Lear's Fool

Our Government's Duty on Immigration

2009-04-23T08:18:00.005-05:00

Stratfor has published an interesting analysis of the recent U.K. terrorist plot, in which 12 terrorists "sought to conduct suicide bombing attacks against a list of soft targets that included shopping centers, a train station and a nightclub." Eleven of the 12 were citizens of Pakistan in the U.K. on student visas.

Clearly there's a problem here. While it's reasonable for foreigners to want access to the advantages we in free countries have secured for ourselves, and while it's also reasonable for us to welcome those immigrants who we expect will become good citizens and contribute to the well-being of our nations, an indiscriminate "open door" policy viz. foreigners has proven to be both foolish and deadly - deadly not only to our lives but to our liberty and pursuit of telos as well. (Need we be reminded that the securing of these three is the very reason for creating a government?)

I propose a stricter policy viz. foreigners - a policy which must, above all other considerations, accomplish the objective of securing the rights of our citizens:

1. Our policy must not put at risk, nor allow to be put at risk, the lives of our citizens.

2. It must not permit a crisis to develop in which we are encouraged - even pressured - to relinquish our liberty in exchange for safety.

3. It must not inhibit the expression and teaching of our national and individual principles and pursuits as expressed in our founding documents.

If our policy fails in any of these regards, it must be rejected. Whatever else beneficial it may accomplish, these criteria are non-negotiable.

Current policy has clearly failed us. We continue to permit the enemy to infiltrate our societies and to plan and execute mass-murder attacks.

Nor is it appropriate to blame our police and intelligence forces. If, during World War II, we had allowed Nazi and Japanese troops to live in our cities and train on our soil, would it have made sense to blame the OSS or the local police department when these troops planned and carried out plots to massacre Americans?

Our present enemy do not wear uniforms. They are spies, assassins and saboteurs, making war on us in the most cowardly fashion, without honor and deserving of ignominious execution. Yet since they refuse to identify themselves as enemy soldiers, it is left to us to find the means of identification. As this is impossible - or has at least proven beyond our capacity - we're left with no alternative but to severely restrict or bar outright all immigration permits to those of certain identity. That identity may be national citizenship, as in the case of the 11 Pakistanis above. Or it may be a political ideology, such as totalitarian islamism.

Whatever the criteria, the primary goal of our policy must be to restrict as far as possible the infiltration of our border by the enemy. If, as a side effect, law-abiding and freedom-seeking Pakistanis are kept out, so be it. Let them blame us and call us paranoid xenophobes if they must. Or let them take up their disappointment and anger with their fellow countrymen who caused the situation.

Some may object to our restrictive immigration policy, not because they seek the freedom America offers, but because they disagree with our constitutional-republic form of government and want to move here and change it. If our immigration policy fails to address those who disagree with our form of government, it fails utterly and completely.

And yet that is precisely the situation in which we find ourselves, as masses of muslims move to America but want to be governed by the laws of their homelands. But the freedoms and advantages available in America were not achieved, nor will they be sustained, by adhering to foreign political philisophies. To reject America's political principles is to destroy the political freedom which those principles protect, and in turn to destroy the prosperity and opportunities that are an outgrowth of that freedom.

If some are unconvinced of this fact, and consider it a worthwhile political experiment to reject America's founding principles, let them stay home and use their own countries as political laboratories. To sneak into our country under false pretenses, to pledge fealty to our republican form of government while harboring hidden intent to undermine and overthrow it, is covert invasion by the enemy, and must be stopped.

Any government that fails to protect its citizens from such invasion is criminally negligent. Any government that permits such an invasion and furthermore uses it as cover for the abridgment of its citizens' liberties is ignoble and despotic.

Keep pushing that boulder, Sisyphus!

2009-02-18T13:07:00.002-06:00

I'm mad!

This federal government bailout of deadbeat mortgage-holders has stepped over the line.

I drive a car that's 13 years old. I rent a drafty, run-down shack in the mesquite desert of north Texas. I live beans-n-rice cheap. And I save my money so someday I can buy a home of my own without getting into risky, foolish, massive debt.

And what happens? Obama comes down here, sticks a gun in my ribs (so to speak), and says, "Give us some money."

"What for?" I ask.

"You've gotta prop up the housing market."

Housing prices have been over-inflated for years. The ponzi scheme has reached its inevitable end. The music has stopped, and everyone who could find a chair has done so. Lots of folks have been left standing, and now they're whining, bawling, begging. And Obama has a gun in my ribs, demanding I give up my seat.

How 'bout this instead? If you got in over your head with the bank, if you thought your job was secure and found out the hard way it wasn't, if you were unprepared to cope with inflating prices and deflating wages, if you didn't pay attention to the "seven fat years, seven lean years" story - how 'bout you move into my shack and I'll move into your nice brick home? You can live cheap for a while, get caught up and then completely out of debt, get some savings, some positive net worth, and try again. And I'll talk to your bank about settling their bad bet (your mortgage) for a fair X-cents-on-the-dollar price agreeable to them and myself.

"No, banks shouldn't have to take a loss just because they made bad bets," Obama tells me. "And these folks shouldn't have to move out of their quarter-million-dollar house and live like you. So just hand me your wallet!" (Jab! Jab!)

So I'm forced to bid up the price of homes that OTHER PEOPLE GET TO LIVE IN!

Sisyphus, as the mythological story goes, was punished in Hades, forced to roll a huge boulder up a hill, and every time he got close to the top, the boulder would roll back down and he'd have to start all over again.

So here I am - and many others like me - living responsibly, frugally, circumspectly, sticking to our goal, only to discover the goal placed out of reach and our efforts not only futile, but used against us.

A Note to Fathers

2007-12-29T08:15:00.000-06:00

It's not yet so cold here in Texas that one can't get some work done outdoors; so this week I've been preparing a few more beds in my garden - which for now consists of turning the soil and removing the occasional Bermuda grass runners. This garden plot has sat dormant for several years, mostly in annual weeds, which make a good soil additive when tilled under. (I know, I know... the Old Law said to farm the land for six years and let it rest on the seventh, not let it rest for six years and farm it the seventh. :-))

The previous tenant had tilled it with a roto-tiller, which turned the top eight inches or so. My shovel, on the other hand, turns up another few inches, most of which is hard-packed clay. It often takes a good tug to break that clay loose, and I'm always afraid the old wooden handle is going to finally lose the battle and break.

Tilling by hand is slow work, but it's good work. It's quiet; I can listen to the winter birds sing. It works my body, which would otherwise be sedentary this time of year. It's at my own pace, not dictated by a machine. Best of all, it's not mentally taxing, so I can do some thinking. For what it's worth, here is some of that thinking:

I recall working on our small family farm when I was a boy, doing some of the same kind of shovel-work in soil that was awfully hard during dry periods. Sometimes you'd have to really pull on that shovel handle to break the soil loose, it was packed so hard. My father must've been afraid, too, that the handle was going to lose the battle and break, because he would tell me to take it easy.

I was just a kid - a skinny beanpole of a kid at that. I couldn't imagine any shovel handle could break under my strength; it was merely a battle between me and the ground, and I wanted to win. I was growing to the point of needing challenges. (Not "challenges" as the word is misused in modern SoftSpeak - where no one has problems, only "challenges"; where no one is disabled, only "differently-abled"; where "positive" doesn't mean definite, absolute or indisputable, but rather beneficial or cheerful; where the "exceptional" individuals are not the bright, gifted and hard-working, but rather those whose mental and physical development was retarded in some way.)

