classicalvaluesEXPORTFILE

2003-08-08T02:05:00.000-04:00

NOTICE TO ALL VISITORS! PLEASE GO TO THE NEW HOME OF MY BLOG! http://classicalvalues.com/ Thanks for stopping by, and please set your links if you reached this URL. Eric

2003-08-01T11:16:00.000-04:00

Curtains for gay rights? Why would the number of Americans who favor legalized homosexual relations drop precipitously since the Lawrence v. Texas decision? This Gallup poll (link via Nick Gillespie thanks to Instapundit) shows that they did -- and the change is in the double digits. According to the poll,

the level of support for legal homosexual relations has dropped 10-12 points in a period of just two months.

Forget logic, and forget facts. Americans simply do not like being told from above what to think, and what laws they may not have. While getting rid of sodomy laws was certainly the right thing to do, there is nonetheless something undignified about the Supreme Court simply issuing decrees as an end run around popular prejudices -- regardless of how indefensible those prejudices are. This apparent fickleness, in my view, reveals an indelible feature of the American character -- a contrarian spirit which can be both damnable and laudable. A leading Israeli intellectual recently stated that most Israelis have a Mezuzah attached to their door frames, but that if the government were to order them to display a Mezuzah, about half of them would run outside and yank them off. Regardless of correctness of the ultimate result in the Lawrence case, a significant percentage of Americans feel stepped on. Obviously, many of them were harangued into feeling that way by the usual demagogues, but that does not alter the fact that a victory ordered from above is not at all the same as one based on clear victory through the individual state legislative process. If we analogize to private disputes, a mutual agreement is always preferable to an official edict. It is better to talk to your neighbor about a problem than call the police. The higher the authority figure issuing the edict, the more it smacks of tyranny and builds resentment. To use the schoolyard analogy, a disagreement worked out between two kids results in a better peace than when one kid has to go to the teacher or the principal to get his way. Homosexuals tend to be hated anyway, and too many of them feel guilt and shame, which makes the haters feel justified in hating them. This will not disappear simply because the Supreme Court Court declares state sodomy laws null and void. On the contrary it will only increase -- and cause homosexuals to look to Big Brother for protection. I don't want to look to Big Brother! I want to take care of my own business. That is the most dignified way, and it is the American way. I am glad the medieval sodomy laws are gone, but I would rather have had it done it state by state. This is not said so much in defense of states' rights, so much as the right to true independence -- one of the hallmarks of which is freedom from fear. If one has to call the police, or invoke government help, one cannot be said to be self-sufficient and thus independent. Years ago, I was appalled to see supposed "gay activists" cowering on national television at what should have been a pivotal point in their "campaign" for the right to serve in the military. Bill Clinton had shocked many Americans early in his first term by attempting to accomplish this by executive fiat. All hell broke loose, and the usual series of hearings were held. At one such hearing, Senator Strom Thurmond (as bitter a foe as the homos ever had), leaned forward angrily, pointed to a gay "leader" and asked nastily, "ARE YOU A HOMOSEXUAL?" Well, what do you suppose happened? An immediate touchy-feely "huddle" event occurred, and the man exchanged poignant, feel-my-pain, glances with the "lesbian activist" seated next to him, and -- THEY NEVER ANSWERED STROM THURMOND! I will never forget and I will never forgive such rank cowardice. These people are not my "leaders." They are made-up, fraudulent media sycophants, hiding their sexuality in rainbow-hued closets of politically correct ambiguity. Even those who don't like my hyperbole should ask themselves whether or not cringing before a 90 year old man like a deer caught in the headlights constitutes leadership. I don't believe it does. Yet what was being asked of Thurmond (himself a highly decorated combat veteran of the D-Day landing) was the right to serve in the military. You know, a thing called combat? Might a similar principle be involved with those who would rather have Big Brother in the form of the Supreme Court issue a decree than face down the occasional petty bigot in a state legislative committee? I submit that if you are afraid to walk into the guy's office and tell him how you feel about the law, you have no dignity. (Even if you are right.) What, you might ask, would I have said to Senator Thurmond in response to his simple but admittedly personal question? Well, by way of suggestion, here's an example:

"Well Senator, you have asked me a personal question, but since you consider it relevant, my answer is YES, I am a ho-mo-sex-u-al! But since we're onto personal questions, I have one for you: How does a 90 year old manage to get a 20-year-old wife and have children? What's your secret? Boy! I wish I could do that!"

Something like that might have broken the ice with the old coot. Might not have melted his cold, cold heart, but it's just more human than hiding behind quasi-presidential skirts, aloof judicial robes, or some other man-behind-the-curtain power. Hell, even the Wizard of Oz, penultimate Man Behind the Curtain, saw the wisdom in having Dorothy first prove her mettle. Ditto for Dorothy's followers -- whether feline, metal, or straw. And even after all that they still had to get heavy and yank away the curtain. Con artist that he was, the Wizard knew something that is being forgotten: Human dignity cannot be simply granted or bestowed from above. The American people seem to understand this principle, and I think this latest bit of Gallup Poll insolence poll proves it.

