shoe-bomber

Judge William Young's rebuke of the Muslim shoe-bomber made the email rounds last year, but it's still a good read. America needs such stalwart leadership to spur us to the defense of our nation and civilization.