What I needed were real challenges, tasks, labors, tests, trials, dares. Some defiant obstacle to test myself against, to prove myself... or be defeated and return again later with increased strength and tenacity. How else can a boy discover what is lacking in himself and work to remedy the area of weakness? How else can he come to know himself? How else can he grow into what he ought to be: a man?

My brother John (a year and a half older) was no doubt also struggling to prove himself during those years. Fortunately for us, our father was not oblivious to our struggles. Also fortunately, a farm provides many opportunities for boys to grow toward manhood. (I pity those unfortunate boys who live in plush cities. What poverty!) My father devised the perfect challenge one summer when we boys were out of school: "We need a well!"

So we hired someone to come out and drill us a well. Just kidding! No, instead he picked out a spot, marked off the diameter, handed us a shovel, and went off to work. (He was a bricklayer at the time, and was often gone from Monday to Friday on out-of-town jobs.) So John and I set to digging.

But my father knew we didn't have the knowledge - nor many of the tools - to complete the task alone. One of his friends was an old fellow who seemed to have in his workshop every hand tool known to man, and in his brain the knowledge of how to use them. He came over that first afternoon with everything we would need to dig that well, and with the instruction and encouragement we would need to address the task.

And what a task it was! I was 13, John was 14. This was in 1980, which Texans will remember brought a record-breaking summer heat wave. Afternoons seared in 110-degree-plus heat. The elderly poor in Dallas/Ft. Worth were dying without air conditioning. Roofers were being rushed to hospitals suffering from heatstroke. My father was laying brick from 7:00am to 3:30pm, getting the day's work done before the heat was at its worst. And my brother and I were digging a well with pick and shovel.

It was hard work, work a boy can test himself against, work he can throw everything he's got at, work he can grow with.

That well was some 26 feet deep before we were done, six feet in diameter. At around 22 feet, the pick became useless against the sandstone. Instead we had to use this long steel bar (I forget now what it's called) to break up the rock. It was some seven feet long and 1 1/2 inches in diameter, pointed on one end and flattened to a blade on the other - a rock-breaker, essentially. You would lift it up and slam it down into the rock until you could break off a piece.

The work went from being hot, dry and dirty (before we hit water) to being muddy and wet (after we hit water). My father's bricking job was finished a few weeks into the summer, and we three dug that well six days a week. There were no fears of us boys breaking tools testing ourselves. The only thing we might break would be ourselves - and, intentionally or not, that's what this test was all about.

I wouldn't call this exercise a "rite of passage" in the classic sense. It lacked at least one essential element: the community's indisputable acknowledgement that these former "boys" are now men. (Nor am I suggesting we were transformed from boys to men by this trial.) But like so many other tests and dares my brother and I came up with on our own, it presented a challenge to be met head-on, win, lose or draw. As someone once said about boys and sports: Sports are a chance for us to have other human beings challenge us to excel. Well this was John's and my chance to excel, to test ourselves, to find the limits of our strength and struggle to gain more, to prove ourselves if only to ourselves.

And so we did. And so ought every boy have such opportunity. A note to fathers, therefore: See to it that your sons have such opportunities.

A Lesson from "The Princess Bride"

2006-12-05T20:04:00.000-06:00

"Westley had no money for marriage. So he packed his few belongings, and left the farm to seek his fortune across the sea."

What has happened to men? Why is it that having no money for marriage is no longer a reason to delay marriage? Why are we content to live off our wives' labor?

In westerns, the young cowhand goes on an arduous, months-long cattle drive so he will have enough to buy his own spread. Only then, he understands, will he be worthy to ask his sweetheart for her hand in marriage.

"Well we talked about it, and decided that she'll work while I finish school."

"I had trouble finding a good job here after I graduated. So rather than move and start all over someplace new, I took a part-time job I found. Which is okay, since her employer has good benefits."

"She's doing so well in her career - making a good salary and family benefits - that we decided I should stay home and take care of the house and kids."

A man's duty to his wife and children is to be protector, provider and guide. Men were created to this duty, and men throughout history have recognized this fact.

Welfare - whether it comes from the state or from one's wife - is demoralizing to men. During the Carter recession, I saw my father suffer the loss of his dignity when again and again he was denied the opportunity to work. I saw him lose the respect of his wife and family when my mother became the provider.

Men were created for work. To deny a man this work - whether by denying him a job or removing the necessity for it - is to reject what he is, and to deny him dignity, honor, self-respect and the respect of his wife and children.

Shame on those "men" who live off the labor of their wives. And shame on the rest of us for allowing them to disgrace themselves - and all of us with them.

On Santorum

2006-11-03T08:43:00.000-06:00

Once again, Peggy Noonan is right on the money. This nation needs Senator Rick Santorum - and lots more like him besides.

Go listen to this recent speech and see if you don't agree. And see if it's not perfectly clear why this statesman is being booted out of office by the citizens whose best interests he serves.

We're ignorant fools, here in America. We have neither knowledge nor understanding of history. We think we "know politics" because we caught Nancy Pelosi's rant on CSPAN this afternoon, or Howard Dean's latest gaffe on Fox News.

We don't study history anymore, so we're unable to make sense of current events. We don't study political philosophy, so we're clueless as to the various possible solutions to the problems which confront us - problems which are not new, not unique to the 21st century, but which have arisen since time began. We deny the moral sense with which we were born, so we struggle to re-invent a morality fit for mankind. We despise and destroy the virtues, and then expend vast amounts of wealth in various and sundry attempts to diagnose and cure the inevitable social pathologies.

And when a statesman interrupts our fiddle-playing to warn us of a gathering storm, we stick our fingers in our ears with a "lalala I'm not listening lalala", distracting ourselves with ipods, big-screen tvs, cellphones, blackberries - our soma.

2006-10-04T10:44:00.000-05:00

(From "Men" Without Chests Revisited, by Prof. Paul Eidelberg)

During aristocratic ages, man's moral center of gravity is the chest -- the seat of "honor." A gentleman's honor was more than mere probity, and far more than prestige. As late as the 18th century, the lexicon defined "honor" as a quality that "supposes in a gentleman a stronger abhorrence of perfidy, falsehood, or cowardice, and a more elevated and delicate sense of virtue, than are usually found in [ordinary decent men]."

A gentleman's honor was therefore his most sacred possession. An insult to such a person, if unanswered, could result in his and his family's ruin. The manly response to offended honor was the duel.

As mankind became less aristocratic and more commercial, dueling, as an affair of honor, was outlawed. The clash of steel was replaced by libel laws, the violation of which might entail monetary loss rather than loss of life.

With the ascendancy of the consumer society, however, man's center of gravity has descended from his chest to his abdomen. Laws against defamation of character have lost much of their efficacy, especially now with unrestrained freedom of speech and press, the pride of flatulent democracies.

Indeed, so sacred and secure are the print and electronic media in an era of unfettered freedom of expression, and so prohibitive is the cost of a libel suit, that certain well-placed individuals can engage in character assassination without risking their lives or their fortunes. Enter "men without chests."

Men without chests are the product of consumptive as opposed to deliberative democracy. Those who control the political institutions and communications media of an all-consuming democracy do not engage their opponents in honest democratic debate but rather seek to destroy them by verbal voodoo. i.e., by one-word slanders. And they do this while posing sanctimoniously as democrats. In fact, it is precisely in the name of "democracy" that one can now defame an individual without fear of retribution.

On Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

2006-07-03T14:41:00.000-05:00

This case is an outrage. Here is what I wrote to my representatives:

Dear Senator,

How will you respond to the Supreme Court's unconstitutional disobedience of the law in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld?

The Constitution clearly grants Congress the authority to make "exceptions" and "regulations" governing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts. And with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Congress did exactly that.

Now the Court, in defiance of Congress and violation of the law, has proceeded to rule on a case outside their jurisdiction.

I elected you to govern on my behalf. It is your duty to defend the Constitution and maintain the separation of powers outlined therein.

In addition to issuing a "Sense of the Senate" measure condemning the Court's crime and restoring the verdict of the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C., Congress should begin impeachment hearings for all justices who violated the "good behavior" clause of Article III, Section 2 of our nation's Constitution.

Thank you.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia argues that

(I)t is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s claims.

Justice Thomas agrees:

For the reasons set out in Justice Scalia's dissent, which I join, I would hold that we lack jurisdiction.

Justice Alito:

(The Court majority's) conclusion (regarding jurisdiction) is patently erroneous. And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedly retained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised.

You would think these three law-abiding, Constitution-respecting justices would have had little more to say on this case. But no, they see fit to give us the benefit of their reasoning on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - a case which has already been decided by the court which is supreme on this matter: the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Who cares what the eight justices on the Court have to say on the case? After they recognize they have no jurisdiction, any opinions they offer are nothing but tardy amicus briefs.

Basement Dwellers

2006-05-15T10:13:00.000-05:00

Jennifer Morse wrote an interesting column last week called Sleeping in the basement. Understandably, it generated an abundance of feedback. Following is perhaps the best response to her column:

I'm a man who did his time in the basement. But I came out. I direct my comments to other basement dwellers.

Before I start I know that my comments will sound sexist, boorish, and offend modern feminists the world over. Good.

I'll start with the disease (basement sleeping is the symptom); it is this nineties sensitivity crap. Women want us to cry, dress nicely, talk about our feelings, be sensitive, spend 'quality' time, be romantic. In short they want us to act like women.

This is where the wrench enters the works. We aren't women and we should not act like them.

I don't fault women for this desire, it is hard on a woman to live with a scratching caveman. But the result of a man acting like a woman is the loss of respect for a man on a deep fundamental level. The loss of desire is a result of that lack of respect.

The cure: Old fashioned Chivalry.

This means acting like a man. Take command of your own life and don't apologize for it.

It also means you meet her half way. You look after her needs, you see to her comforts and well being and then go do something you want to do.

If you want to go fishing don't ask if its alright with her; make sure your chores are done and 'announce' your departure. You may have to fight it out a few times, but in the end if she sees you heading out the door with nothing stopping you she will respect your will and fortitude; or she will boot you out.

If she boots you out then the relationship was not worth saving because if all she wants is a subservient cash dispenser then you are better off living under a bridge.

Chivalry also means you grant her largesse. You indulge her (to a point) and make sure she knows what a priceless gift from the heavens she is. You hold open doors and make sure the lawns are mowed on time.

Act like a man (a caring, attentive, iron willed man) then she will treat you like one.

If you get booted out for your temerity, then sail the seas of freedom (and pay your alimony and child support) and live your life elsewhere. It's a lot better than a slow death in the basement.

Tin Spam

2006-04-06T17:15:00.000-05:00

(Mucho kudos to the ska band The Stubborn All-Stars for their song Tin Spam.)

I'm starting to enjoy those spam emails that cleverly defy subject filters. Y'know, the emails with subjects like "Clean thin speaker overwrought"? That sound like a foreign tourist trying to order breakfast at Denny's? Taking a cue from Opinion Journal, I've begun to make up line 2. For example, an email I got today has the subject, "Although fitzroy may barnstorm". When I add my line 2, it goes like this:

    Although fitzroy may barnstorm,
    I think we've shown it an example of what not to do.

Let's try a few more:

    But shell extinguish
    what exxon ignites.

    Came sidelight surcease
    and curtain descent.

Fun, huh? When I get tired of this chapter of "Fun With Spam", I'll move on to "Confucius say..."

Update:
    The angular hera
    Railed against rotund Zeus's infidelities.

A Nation of Criminals

2006-04-03T19:02:00.000-05:00

Tell me, how does it feel to be a criminal? To be a citizen in a "nation of laws" and yet flout the law on a daily basis?

I'm talking about speeding. How many times a day do you break speed limit laws? Five times? Ten times? Every single time traffic permits?

Is this a trivial subject? I wonder. Does a nation of criminals have any moral basis from which to judge the individual criminal? Can a thief sit in judgment of a murderer? Can a child molester judge a thief? Can a murderer condemn a child molester?

Okay, you say, but there are different classes of crime, right? Raping kids can't be compared with doing 60 in a 55 zone. (Let's dispense with the 5mph margin of grace, shall we? If your speedometer says you're doing 56, you're breaking the law. Agreed?)

True, one crime may be, by various measures, worse than another, and so we "let the punishment fit the crime." But there's some compelling reason why we legislate limits on driving speed, clearly. Why should our driving speed need to be limited? (Let's dispense with the argument that the 55mph limit was designed to save gas during the 70s. If it helps, focus instead on a 30mph residential zone. No gas-conservation issues there.)

Sure, driving speed needs to be controlled, you say. For safety's sake. But since people tend to drive 5-10mph over the speed limit, the speed limit is set 5-10mph lower than the safe speed. Then when we break the law and drive 5-10mph over the speed limit, we're merely driving safely.

So in order to accomplish the goal of safe roads, we enact legislation that turns safe drivers into criminals?!

Well, you say, nobody has to break the law. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to drive as fast as safety allows - 5-10mph over the speed limit - are they?

Have you ever tried driving the speed limit? Try it sometime.

Try it for a day, and see if you're late to work, if your lunch break is shorter, if your errands take longer. Try it for a few days so you can mentally adjust to the slower pace and get used to allowing yourself more travel time. Try it for a week, and see, after the mental and habitual factors have been mostly removed from the experiment, if there isn't a surprisingly powerful force driving your foot down onto the gas pedal: social pressure.

Driving is an unusual social behavior, in that it requires that masses of people behave uniformly. (No doubt sociologists have studied this and related phenomena - subways, etc. - and I just haven't read much about it.) How often do we curse the rogue driver who causes a wreck which delays us all? Some complain that the law-abiding driver causes similar problems and poses similar dangers as the reckless one.

Certainly, you reply. His non-uniform driving disturbs the smooth flow of traffic, and his slower speed delays the rest of us as we work our way around him. On the highway, "we're all in this together," so we need to follow the "rules of the road" and "go with the flow."

You have a point. But isn't something amiss when a law presents such an impediment to good social behavior that we must engage in criminal behavior in order to avoid obstructing our fellow citizens' progress? When the cost of one person's obedience to the law is so burdensome on the rest of us that we will impose sanctions (tailgating, "the finger", etc.) on him for non-conformity? When the social pressure to commit a crime is so widespread and oppressive that we'll risk legal punishment in order to avoid those sanctions?

Open Letter to Deadweights

2006-03-30T09:30:00.000-06:00

(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

2006-03-29T19:20:00.000-06:00

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

2006-03-29T11:05:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-03-17T11:04:00.000-06:00

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

2006-03-17T09:59:00.000-06:00

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

2006-03-15T16:12:00.000-06:00

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

2006-03-13T11:16:00.000-06:00

* 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

2006-03-13T08:51:00.000-06:00

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

2006-03-13T08:02:00.000-06:00

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)

2006-03-11T11:16:00.000-06:00

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??"