2003-07-31T16:31:00.000-04:00

Dead issues? Catching up with current (and not so current) events, I learned to my dismay that Idi Amin is not dead. (Story courtesy of Instapundit.) This means my earlier obituary is in need of revision. While I am at it, I should also note that my numbers were off: while Idi Amin brought misery to millions, the actual total of his murder victims was only in the hundreds of thousands. What had interested me more than the numbers of murders, though, was precisely why our Saudi allies find this dreadful man so utterly endearing. I mean, killing hundreds of thousands – why, that shouldn’t rank him all that high, unless you consider the percentage of Ugandans the hundreds of thousands represent. I still think it had to be Dora Bloch. By choking an elderly Jewish grandmother to death with his bare hands, Idi Amin showed the Saudis he was their kind of guy. That inspires loyalty, especially from the sanctimonious Mutawein – who believe there’s a religious duty to strangle Jewish grandmothers. What kind of "allies" do we have, anyway? I mean, this is almost as bad as Syria sponsoring another lovely human specimen, Eichmann's right hand man Alois Brunner. I guess it's just politics. But sometimes, I wish I didn't have to hear the moral lectures. It's tough for me to take moral posturing seriously when I keep running into such double standards. It is especially tough to be accused of "moral relativism" by those who elevate such manipulation to an art form. But I should cheer up! Instapundit linked directly to the quote for today:

"Government bureaucracies are tough on artists."

It is not a good idea to be too tough on artists, though. (Just look at what can happen when artists get tough.) Artists! Can't live with 'em; can't live without 'em!

2003-07-31T16:30:00.000-04:00

Classical vocals from the Midwest and beyond Late on Tuesday night, I blogged about my favorite song, "Every Day of the Week" by The Students. I was not kidding about it being my favorite; it just so happens that I keep a RealAudio version of the song in my laptop, and this morning, just to see whether it could be done remotely from a laptop, I decided to feed it up into my new blogsite for you. After a little tinkering, I got it to work. So that it won't clutter up anyone's bandwidth by downloading, I set it up to stream as a RAM file. All you need to do to hear it in RealAudio is click HERE! Classical Doowop at its finest. I find the vocals genuinely haunting, and this genre always reminds me of choir music I heard when I worked in the Congo in 1971, but that's another, longer story.

2003-07-31T01:31:00.000-04:00

Ancient and modern values Here's a view of the Iowa State Capitol with my favorite gas station in front.

2003-07-31T01:29:00.000-04:00

Two scoops! Thucydides. Now there's a mouthful! As usual, one of my linkers is doing a better job of citing the classics than I. In this case, Tim Sandefur is is at it again -- first pleading guilty to the crime of pretentiousness for blogging about the ancients:

a charge of which I’m awfully guilty. Anyone who refers to Aristotle, Thrasymachus, Thucydides, Locke, Hobbes, Holmes’ Lochner dissent, and the sarcastic wit of Homer J. Simpson in a single week—in a single post, even!—is certainly pretentious.

NOTE: these blogspot links are problematic; so you might have to scroll down. Reviewing Donald Kagan's new book on the Peloponnesian War, Sandefur notes with approval the author's skepticism of Thucydides' portrayal of the war, because

there are two views of the war, which have caused it to become something of a trophy in the ideological contests of the twentieth century. The Spartans claimed that they were freeing the Greek cities from the yoke of Athenian hegemony, and that the Athenians were creating an empire which was forcing its views on the people of Greece. The Athenians, of course, didn’t see it that way at all—they were out to help democracies, and to protect them against the growing influence of oligarchy, as supported by Sparta. Historians, however, have routinely taken the Spartan view of things, seeing Athens as the aggressor in the war, and more or less rooting for the Spartans. This parallels the twentieth century’s conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, of course, in which the Soviets claimed to be pushing back American hegemony by arming the communist troops of various third-world countries. Americans, they said, were out there imposing democracy and capitalism on people. Americans, on the other hand, believed (and wouldn’t it be nice if they still believed?) that democracy and capitalism—that is to say, freedom—was the entitlement of all humanity, and that it is oppression, not liberty, that is imposed. But, of course, much of the academy takes the Soviet view of things, seeing America as the aggressor in the cold war, and more or less rooting for the Soviets.

Absolutely right, and you'd better read the whole thing yourself, as I am on the road in Des Moines Iowa, and without time to do justice to the whole Sandefur piece. One thing is certain: Thucydides is often relied on by antiwar activists, as if he is the only ancient worthy of attention, which itself is suspicious. I was recently disgusted to watch a performance of "Trojan Women" updated for "today" -- the Greek soldiers wearing American uniforms, and King Agamemnon wearing a suit and a hard hat -- the spitting image of Dubya. Years ago, when reading a prepared speech late after a very long day, the first President Bush stopped cold at the name "Thucydides," and all he could do was stammer "THU-THU-THU-THU" (The speechwriter was in BIG trouble!) That's about the way I feel. Long day today! Tomorrow is THU- THU- THU- READ THE WHOLE SANDEFUR PIECE ALL THE WAY THU, OK? But what I had not expected was Tim Sandefur's difficulty in, er, swallowing my KASS ICE CREAM quote. It is absolutely genuine, and I hand-copied it myself. If you don't like it, I suggest taking it up with the guy who hates cones as much as he hates clones. By the way, the famous Sandefur-Baude debate (which Baude has lost miserably) prominently featured ice cream as a central example. That's my dish for tonight!