2006-03-11T10:41:00.000-06:00

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??"

2006-03-11T09:30:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-03-10T23:22:00.000-06:00

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??"

2006-03-10T22:23:00.000-06:00

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??"

2006-03-10T22:17:00.000-06:00

(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

2006-03-10T21:01:00.000-06:00

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"??

2006-03-10T18:44:00.000-06:00

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

2006-03-08T18:04:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-03-08T17:13:00.000-06:00

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

2006-03-08T09:45:00.000-06:00

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

2006-03-02T19:56:00.000-06:00

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!

2006-03-02T15:07:00.000-06:00

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

2006-03-01T12:49:00.000-06:00

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.

Sobering thoughts

2006-02-28T12:40:00.000-06:00

Peggy Noonan's A Separate Peace is worthy of a slow read and several moments reflection. (FYI: The rest of this post won't make much sense if you haven't read her op-ed.)

I forwarded that article to a buddy of mine for his consideration, and was a bit surprised at his reply - which he agreed to let me post here. (His email was part of an ongoing conversation between us, so some of his points may seem obscure. The relevant points, however, are plain.)

Excellent article. At the risk of sounding corny, I almost well up thinking about the travesty of it all. I've felt and thought more or less the same thing. I think the kids of today will be faced with so many less liberties than we had as kids that our childhood will seem impossible to them.

Part of this is the result of a water torture we've let go for years. Leftist agendas have failed in the public view and therefore were moved to the education system. There, under the guise of "we need to do something about education in this country" the left found and continues to find an endless supply of cash and a system open to their thinking. As these ideas are squeezed into the minds of our youth, they leak ever so slowly out into the media, their close cousin. (As a side note: My new contention is that we need to spend less on education.)

It's interesting when you discuss McCarthy and the "witch hunt" he conducted how that we all agree what he did was wrong yet what he said was largely correct. We're paying the price of communist and leftist influence in the arts now. It's pervasiveness is seen in Hollywood as much as it is in education and the media.

Perhaps we have ourselves to blame. Our own tools of liberty have been wielded skillfully against us. To the extent that we have let them actually become impotent to use them in defense let alone offer an offense. Describe correctly one's need to take responsibility for themselves and you're instantly racist, bigoted, hater, or the like. These are the new capital crimes. Rape, incest, murder, robbery, these are all secondary. For them, you merely go through the system. For the former, public opinion will ruin you to the point that those who would stand beside you are held in check. It's a socio-psychological control mechanism that has worked well in communist nations (to a point). It's mind control in its infancy. We're so numb to it now that it is very much like water torture.

Now what do we do? Boortz has maintained that he intends to die before the worst of it comes. Our children don't know what we're talking about so they don't see the problem. We may be powerless by this point. By the time someone is able to quantify what happened and what is wrong, he will be a "throw-back," or "old-fashioned." He or she won't be taken seriously. The Constitution will be viewed as outdated and unuseful in a "modern society."

The wheels are off the trolley, the trolley is off the track but the bar is open and the music is playing. Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

JP

One can study either America's founding or current politics, but not both. Not without sinking into despondency, cynicism and despair. America's best days are well behind us.

Since reading Miss Noonan's editorial last fall, I've found myself more aware of the despondent surrender she describes. My buddy is but one example. Two colleagues of mine, with whom I frequently discuss politics, exhibit Ted Kennedy's and Neil Boortz's familiar attitude: "Well I'll be gone before it all hits the fan anyway."

No longer is politics the art of statecraft, the building of a nation to bequeath to our posterity. Politics has become a way of getting something for ourselves, for our own comfort, in our own lifetimes, the future be damned.

No longer do we labor so that our children will be better off than we - healthier, better-educated, wiser, with more opportunities and fewer worries, better-equipped to pursue virtue and excellence. The bumper-sticker humor "we're spending our children's inheritance" is our philosophical approach to life.

We have Ipods in our ears, music in our cars, television, movie theaters, music in restaurants, CDs, DVDs, MP3s, distractions of every sort. Distractions. But to distract us from what?

One of the most shocking scenes from Huxley's Brave New World is when Lenina refuses to gaze out the window at the seascape, the moon, the clouds. Instead she turns away in horror from the scenery, and turns on the radio. Huxley's dystopia is a world of constant distraction - the "feelies", antidepressants and hallucinogens, artificial "multimedia" stimulation of sights and sounds and smells, the constant flow of empty sexual encounters and orgies.

Overwhelm the senses and dull the mind. Render people incapable of reflecting on life and the world around them. "I have become comfortably numb."

That second dose of soma had raised a quite impenetrable wall between the actual universe and their minds.

Our distractophilia is not mere pastime in which we idle away the hours, but verges instead on obsession. But, when we stop our ears and shut our eyes, what is it that we're trying to ignore? Miss Noonan describes this "cultural subtext":

I think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can't be fixed, or won't be fixed any time soon.

Birds know when a storm is coming. Rats abandon a sinking ship. And we seem to sense something is terribly wrong, even if we can't quite nail it down.

But it seems to me we must either nail it down or get hammered when it hits. (As the nurse, Stella, in Hitchcock's Rear Window put it, "When General Motors has to go to the bathroom ten times a day, the whole country’s ready to let go.")

We must begin by acknowledging that something is wrong. Until we face the danger, it's impossible for us to defeat it. We must shatter the groupthink that makes this subject taboo. That seems to have been Miss Noonan's purpose, and it is my purpose in posting my friend's recognition of this problem, and my own. Until we realize there just might be enough of us to fight it, we will go gently into that good night.

I have no children to whom to bequeath the nation. So it would be easy to simply get all I can while I'm here and leave the next generation to clean up the mess. That would be self-centered, unloving, irreponsible and dishonorable. There's plenty of that attitude around, and so I could fit right into the hedonist culture. But I spent the first half of my life pursuing my own selfish interests. Doesn't maturity at some point demand we look beyond ourselves?

Why Johnny's teacher can't read

2006-02-24T09:07:00.000-06:00

Take a few minutes and look at this data!

I was directed to that chart during a discussion of America's education problem, and it served to confirm the anecdotal evidence I'd heard regarding our low standards for teachers. (FYI, the chart lists only select majors - the selection intended to support the author's answer to the question, why study philosophy?) Now I'm no statistician, but I think we can safely draw a few conclusions from the data.

What immediately struck me was that students who majored in education and politics - arguably the two most important factors of responsible citizenship - scored so far below average. We can't conclude, from this data alone, that we're graduating teachers and politicians poorly prepared for their jobs. But we can conclude that they're being outperformed by students in other fields.

Another oddity is the wide gap between philisophy and politics majors. America's founders were avid students of philosophy, and bequeathed to us a government forged from the best ideas available at that time. If we have so divorced politics from philosophy as to create the drastic disparity this data reveals, we shouldn't be surprised at the naive and simpleminded political theories proposed and implemented by our public officials.

A democratic responsibility

2006-02-22T17:58:00.000-06:00

Recently I (finally) began the daunting task of reading Homer's Iliad. What a fascinating tale! I'm barely into Book 3, so since it's going to take quite some time to get through it, I've begun to think of it like watching the popular TV show "Lost": an ongoing story presented in episodes one can enjoy without being in a rush to get to the end.

My brother lent me a book a couple of years ago called Achilles in Vietnam, in which the author draws parallels between Agamemnon's abuse of the warrior's code of honor in his mistreatment of Achilles, and the abuses of our modern-day military code during the Vietnam War and their effects on our soldiers who fought that war. That book has stood on my shelf with a bookmark at chapter two for a good while, but today I recalled a point the author made in chapter one:

Time and again (Vietnam veterans) were assailed as "losers" by World War II veterans. The pain and rage at being blamed for defeat in Vietnam was beyond bearing and resulted in many brawls.

These feelings reflect not only outrage at the heartless wrong-headedness of such remarks but also a concept of victory in war that left Vietnam veterans bewildered.

I quoted yesterday Robert Post's view that "collective self-governance...requires that citizens come to accept their own 'authorship' of state actions and choices". And it seems to me that we as citizens and as a nation failed to do that with regard to the Vietnam War. Regardless of our views of the war, it was our war, and we should have accepted authorship of it.

That's not to say we ought to have agreed with it. (A discussion of the war's merits is beyond our scope here.) But inasmuch as we the people comprise a nation, we engaged the war. We are a body, a unit, a nation. And we empowered our military to make war in Vietnam.

Refusal to own up to that fact freed us (so we thought) to castigate soldiers who were merely following our orders. They discharged their duties, performing valiantly as we expect our warriors to do, and deserve honor conferred upon them by their peers and the nation. If we as a nation chose to surrender the field to our foes, we owe our soldiers an explanation, not an assault on their honor. Perhaps we even owe them an apology for denying them the glory of the victory that was within their reach. We unquestionably owe them thanks for answering the call of duty at our behest.

The wars we engage are our wars, and we must own them. This is collective self-governance. This is what it means to be citizen in a democracy.

The father of his country

2006-02-22T12:11:00.000-06:00

Much has been written in praise of George Washington, and much more will be. The reverence and respect in which we hold our nation's first president is, I think, unequalled among America's historical figures.

Washington was not a god, of course, but merely a man. And it is in this regard that he stands head and shoulders above so many who have served this nation publicly. As mere men, our limitations and weaknesses are - or ought to be - most obvious to ourselves, and a fitting humility allows us to proceed properly and wisely with our lives, our families, our jobs. And beyond that, such a humility also allows others to develop a respect for us that is appropriate and a trust in us that is reasonable. This Washington did.

Rather than ranting about the obliteration from our calendars - and our hearts - of Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays, I decided to re-read Washington's Farewell Address to the nation, given on the occasion of having served two terms as their President and declining to serve a third.

It is a beautiful speech, by any measure. But apart from his expressions of humility, what struck me at this reading was Washington's overwhelming concern for the success and endurance of the nation he had helped establish. He had staked so much - and for so long - on this project. (The Revolutionary War broke out while he was in his early 40s; he retired from the presidency at 65 and died only two years later.) His parting words to the nation were filled with concern for the preservation of that for which he had labored and sacrificed, his desire

that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

We owe a debt of gratitude to George Washington for all that he gave for the founding and preservation of this nation. Would that God bless America with more leaders and patriots like him.

Where's Dr. Kevorkian

2006-02-21T18:39:00.000-06:00

...when you need him?

From this story:

The execution of a convicted killer was postponed early Tuesday after two anesthesiologists refused for ethical reasons to take part

Dissenting from Scalia

2006-02-21T17:18:00.000-06:00

It's never reassuring to find oneself in disagreement with Justice Antonin Scalia.

I'd pay good money to rent the house next door to him during the Court's summer breaks. Wouldn't it be a grand opportunity to learn at the feet of one of America's wisest and wittiest jurists? If I had to choose among Justice Scalia, Senator Patrick Moynihan and Bobby Fischer...Hmmm.

But alas, instead of taking on Fischer's onslaught mano a mano, I settle for computer simulations of his play style. Likewise, I can confront Scalia's challenging arguments only as presented in his Court writings. In both cases, even if I lose I still win, so long as my mistakes are exposed for me to learn from.

From his dissent in Hill v. Colorado, a case in which the Court upheld a state law mandating an eight-foot "no protest" zone around abortuaries, Scalia writes:

"Uninhibited, robust, and wide open" debate is replaced by the power of the State to protect an unheard-of "right to be left alone" on the public streets.

If you've read my earlier posts on the aim of freedom of speech and one appropriate restriction thereof, it should be immediately apparent that I disagree with Scalia here. I'm no fan of baby-butchery, mind you. (I fancy myself too sane for such savagery.) But I cannot reconcile my understanding of the founders' First Amendment aim with what I'm reading here from Scalia, who himself referred to, in McConnell v. FEC, "the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government."

Nor do I find it easy to understand his vote to invalidate the federal prohibition of flag-burning in U.S. v. Eichman. The only mitigating factor in this instance is that he perceived the law "was aimed directly and unconstitutionally at suppressing a manner of communicating opposition to the U.S. government and its policies." (From Kevin Ring's Scalia Dissents.)

But the burning of the American flag presents no argument whatsoever. Instead it appeals directly to emotion rather than reason. (More on that insidious tactic in a future post.) In my (admittedly idealized) view of the First Amendment's aim, the absence of argument means that flag-burning warrants no protection under the First Amendment. For how can anyone engage a reasoned debate when the "proposition" is expressed in an action or image rather than words??

"But we have the right to protest!" you reply. If we do - and yes, I believe we do - that right arises not from the First Amendment's protection of speech but of assembly. The speech in which we engage during our protests is protected, of course. But where is to be found the supposed protection of our action? (Or what would we think if Scalia, rather than penning an intelligible dissent, simply burned a copy of the Court's opinion on the steps of the Supreme Court building?)

As for me, I support the prohibition of flag-burning - not on the grounds of suppressing dissent, but because it is an insult to this nation. I support the removal of protest-tshirt-wearing Cindy Sheehan from the State of the Union Address assembly for the same reason.

Our dissenting views concerning our elected and appointed officials and their policies ought to be stated and debated. But when we express our dissent by abandoning the proper respect for our nation and its governing offices....

Robert Post wrote:

Democratic states...embody the value of collective self-governance, which requires that citizens come to accept their own "authorship" of state actions and choices, or at least of the deliberative procedures through which the state reaches its decisions.
...
Democratic states remain democratic in part because each individual citizen is offered the opportunity to persuade others to alter those decisions that (he) may find objectionable.

When we abandon confidence in our form of government, we've begun the downhill slide toward our nation's dismantling. The offices and processes established by the Constitution constitute this nation. And insofar as our disrespect for the offices, processes, symbols and occasions which comprise our form of government destroys our confidence in and "authorship" of it, such disrespect contributes to America's ruin.

The sensitivity police

2006-02-18T19:01:00.000-06:00

Here's an oldie but goodie: This doctor warns an obese woman about her weight, giving her the standard lecture about health and lifestyle problems. After having her feelings hurt, the fat lady sings to the medical board, who recommends sensitivity training for the heartless doctor.

In a discussion of this travesty, I commented:

This doctor obviously needs some training in how to appreciate the diversity this fatso provides in our society. The death, disease and destruction wrought by high-risk behaviors doesn't hold a candle to the benefits provided by diversity.

to which someone replied:

You must be the local resident school yard bully! The last time I heard the name-calling "fatso"--- it was between a couple of 2nd graders who needed to be spanked.

Assumptions about people of size are often wrong and even mean-spirited (why they have a weight problem in the first place, they must be lazy, stupid, unmotivated, etc.) Usually none of which are true.