2003-07-29T13:48:00.000-04:00

ALL ROADS LEAD TO HOME (and the new home of this blog.....) I seem to be on the road right now, and I will attempt to log in and post when and where and if I can. If you have come to http://classicalvalues.com you are at the right place, as I am 98% finished with the move and redesign. (I guess I need to announce it at the blogspot site.) Eric BLOG IS BEING MOVED TO http://classicalvalues.com

2003-07-29T13:46:00.000-04:00

Yawn..... "Justin Case" is the pseudonym of my paranoid research assistant who lives thousands of miles away but is still freaked out by this blog. Anyway, Justin is hopping mad about what he considers my sloppy reporting of "the Leon Kass ice cream quote." He thinks the quote needs expansion. Great! More musings about ice cream from the guy who wants to stop cloning. How do I get talked into this stuff anyway? As I said earlier, it's a real drag when I make a mistake and to have to go through this kind of crap again, but here is the original ice cream quote, which I found on the Internet, and used in what I thought was its entirety:

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone... This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if WE feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior."

Nothing wrong there; it's just that there's much more in between the little dot dot dots. Here's the whole quote:

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone --a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive. I fear I may by this remark lose the sympathy of many reader, people who will condescendingly regard as quaint or even priggish the view that eating in the street is for dogs. Modern America's rising tide of informality has already washed out many long-standing traditions -- their reasons long before forgotten -- that served well to regulate the boundary between public and private; and in many quarters complete shamelessness is treated as proof of genuine liberation from the allegedly arbitrary constraints of manners. To cite one small example: yawning with uncovered mouth. Not just the uneducated rustic but children of the cultural elite are now regularly seen yawning openly in public (not so much brazenly or forgetfully as indifferently and "naturally"), unaware that it is an embarrassment to human self-command to be caught in the grip of involuntary bodily movements (like sneezing, belching, and hiccuping and even the involuntary bodily display of embarrassment itself, blushing). But eating on the street -- even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat -- displays in fact precisely such lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. Hunger must be sated now; it cannot wait. Though the walking street eater still moves in the direction of his vision, he shows himself as a being led by his appetites. Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. Eating on the run does not even allow the human way of enjoying one's food, for it is more like simple fueling; it is hard to savor or even to know what one is eating when the main point is to hurriedly fill the belly, now running on empty. This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if WE feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior." Kass, Leon: The Hungry Soul at 148-149. (University of Chicago Press, 1994, 1999)

Are you hungry? Is your stomach growling? I am running late and I have to leave right now!! Just about ready to start a big road trip. I'm hungry too! Forgive me! I have a lot to be ashamed about, and I have barely started. (The irony here is that I am a polite person, and I really don't think I needed Dr. Kass's lecture, which in my view fully justifies Howard Stern antics.)

2003-07-28T09:48:00.000-04:00

Hard drive to where? Here's some very valuable information about hard drive forensics. (link thanks to AgendaBender.) Reading about hard drive detectives (hard what?) made me think of a subject I am not supposed to talk about ever -- Vincent Foster! Uh oh! There I went again! Well, OK, the man is dead and buried, and we might as well just do as we're told and forget about him. So, I'll keep my pledge, and I WON'T talk about Vincent Foster. But what about his hard drive? The story of the now-you-see-it, now-you-don't Foster hard drive is to my mind, even more bizarre than the death of the drive's owner. First, we were told (and this is reflected in the Fiske Report), that the hard drive was somehow "destroyed" but "accidentally." I have always wanted to know how to accidentally destroy a hard drive, especially when you first have to accidentally locate it inside the supposedly "secured" office of the recently shot White House Counsel, then "accidentally" remove it from the computer. Well, if Foster committed suicide, couldn't his hard drive have also gotten depressed, and decided to splatter its electronic brains all over the place? Anyway, I assumed quite naturally that the spooks had gotten to it, and "sanitized" the thing. Considering what had happened to its owner, they probably figured who's going to ask too many demanding questions about hard drives? Well, it was subpoenaed, but it wasn't "there." Except then the next thing you know -- towards the end of the Clinton administration -- we were told that it wasn't destroyed at all, but it had been sitting in someone's desk for years. Then there was an election. Since then, silence. Case closed? Does that mean the hard drive committed suicide too? The last news we heard about the hard drive was this -- a summary of the last WorldNetDaily report:

Former Special Counsel Robert Fiske never seized nor even tried to seize Vincent Foster's computer as evidence after the deputy White House counsel died unexpectedly in 1993, WorldNet Daily has learned. As a result, Foster's hard drive became a hot potato inside the White House, bouncing from one official's hands to another's -- breaking the chain of custody over and over, before finally, last week, ending up where it has belonged all along -- in the hands of investigators, according to former White House officials who are finally talking publicly about what they know about the Foster case . . . Ray has yet to rule on Whitewater and the alleged obstruction part of the Foster case. He will give a summary of his findings on the first couple's shady Ozark investment and the Foster aspect "within the next couple of weeks," said Keith Ausbrook, a senior counsel in Ray's office here. He said the investigation at this point is "still open." . . . One of the computer files reveals that Foster and his wife planned to go out the same night he was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, according to a White House whistleblower who has read the file and recently turned over evidence to Ray under subpoena. The former computer specialist is scheduled to testify about Foster before a federal grand jury on Thursday . . .