What this woman reported is the type of abuse large people in our society encounter everyday.

("People of size"?? That still gives me a good belly laugh!)

Okay, call me "schoolyard bully" if you must. But what you're missing is that society is made up of and self-governed by mutually-enforced mores. It's not about picking on those who are different. ("People of size", indeed!) It's about establishing community, commonality, and uniform standards of behavior.

Are there dangers inherent in this pressure to conform? Certainly. Are there benefits? Undoubtedly. Those who rebel against a tenet of the community code pay a price for it. If you're going to do so, it's best to make sure you have good cause. Galileo and Martin Luther had good cause. The kid who wears a steel pin through his eyebrow doesn't. How about the fat chick?

Maggie Gallagher gets it

2006-02-16T17:52:00.000-06:00

Okay, actually I'm the last one to "get it". Or close to the last, at any rate. Read her encouraging commentary, Is nothing sacred?

"Frustrated and appalled legislators in five states are seeking to ban protests at funerals."

My thoughts exactly. Why shouldn't this nonsense be banned? If you've got something to say about the war, say it; nobody's stopping you. But our Constitution's protection of your speech doesn't entitle you to disrupt any and every solemn assembly to do so.

If you feel that prevents your message from having maximum impact, well, welcome to the civilized world. There are a few lust-driven sodomites who'd like to besiege churches every Sunday, demanding little kids be delivered to them to satiate their perverse appetites. Sorry, but the First Amendment grants no protection of such wickedness. Go take a cold shower and check the status of your AIDS-drug-testing application. But I digress.

"Sounds reasonable to me. I don't think such a law would be inconsistent with democratic freedom, any more than I believe the First Amendment really does require us to permit flag burning... It is perfectly possible to protect sacred symbols or sacred moments in ways that do not violate core principles of free speech necessary to robust, democratic life." (Ibid.)

There must be some reasonable jurisprudence which offers an acceptable compromise here. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' "clear and present danger" test may have been appropriate for his day, when society en masse would have frowned on such contempt with censorious force. (Or a few burly men would've told these cowards to shut their foul mouths or risk a post-funeral whipping.)

Enough of this "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins" bunk. Freedom of speech has limits, just as Justice Holmes observed. And as Cindy Sheehan found out, decorum sometimes trumps free speech, and often is enacted into law. These folks who discover, to their chagrin, that most people aren't interested in what they have to say are ever seeking ways to intrude upon others in order to compel attention to their message.

Speak your peace; we have no problem with that. The First Amendment guarantees you that freedom - regardless of content. But don't make the mistake of thinking it guarantees you an audience.

Freedom of...what?

2006-02-15T20:25:00.000-06:00

In these rights-infested times, some clarity regarding the purpose of our freedoms is needed. (At least I need some of this clarity.)

I recently discussed some ideas which I'm sure aren't original with me, but which finally found some purchase in this dull gray matter I call my brain. (I suspect that an original thought has never sprouted inside my cranium. Rather, as science once "proved" that maggots originate from rancid meat, I merely fail to recall who planted the idea.) As one of my purposes in this blog is to organize my thoughts in writing, I want to collect and clarify what I posted in that discussion, namely the purposes of America's guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

The discussion began by addressing the recent ridicule of Islam which began with caricatures of Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper. I defended such ridicule by noting that Islam is a false religion, and that Elijah had similarly ridiculed the idolatrous Baalists of his day. Demonstrating its falsehood is no overwhelming task, as I noted:

We just have to be familiar enough with the Bible to know that Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me." And yep, you guessed it, that "Me" excludes Mohammed, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard and all other false messiahs and prophets.

If all freedom of religion does is allow everybody to practice whatever religion he chooses, it accomplishes very little of value. Rather, freedom of religion allows disciples of Christ to follow "the Way, the Truth and the Life" unmolested. To desire for others the opportunity to follow Islam or Buddhism or Wicca or Scientology is not benevolence. It is, rather, to wish upon them the swift condemnation of a jealous God when they stand before Him someday.

Does this mean I'm advocating abolishing the "free exercise" clause and establishing a state religion? Hardly. America recognizes what most Americans recognized at her founding: that Christianity is true, but that if those of us who choose to follow Christ are to have the freedom to do so unmolested, each of us must be provided the opportunity to discover that truth and make his own decision of what to do about it.

Similarly, regarding freedom of speech:

I won't defend to the death your right to stand in the park and chant, "I like peanut butter and jelly!" What good does that speech do? Maybe it helps you feel better, and I suppose that's worth something. But it's hardly worthy of inclusion in such a noble concept as discourse aimed at the discovery of truth, is it?

Nonsense is included in "freedom of speech" merely because all speech must be protected from censorship if useful discourse is to go unmolested. (Otherwise we would have some speech-judge determining what is useful and what is not. And wisdom and impartiality in speech-judges isn't exactly something we count on.)

So just as freedom of religion protects false religions in order to protect Christianity, freedom of speech protects nonsensical gibberish in order to protect beneficial discourse. But the protection of gibberish cannot elevate it to an equality with reasonable discourse, any more than the protection of Scientology can elevate it to equality with Christianity. Nor do either of these protections logically require respect for and/or acceptance of pointless speech and bunk religions.

I've pursued these ideas after looking more deeply into the founding of this nation, particularly from the perspective of individual and national virtue, and have begun (finally!) to understand what is rarely - if ever - taught in the classroom: that the goal of America's founding was to build a nation that would promote the betterment of men and of mankind.

The founders were highly educated men, and had given serious study to political theory. They saw the value of freedom of thought, and so ensured Americans the opportunity to pursue excellence via religion and discourse. They saw in themselves and in one another Americans struggling toward these high and noble goals, and I don't think they even contemplated our later wholesale abandonment of this pursuit. As John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It is, in fact, impossible to construct a government which can compel virtue and excellence in its citizens. The founders instead settled for one which would permit such a pursuit, and which would, in permitting, encourage it.

Thomas Paine wrote, "Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices." But the mainest vice restrained by America's foundational document is the abuse of power. The founders believed, it seems, that once power has been restrained, men will naturally pursue virtue, excellence, continual improvement of themselves and their society.

This is not to say "all men". They left us free, of course, to legislate as necessary to maintain law and order, not at all anticipating that the liberty they bequeathed to us would be perverted into license of all things regardless of their detriment, let alone provide the basis for demanding tolerance and respect for such uselessness and wickedness.

No, I see no reason to think the First Amendment's protections of religion and speech were established to safeguard false religions and verbal gibberish. That they are protected is merely incidental to the safeguarding of Christianity and productive discourse, as both of these are necessary to that pursuit of "happiness" to which Plato referred: virtuous character.

Irony and other important vitamins and minerals

2006-02-15T16:55:00.000-06:00

Have I praised Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death yet?

Postman retells a fable in which an inventive god comes to present his clever inventions before the king. The god introduces and describes his inventions one by one, and the king, in turn, replies with approval or criticism. When the god introduces the incredible invention of writing, one would expect resounding applause from the king. (After all, where would we be without writing?)

Instead, the king criticizes this invention on the grounds that it is a substitute for knowledge. "How can that be?" you ask. Here's his point: If you no longer have to remember something, if you no longer have to keep it in your mind, you're free to forget it. The oral tradition by which knowledge was passed from generation to generation before writing was commonplace required knowledge to be always retained in the mind lest it be forgotten. And of course knowledge is useful only when it is present in the mind.