Yow! This is like that disappearing Black Bird in "The Maltese Falcon." Someone please bring in Peter Lorre and Sidney Greenstreet so we can find it. Conspiracy theories, of course, abound. One holds that the secret has something to do with top-secret computer shenanigans involving the Clipper Chip and the NSA. It is tough to make data disappear -- accidentally or deliberately. I can find no news whatsoever about that hard drive since 2000. Are they just hoping this story will go away if no one talks about it? Well, I might shut up about Vincent Foster, because as I said before I want to get invited to the right parties and all, and no one likes "conspiracy theorists." But I wanna know what's on that hard drive! My tax dollars paid for it, and they've insulted my intelligence with these lies over the years. Sheesh! Even Boris Badenov could have done a better job!

2003-07-27T21:31:00.000-04:00

Steer straight I really wish I didn't have to read stuff like this, but there it was, staring me in the face. (Link thanks to Perverse Access Memory, via Invisible Adjunct, via Photon Courier -- and all thanks to Instapundit.) Wow! That was a lot of epistemology to accessorize. (Such concepts give me the screaming memes! Go find a meme and kill it now!) But really, stuff like the above article always makes me remember why I started this blog: to oppose medieval efforts to instill guilt and shame where it does not belong. Look at this crap:

the leaders of the Texas GOP are no ordinary conservatives, or even ordinary social conservatives for that matter. They are theocrats, devoted to the idea that there is no proper distinction between God's law and civil law. They have become an embarrassment to the national Republican Party. It's the Texas delegation, you may remember, that had its members bow their heads in prayerful protest while openly gay Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., was permitted to speak -- on the issue of free trade -- at the 2000 Republican National Convention. But the best evidence of Texas GOP leaders' devotion to theocracy is their 22-page party platform, which is less a political document than a fundamentalist encyclical. It declares the United States "a Christian nation" founded "on the Holy Bible."

And that's jest a sample. If you're alreddy lickin' yer chops, read the whole thang! I don't mean to make fun of Texas, but hey, I saw Full Metal Jacket! That drill sergeant said that "Only steers and queers come from Texas." (You can even stream the audio if you want proof.)

2003-07-27T20:30:00.000-04:00

The Emperor has no spark! This will be an experiment, so just let me indulge myself with something having nothing to do with Classical Values.... My car has been occasionally running a little funny, and the "check engine" light has been going on intermittently. My mechanic couldn't figure out what it was; said it could be "a hundred things." Typical. Have you ever felt that doing something would be a complete waste of time, but you did it anyway? The only thing you can really do with modern cars is change the spark plugs and real basic stuff like that, and I thought, "Come on, you know the spark plugs won't affect a damn thing; they're only a year and a half old anyway!" But I thought, what the hell. So I pulled all six, and found this one -- so encrusted with deposits as to be shorting out! Here it is, in the arms of the evil Emperor! I hope you can see the encrustation. It's so covered as to be literally shorted out. No gap! Empires fail because of little things like that. And no, I am not looking for a Latin phrase. Not right now! (I am not "stalling" either.)

2003-07-27T13:21:00.000-04:00

Do words of war come with rules?

War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means." Clausewitz

I sure hope I got that one right! I have to watch out with these quotes, because some of my readers are better scholars than I am, and, much as I love accuracy, whenever I am wrong it makes for more work. (So Clausewitz had better not have appropriated the above observation from Sun Tzu or somebody or I'll be in more trouble!) John Jenkins is quite an authority on the famous Roman motto, "Si vis pacem para bellum." ("If you seek peace, prepare for war.") I attributed the quote to Cicero (who doubtless used it , as would have almost every Roman in a position of authority at one time or another), and I supplied a URL for it. Mr. Jenkins immediately took notice, and emailed me as follows:

I believe the quote which you attributed to Cicero was actually by the general Vegetius,(http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_preparewar.htm). It is originally, Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum--"Therefore, he who desires peace, let him prepare for war" I spent last year digging around about this when I was taking Latin and couldn't find anything about Cicero having said this. That's not to say he didn't, of course, just that I couldn't find it.