We live in what is commonly referred to as "the information age". I love it, because I can gather facts more quickly and easily than I ever could as a child growing up 30 miles from the nearest library, and also because so much knowledge is freely published on the internet.

As much as the rise of Fox News has contributed to balanced news coverage, their radio-news intro is dangerously misleading. "Information is power," they claim. Not so. Knowledge is power. Without digressing into a discussion of semantics, allow a simple explanation to suffice: Knowledge is information made useful.

72 - 3.5 = 68.5

That's information. You can find that information by punching a few buttons on a calculator. A carpenter makes use of that information when determining what length to cut a board so it'll fit properly.

President Lincoln suspended habeus corpus laws during the Civil War. "Yeah? So? What's your point?" That information is useful in understanding civil rights during wartime as opposed to peacetime.

Lone facts are useful only in Trivial Pursuit. (They're called "trivia" for a reason.) We consider some facts to be important, sure. Their importance is not ontological, however; it derives, rather, from the use we make of them.

"But we all know scads of isolated facts and trivia, don't we?" Indeed we do - and that ought to tell us something: If we're not making use of all this information, we're limiting our knowledge. We need to be doing something with it, not merely storing it in our brains, as one might write it in a book to be placed on a shelf and consulted only to settle after-dinner disputes.

And so now we've come round to books again, and finally to what prompted me to write this post. My copy of Postman's book has not arrived yet. I had initially checked it out from the local library before deciding to purchase it. But I tend to read like my father: with a highlighter pencil in hand - something I can't do with library books. And good books belong in one's personal library, since it takes time to transfer the knowledge from a book to one's mind. I'm not talking about transferring facts and information; those can be easily retrieved when needed, just as a calculator can tell you "It's 68.5" anytime you need. I'm talking about the knowledge found in an incisive book.

I've had Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind on my shelf for some three years, bookmarked where I left off just beyond his introduction. I recently restarted it, and found I still can't get beyond the introduction! It contains a wealth of knowledge on politics, society, culture and education, and I want that knowledge in my mind, not just on my bookshelf.

I've been trying to remember the names of the god and the king in that ancient fable Postman retells. But just as the king criticizes writing for being a substitute for memory and knowledge, I find myself anxious for the arrival of the book because I can't remember. Ironic, isn't it?

Neil Postman was an optimist

2006-02-14T21:16:00.000-06:00

Postman suggested, in Amusing Ourselves to Death, that we'd all read Orwell's 1984 but ignored Huxley's Brave New World. (That's my paraphrase summary anyway.) As I noted in a previous post, we find ourselves in a hybrid dystopia. I call, as my next witness, the Verichip(TM), or, more generically, the RFID (radio frequency identification) V-chip.

This nifty little doodad is a personal identification "chip" planted subcutaneously, usually in the upper arm, which, when queried by a certain radio signal, replies with an ID code unique to the owner. Think of it as a miniature ID card like the one you swipe to get into a secure office building, only you never have to worry about losing it because it's permanently placed under your skin.

Brianstorming uses of this technology could occupy hours - and interesting ones at that: Banking. Shopping. Keeping track of perverts and other criminals out on parole. Voter identification. Storing vital medical information. Locating lost or kidnapped children, or senile old folks prone to wandering off, or absent-minded professors who forgot where they live.

Now let me do a preemptive strike against those who cry, "It's the mark of the beast, that's what it is!" I don't understand John's prophecy in Revelation as well as I'd like, but I do know this much: You can't get more than a couple dozen words into that book before finding out it deals with events that happened quite a few centuries ago. (Don't believe me? Try it.)

Okay, so it's not the mark of the beast. Back to Neil Postman again, for some good advice. In a speech he gave titled Informing Ourselves to Death, he advises us to look beyond the techno-marketers - whom we suspect are giving us only the upside - and find the downside. Every technology, he explains, involves tradeoffs.

Although V-chip technology has been around a few years, it's rather new to me, so I haven't plumbed the depths of its downside. The privacy concern, however, springs to mind immediately. I don't particularly relish the idea of having my every movement tracked, my shopping habits analyzed, etc. No, I haven't bought into that hooey about constitutionally-protected privacy rights. That nonsense is founded upon a logical fallacy. But there are areas of our lives most of us would agree ought to remain private; and we're perfectly free to legislate accordingly. After all, we would frown upon a police officer following someone around 24/7 without very good reason, yes? With the V-chip and a few thousand super-cooled database servers, we'll each have our own personal black-and-white-with-a-cherry-on-top shadowing us by day and night. (Hiya, Mr. Orwell. Long time no see.)

Not to be outdone by the surveillance society, the consumerists will find a way to make a buck off this technology as well. Using their databases and some uber-cool algorithms... can you say "targetted advertising"? Toll roads already make use of similar chips via readers embedded in the pavement. You drive over the reader, and it scans your vehicle for a pre-paid or billable chip. Combine the V-chip ID with such readers, and throw in dynamic billboards and, well, you see where that's going. (Hello again, Mr. Huxley.)

So you're driving to work and the billboard advertises a special on 15,000-mile service for that Beamer you bought a year ago. (Yes, they know.) That's fine. But suppose you're still driving that 1989 Camry, frugal fellow that you are, and every other billboard is another car commercial urging you to upgrade? Or suppose, since they have your medical records as well, your morning drive becomes a gauntlet of ads for adult diapers, hemorrhoid ointments, erectile-dysfunction treatments, hair-growth goop, diet pills.... It's Gmail gone terribly, terribly wrong.

And what of some of the most promising benefits? Tracking kidnapped kids, for instance? Well I'm no child-molester, but if I were, the first thing I'd do when I snatched one would be to grab a scalpel and start digging in an arm! Or maybe a few zaps with a stun-gun would disable the thing, I dunno. Ditto for V-chip-tracking of parolees or sex offenders. (You don't have to be clever to figure this stuff out; Hollywood will do it for you. Just watch Minority Report again.)

And to really blow the V-chip out of the realm of the reasonable, people are already claiming to have hacked and cloned it! (Can you say "identity theft"?) The best part of that article was the final paragraph:

"Oh, and lest anyone get overly worried about drive-by Verichip identity theft: that is probably not a big deal. Their biggest security feature is the absurdly short read range, which is restricted by the tiny antenna. As long as the user stays at least a foot away from any unsecured person or thing, there is very little risk."

So in other words, as long as you don't sit next to anybody on a bus or subway or airplane or in a movie theater, don't stand in line at the post office or supermarket, don't eat at crowded restaurants, don't spend the night with anybody you don't know well, etc., you're probably safe. I feel better already.

Technology is neither good nor bad, of course. But too often when we discover a new technology like this, only two words come to mind: Ch. Ching. In a world where technophiles and marketers are stomping hard on the gas pedal, somebody needs to be tapping the brakes a bit, lest we outdrive our headlights.

Carl who?

2006-02-14T19:38:00.000-06:00

Recently our local university rag ran a headline that read, "Famous Reporter to Give Lecture". Yeah, I was thinking the same thing you are: If you have to bill him as a "famous reporter", he must not be that famous.

So I read further and discovered it was none other than Carl Bernstein. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing you are: Why in the world would you need to bill Carl Bernstein as a "famous repoter"??

Okay, so the U is full of mush-brained kids aged 18-25. None of 'em got left behind - thanks to bloated school bureaucracies and insidious teacher's unions - because the standard has been lowered to prevent such tragedies. Yet it's still shocking that they don't recognize Bernstein's name.