Naturally, this caused me to scurry around. The following was my reply:

I researched the hell out of this last night, and you are right; the motto did originate with Vegetius. But there are additional problems in that the original quote was paraphrased by later Romans. This creates confusion, and the situation is further compounded by the adoption of the paraphrased quotation as the official motto of the Roman legions. Original text: Qui desiderat pacem, preparet bellum. "Who desires peace should prepare for war." Vegetius De Rei Militari III Sometimes the original and the paraphrased quote appear interchangeably: In time of peace prepare for war, [Lat., Si vis pacem, para bellum.] - Epitoma Rei Militaris (lib. III, end of prologue), Qui desiderat pacem, preparet bellum (Vegetius De Rei Militari III) "Over 1600 years ago Vegetius wrote 'Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum,' a maxim often paraphrased as 'Si vis pacem, para bellum.' " Worse yet, the paraphrased version is often credited not only to Cicero, but to Appius Claudius the Blind: "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" Appius Claudius the Blind, 281 BC This would make a fun posting; do you mind if I use your name or do you want to remain private?

If this isn't getting complicated enough, consider something that very few people in modern America ever think about: the prohibition on "Igitur"!

Feel free to use my name. It gets better though: Igitur is supposed to be a postpositive conjunction that can't appear at the beginning of a sentence, but it does here. My Latin professor has suggested to me that this is because Vegetius was a late Roman author and perhaps the prohibition on igitur was no longer recognized or considered important. I don't know. I do know that the 1885 Lang edition of Epitoma Rei Militaris, reprinted in 1967 uses the igitur version. I can't find any other versions to compare it with though.... I'm not sure if *Epitoma Rei Militaris* and *De Rei Militari* are alternate titles for the same work or not. If you want something even more funny, Wheelock uses the shorter version (si vis pacem...) and cites it as original Latin (the asterisk indicates the original, not paraphrased as I mistakenly noted yesterday), not paraphrased from something called "Military Prologue 3". If I find out that *Epitoma Rei Militaris* and *De Rei Militari* are the same or different, I'll let you know. There's a copy of Epitoma available at the OU library, so I'm going to go look at it and see which version it uses.

Whew! At the rate this is going, I'll be a full time researcher instead of the crazed blogger I wanted to be. Any research volunteers? When a quote becomes famous enough to gain wide circulation, it can easily be misattributed, and of course, it gets worse when the quote is paraphrased. Even the phrase, "the best defense is a good offense" expresses the same sentiment as "si vis pacem para bellum." So, to make things easier, I am going to use the paraphrased version, and I think I'll just call it the Roman Legion motto. But wait! The Imperialist Dog has also raised another very important issue: the curtailment of free speech under the guise of new political campaign laws.

You have to read this website for about five minuted to know that I'm not a Howard Dean fan. By extension, you might also conclude that I don't often agree with professor Lawrence Lessig at Stanford. But this horseshit is just plain wrong. Because Dean was allowed to guest-blog on Lessig's website, Stanford is asking him to take the site off of the Standord servers, "given FEC regulations." The only thing that I can come up with is that maybe they see this as an in-kind campaign contribution, but it's patent to any observer that's not what it's about. This is clearly a limit on constitutionally protected speech that shouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged. Dean has a right to speak in any public forum, even one on the internet, and its clear that the web servers of a university are a public forum. This is not something that an institution of higher learning should be engaging in. Consider this list list of Standord student organizations, many with websites on the Stanford servers. I should think that some of them have and enunciate political views that, if you were to read the statutes broadly enough, could be considered in-kind contributions. This sort of silliness is not the sort of thing that institutions of higher learning should be engaging in. I still remember the marketplace of ideas, but apparently Stanford has forgotten it.

He's right of course. This issue has nothing to do with Howard Dean, but the sinister over-reaching of Big Brother -- this time taking the form of "FEC regulations." Every blogger should take notice of this deeply disturbing development. If you don't think that big government, Bigger-Than-Ever-Consolidated-Big Media, and the regulatory thugs who work for both wouldn't love to either wipe out blogging completely, or at least emasculate bloggers so that they are unable to reach out and touch certain institutions or political developments, think again. In Europe, so called "fair comment" regulations are already in the works, and if you don't think it could happen here, consider again the FCC's ominous reclassification of cable and phone based broadband providers as information rather than telecommunications services:

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling). The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there’s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like. The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media.

Whoa there! I just cited Howard Dean! Hell, I would cite Pat Buchanan for the same principle. What say ye, bloggers? Do you think the bastards are already trying to snuff out our newly born presidential campaign in its crib? I can't resist closing with another ancient slogan:

Silent enim leges inter arma. [Laws are silent in times of war.] Cicero, Pro Milone

Cool! Now I think I'll paraphrase it:

FEC, FCC, this is war! So blow it out your ass!

2003-07-26T23:32:00.000-04:00

Best Blogs! It is mind-boggling how many great blogs there are out there. I can't keep track of them. I have been blogging now daily for two months, and I run into new blogs all the time. Whenever I see one which grabs and holds my attention, and makes me want to return for more, I tend to link to it immediately. Sometimes I tell them how much I like their blogs, but once I link to a blog, I try to visit that blog every day if I possibly can. The following blogs have been nice enough to link to me, and I cannot tell you how honored that makes me feel, because I am new and I am trying hard, but I just can't hold a candle to most of these bloggers. As far as I am concerned, they are the best of the best, not only because I like their blogs, but because apparently they see something they like in mine! I have done reviews of my new links before and I'll do it again, but if you are here and reading this, by all means check each one of these blogs -- and link to them. That is what blogging is all about. Now, I can't possibly rank my links, and if anyone can figure out whether there is any order in my link list over there on the left, please tell me what it is, because I have no hierarchy or structure of which I am aware. The list here is taken in the order that I found them at technorati, and if I had to list them in the order I liked them or agreed with them or how I thought others ranked them, I would go crazy. Please understand that I love you all for linking to me, and I visit all links as often as I can. This has nothing to do with whether I agree with your positions on various issues; when have any two people agreed on everything anyway? I admire integrity and sincerity more than anything else; each of you strikes me as having that and more, or else I wouldn't have been interested in your blog.

mtpolitics.net: While "Montana Politics" is the blog's name, this is a perfect example of what I call, "THINK GLOBALLY, BLOG LOCALLY." Keen political insights and humor from a state I have visited and where I would love to live. Don't miss this blog! Practical Penumbra: Lives up to the name of "A better little corner of cyberspace." Style, wit, satire, puzzles, nice graphics. A true delight to visit every time! Freespace: Timothy Sandefur inspired me to play catch up with the Classics! I better keep an eye on him lest he snatch away my readers who come here search of ancient history and find out how distracted I become by current events! Solomonia: I am fiercely pro-Israel (a country I consider a direct modern link to ancient wisdom), and I am deeply honored to merit a link from Solomon -- who lives up to the venerated ancient name with his wisdom and sagacity, enhanced for modern times with superb graphic design, and a first rate blog. Civic Dialogues: Erasmus fully lives up to the name of that great Renaissance scholar. Witty daily dissections of politics, philosophy, and life. Fair to both sides; read and learn. Sector 7-G: Uh oh! Ray has not only linked to me, but he says he wants to stalk me! Don't you know that turns me on? Careful.... VodkaPundit: This distinguished blogger needs no introduction, as he is way up at the top, one of those Blogger Superstars. I am very honored that I somehow managed a place on his menu, and as a Gin and Tonic at that! But I warn you, Stephen, GIN MAKES ME SIN! Ghost of a flea: Hard to define the Flea. Eclectic cultural cuisinart; all sorts of stuff here, guaranteed to teach you something you didn't know. The origins of cool? Find out! Beautifully cool women, astute observations on religion, and more! God of the machine: Any Isabel Paterson fan will recognize the name. Top notch libertarian/Objectivist blog. Aaron Haspel is a witty, entertaining, politically astute. Discount Blogger Michael Demmons (congratulated by Instapundit as the "first gay blogger to be legally married") runs a very fast-paced blog with a libertarian bent. Lots of stuff, great pictures and graphics, and always something new and lively. Don't miss it! Mind of Mog: Every time I visit this blog, I feel as if I have entered an infectiously creative mind. Go there and you'll see what I mean. Unbelievably cool graphics; wild imagination! W(h)ine Country: This blog always makes me homesick for California, especially the political ways of "the Left Coast." Inside dirt aplenty to be found here! The Imperialist Dog: Nice enough to link to me despite disagreeing with me. Masterfully logical blog! Loco Parentis: Katie Granju inspired me to write a post about something of which I am completely ignorant: parenting! She is a distinguished author great blog. ColbyCosh.com: Truly honored to be linked to this distinguished Canadian journalist and blogger. Just reading his blog is a lesson in how to write well, and in common-sense libertarianism. Both are things of which this country needs more! Impearls: Brilliant blog, simply brilliant; I really think Mr. McNeil knows more about Classical Values than I do! Science, religion, culture, art; go read his post on "Benjamin Franklin and WMD" right now! Red Letter Day I know I have mentioned Mike Silverman before, but I am not sure I was linked then. Either way, Mike has been a favorite from the beginning, and always will be. Except for possibly my blogfather, no other blogger combines rugged individualism, humor, gay politics, and support for Israel like Mike. A daily must-read!

OK, OK, I know I can't do them justice, but the above all join the ones I have previously posted as the best blogs on the Internet! Now, go back to the beginning of the list, and visit each blog!

2003-07-26T11:05:00.000-04:00

WINNING THROUGH PEACE UPDATE: As I was busily moving the peace entry into my blog's new home (into which I still haven't fully moved), I discovered that the peace-loving Glenn Reynolds has graciously offered IMAO the olive branch -- and given us at Classical Values a new link idea: the word "who" may henceforth be linked to http://imao.us/. How is that for generosity? Instant peace and understanding! WHO COULD ASK FOR MORE? PEACE: BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND!