Well I was discussing this with a colleague via argumentum smokebreakum and remarked, in an incredulous tone, "It's like not knowing who Edward R. Murrow is," to which she replied, "Uh, who's that?" (Insert comic strip drawing of me, eyes wide and mouth agape, with exclamation marks above my head.) Seriously, she had to ask another colleague after I refused to tell her.

It's easy - and tempting - to despise the Murrows, Bernsteins, Cronkites of the world for allowing their anti-American politics to influence the reporting of important news. But one thing they recognize: It's important news! Americans need to be informed, but we'd rather be entertained. And unless journalists (this was Bernstein's lecture focus) hold the line against info-tainment, they will have failed the nation a great responsibility.

I saw a newsbite some months ago (on Free Republic probably) about Walter Cronkite's statement that the press is failing its job of informing Americans for democracy. My first reaction was to chuckle and think, "Yeah, you old birds still think you can run this country from behind your news desks, dontcha? Well we're wise to you now, buddy!" But I read more of his remarks and understood he was trying to tell us the same thing Bernstein was: An uninformed electorate is ripe for tyranny.

Look, we may disagree on matters of politics, you and I. Or we may disagree with Bernstein, et al. But if we disagree, we can dispute, argue, debate and fight about it. Why? Because our republic guarantees us that freedom - for now. If we lose that protection to a tyrannical federal government, it won't matter a hill o'beans whether we agree or disagree.

We've already lost the titles to our property, thanks to a supra-constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court and a do-nothing Congress that offers us half-measure sedatives. We've lost the freedom to publicly criticize our elected representatives at the time it's most needed - election time - thanks to Senators McCain and Feingold, a power-hungry Congress, an admittedly-abdicating President, and a complicit Court.

And where's the outcry among the citizenry? Where's the daily pounding on the news desk? Where are the special reports on the dire straits in which our government has plunged the nation? Where's the press informing us of this scandalous Constitution-shredding and its dreadful impact?

"Do you honestly think anybody would tune in? It's the ratings, stupid!"

Look, the press can ride any partisan hobby-horse until its legs fall off when they want to, yes? And Bernstein's & Cronkite's politics aside, their point remains: An uninformed electorate is ripe for tyranny. And fascist tyranny is what Washington is selling.

Television sedates Americans like soma, while the government silences us and takes our property at the point of a gun. Aldous Huxley, meet George Orwell.

In The Face of Evil

2006-02-14T17:34:00.000-06:00

I just received an email informing me that the Ronald Reagan documentary, In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed, is going to be aired next Monday, Feb. 20. (Nevermind that "President's Day" is another stab at excellence in this death-by-a-thousand-cuts execution. That's a subject I'll save for George Washington's Birthday.)

Based on Peter Schweizer's biography, Reagan's War, this is an excellent documentary, providing both general and specific historical backdrop to Reagan's war against communism. You can view the trailer as well as purchase the DVD at the website above. But be advised: I just tried a couple of their links and was informed their website was overloaded. (Someone with a larger audience than I must've put the word out already.)

The documentary runs close to two hours, so those of you with TV-induced ADD might want to watch "Depraved Housewives" or something else appropriate for your maturity level. You probably won't get it anyway. For the rest of you who still retain control over your brains, it'll be aired at 10:00pm EST on TBN. If you're unable to watch it, tape it, or Tivo it, and are (A) a friend or acquaintance of mine and (B) destitute or just plain stingy, I'll buy you a copy. It won't be the first copy I've given away. It's just that important. (Besides, the DVD contains a half-dozen of Reagan's speeches in their entirety, which alone are worth the price of admission.)

Where's the discourse?

2006-02-14T11:00:00.000-06:00

(Or, You're not on politics again, are you?!)

Alexis de Tocqueville (What a great name!) observed that Americans love to talk politics - everybody! everywhere! all the time! Neil Postman, in his execllent analysis of television's impact on political discourse, pondered the "dumbing down" of this discourse into what I like to call argumentum soundbitum. Sound painful? It should!

Read Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in an Age of Show Business and draw your own conclusion from his arguments. I'll address one of them, and add my own partial-rebuttal.

The famed Lincoln-Douglas debates were lengthy affairs. An earlier debate between these two opponents went like this: Douglas spoke for three hours. Lincoln, noting the time, suggested the audience recess for their dinners before returning to attend to his four hour rebuttal, which would be followed by Douglas' hour-long rejoinder. This is an eight-hour debate, folks!

After your jaw returns to its normal position, ask yourself how long you would sit through a political debate before (yeah) changing the channel. Then ask yourself why. Surely political matters are important to you, right? You're an American, after all, charged with the awesome responsibility of contributing to the governance of this great nation.

Sure, we still talk politics, and that's a good thing. But I would posit that such chatting does not constitute discourse. Discourse is involved discussion. It's not something that lasts only until the next commercial break. It's not made up of soundbites and "elevator speeches". And it certainly doeesn't begin and end with a preference poll.

Lest I grow wordy in elaborating the point, I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks (laziness, partisan bias, etc.) of contributing factors in our present discourse dearth, and will move instead to a partial-rebuttal of this otherwise-wholesale condemnation.

Many of you are politically-informed in spite of our ADD-inspired (and -inducing) culture. You read and digest op-ed pieces, the modern-day equivalent to 15-minute single-issue stump speeches. You devour books on opposing sides of issues, the closest thing to a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate we'll ever see in our lifetimes. You're more interested in and more prepared for serious, non-partisan, thorough discussion of political and social matters confronting America than the fellow who gives his "opinion" to a pollster only to have it regurgitated back to him in tomorrow's USA Today as though it were news that somehow impacts his life.

Digesting ideas takes time. Prematurely acting on ideas is as foolish and harmful as exercising too soon after eating. Similarly, discourse takes time. Argumentum soundbitum just won't cut it. And even argumentum smokebreakum fails to satisfy. Those of you with whom I've had the pleasure of "closing down Starbucks" know how much I enjoy good conversation, whether for 30 minutes or 5 hours. And although Starbucks may have gone PC and $4 for a cup o'java now strikes us as exquisitely insane, the need for reasoned discourse and deliberative discussion has only grown more apparent.

Ten syllables (or so) about King Lear

2006-02-14T10:41:00.000-06:00

I cannot recommend King Lear highly enough. Even in this abridged version you'll find it a striking - even heart-rending - story of foolish vanity, black-hearted betrayal, loving forgiveness, and incomparable loyalty. (Get it on DVD. My VHS version began to squeak after about the 28th viewing.)

It's all Dan Rather's fault

2006-02-14T10:01:00.001-06:00

That's right, I probably wouldn't be here if not for "the most trusted man in America" trying to scam the electorate. Watching bloggers assemble - "live!" - the evidence that finally exposed the memogate scandal piqued my interest; and I've followed and contributed comments to a short list of blogs ever since.

My experience had been primarily with fast-moving, multi-posting, multi-contributor blogs. (World Magazine's blog is a sometime favorite.) You know, the ones where you have to talk fast, because the thread will be dead in a day or two, three at the most?

Recently, however, a friend engaged me in a lengthy (by blog standards anyway) email discussion on oil profits, and we wound up moving to his blog, Javelinux, instead, where I discovered that the blog is as good a forum for ponderous debate as its participants make it. And since Jav doesn't post on everything I want to discuss, (nor does worldmagblog, for that matter,) I've decided to take a flying leap from the peanut gallery to the stage itself - and try for a graceful landing. Let's see what the judges have to say....