2003-07-25T18:59:00.000-04:00

The peace plan is WORKING! Let's give it a chance! I am shocked and stunned. Someone does not like the Classical Values Peace Plan©! I have said before that I would try to answer all criticism, and much as it pains me, this is no exception. Let me tell you, it is not easy to wake up in the morning to find yourself the victim of a right-wing smear campaign attempting to link you to Neville Chamberlain! The comparison is very unfair, and hurtful to my self-esteem. Neville Chamberlain's situation was very complicated, and not easily stereotyped by means of such glib, mean-spirited one-liners. True, his plan may be called appeasement today, but it was never given a real chance to work because of a climate of jingoism and imperialism which clouded the minds of the time, poisoned the wells of human love and understanding, and made it impossible for human beings to open up to each other and begin the New Era of peace and understanding which I believe is upon us now -- if only we would let it evolve! The claim is often made that "appeasement never works." Well, since I floated the Classical Values Peace Plan©, there has not been one shot fired in anger by IMAO. Frank J. has had time to find out about the peace plan, and he is obviously thinking it over carefully. Because in my heart I know that all men are good, and all men want to be good, I believe in Frank's ultimate goodwill. He would never knowingly start a war of aggression -- certainly not if his point of view is thoroughly taken into account, his grievances carefully listened to, and his reasonable demands met. What Frank wants is not much different, after all, from what we all want. We all want hits, and we all want recognition, and we all tend to resent that the bigger and stronger tend to get their way in a world which often forgets the human dynamics of interpersonal interaction. Frank must be terrified and perplexed by the numerous concerns, motivations and options before him. Given time, I am confident that he will do the right thing, and peace will prevail. The world must of course be made to understand and empathize with the enormity of the personal injustices Frank has suffered -- doubtless more than his fair share of the usual thousand slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune! Frank! We hear you! Frank! We care! We know that you are a valid, sensitive, concerned human being, wanting desperately to make contact in a cruel and insensitive world! WE FEELYOUR PAIN, FRANK! GIVE PEACE A CHANCE! Certainly, once Frank knows that others have put themselves in his position, and understood his concerns, I am confident he will vote for peace -- especially when he learns that some of the finest minds in Norway are already dropping hints in Nobel Prize circles about "Frank J. -- man of PEACE." Let's continue to lock arms while we link for peace.

2003-07-25T14:27:00.000-04:00

Insta WHAT? You didn't hear it here first I second the nomination. That's FOR PRESIDENT, of course.... (you'll have to scroll down at my blogfather's blog.) But, as Tim Sandefur reminded me today, there remains the Rubicon issue.

2003-07-24T23:08:00.000-04:00

Kassical Values -- Quotations from Chairman Kass

"Nihil tam absurde dici potest, quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum." [Nothing can be said that is so absurd that it has not been said by some philosopher.] - Marcus Tullius Cicero

Glenn Reynolds (bless his heart) seemed to be attempting the impossible earlier today when he tried to make sense of (President's Council on Bioethics Chairman) Leon Kass. Noting (via Eugene Volokh) that Dr. Kass's 1978 sky-is-falling "fears about in vitro fertilization didn't exactly pan out," Instapundit asks,

So why are we listening to him now on cloning? Well, "we" aren't. But the White House, sadly, is.

Well, I am just a mere me! In logic, I am no more of a "we" than is Kass. And so I cannot promise that I (much less you or we) will make sense out of Leon Kass here. But I do have this really cool, incredibly patient research assistant who has gone to a great deal of trouble to actually sit down and painstakingly read through a book by Leon Kass: Toward A More Natural Science (Free Press Division, MacMillan, 1985). Without Justin's help, tonight's collection would have been impossible, because I assure you that reading through the works of Chairman Kass is not the way I want to spend my evenings. (Alas, poor Justin! I'll tip him well.) I don't know what to make of this guy who sits in judgment of science and technology and speaks for "us" as Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics. His ruminations for the most part strike me as, simply, assertions. In fairness, you would have to sit down and read his books in their entirety. But in fairness, I could say the same thing about Noam Chomsky. But who the hell wants to sit down and read Noam Chomsky OR Leon Kass? Anyway, Glenn Reynolds was right to zero in on the "we" problem -- because Kass has spent a huge amount of of time telling us what "we" are to think. I am assuming that "you" want to know what "we" think, just as much as I do, so I hereby present for you, "The Justin Case Collection of Quotations from Chairman Kass." Here, then, is what we think (all quotes and page numbers reference Toward A More Natural Science): "What about the changing mores of marriage, divorce, single parent families and sexual behavior? Do we applaud these changes? Do we want to contribute further to this confusion of thought, identity and practice?" 113 "Our society is dangerously close to losing its grip on the meaning of some fundamental aspects of human existence." 113 "A second mortal danger is contained in the now popular notion that a person has a right over his body, a right that allows him to do what ever he wants to it or with it. Civil libertarians may applaud such a notion, as an arguably logical expansion of the right of privacy, of the right to be free from unwanted or offensive touchings. But for a physician, the idea must be unacceptable." 198 "My approach is deliberately simple, but I hope not thereby simple-minded." 213 "Not every lost cause deserves to lose." 228 "The question, admittedly complex, is whether in opting for abortion a woman is doing injustice to herself as a woman, contradicting her generative nature." 235 "Even in my medical days, well before I acquired philosophical interests in these matters, I found the disappearance of a human life from a human body to be a simply incomprehensible occurrence. For this reason, I always disliked the autopsy room, where confident pathologists gave anatomical or physiological explanations, adequate to their limited purpose, that only increased my bewilderment regarding the questions that most troubled me: what happened to my patient? What was responsible for his extinction?" 279 "Withering is nature's preparation for death, for the one who dies and for the ones who look upon him." 307 "Could longer, healthier life be less satisfying? How could it be, if life is good and death is bad? Perhaps the simple view is in error. Perhaps mortality is not simply an evil, perhaps it is even a blessing -- not only for the welfare of the community, but even for us as individuals." 307 "It seems to be as the poet says: 'we move and ever spend our lives amid the same things, and not by any length of life is any new pleasure hammered out.' " 309 (thus dares Kass characterize the poet Lucretius!) "The human soul yearns for, longs for, aspires to some condition, some state, some goal toward which our earthly activities are directed but which cannot be attained during earthly life." 312 "….Simply to covet a prolonged lifespan for ourselves is both a sign and a cause of our failure to open ourselves to this -- or any higher purpose. … For the desire to prolong youthfulness is not only a childish desire to eat ones life and keep it; it is also an expression of a childish and narcissistic wish incompatible with devotion to posterity. It seeks an endless present, isolated from anything truly eternal, and severed from any true continuity with past and future. It is in principle hostile to children, because children, those who come after, are those who will take one's place; they are life's answer to mortality, and their presence in one's house is a constant reminder that one no longer belongs to the future generation. One cannot pursue youthfulness of oneself and remain faithful to the spirit and meaning of perpetuation. … If our children are to flower, we need to sow them well and nurture them…. But if they are truly to flower, we must go to seed; we must wither and give ground." 316 "After a while, no matter how healthy we are, no matter how respected and well-placed we are socially, most of us cease to look upon the world with fresh eyes…. In many ways, perhaps in the most profound ways, most of us go to sleep long before our deaths." 317 "We stand most upright when we gladly bow our heads." 348 Whew! I'm almost done -- but let me note that while I don't normally allow others do to my work for me, I made an exception here, because I am upgrading to Movable Type pretty soon, and if I get favorable comments on the quality of Justin's research, I might be able to stroke his ego enough to get him to start logging in as a contributor. (He is, unfortunately, very shy, and will have to be dragged into this kicking and screaming.) Aaahhhh... the best for last! It's time for dessert! This final quote I had to find myself, but only after Justin assured me that while it wasn't in the above book it was too good to leave out. Here's Kass on that fiendishly decadent American invention -- the (gasp) ice cream cone:

Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone... This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if WE feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior."

Public gastronomical displays as shameful? And Kass claims to love the ancients? Has he ever heard of Roman banquets? Epicureans? The Bacchanalia? That's enough for me, folks. I'm outa here! This is scary. I'll close this nonsense with a quote from Queen Victoria.

"WE are not amused."

2003-07-24T15:14:00.000-04:00

Making them stop Here's something I like: Glenn Reynolds linked to this Wall Street Journal op-ed by blogger Steven Den Beste. Not only do I like seeing bloggers go "hard copy," I liked his words:

We are not doing this out of altruism. We are not trying to give them a liberalized Western democracy because we're evangelistic liberal democrats (with both liberal and democrat taking historical meanings). We are bringing reform to Iraq out of narrow self-interest. We have to foster reform in the Arab/Muslim world because it's the only real way in the long run to make them stop trying to kill us. So why did George W. Bush and Tony Blair, in making the case for war, put so much emphasis on U.N. resolutions and weapons of mass destruction? Honesty and plain speaking are not virtues for politicians and diplomats. If either Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair had said what I did, it would have hit the fan big-time. Making clear a year ago that this was our true agenda would have virtually guaranteed that it would fail. Among other things, it would have caused all of the brutal dictators and corrupt monarchs in the region to unite with Saddam against us, and would have made the invasion impossible. But now the die is cast, and said brutal dictators and corrupt monarchs no longer have the ability to stop the future.

Make them stop trying to kill us! I can relate to that, and there is nothing altruistic about it. I can understand that people might disagree over how to go about this war, or over the direction of United States foreign policy. But those who cannot understand the basic, bottom-line here -- that we have to stop those who are trying to kill us -- carry pacifism to the point of suicide. If you want suicide, fine; just don't inflict it on me, because I ruled it out a decade ago. Might as well argue that I have no right to defend my home. Ludicrous as that sounds, in England they are doing just that. Tony Martin dared to defend himself, and for that he is in prison. Another read-and-weep (and hope it doesn't happen here) story. Many people here in the U.S. would do the same thing. There is a strong movement against self defense, and it frequently takes the form of gun control. (I will spare my readers any links to the type of sites which advocate taking away the right to self defense. Besides, looking up such trash puts me in a horrible mood.) Self defense is a Classical Value. The "evil, decadent Romans" so often condemned by the moralizers engaged in that so-called "decadent" conduct for many hundreds of years. It wasn't until they lost the ability to defend themselves that Rome fell. Whether by an individual or by a nation, the refusal to defend yourself is true decadence. Definitely NOT a Classical Value.

2003-07-24T14:39:00.000-04:00

A Holistic Cure For years, Uday Hussein suffered from erectile dysfunction. No more. No matter how you look at it, he is now permanently cured. It's a condition known as "stiff." The treatment was more expensive than Viagra, but I think it was worth it. (Link to post-treatment photograph courtesy of Mike Silverman.)

2003-07-23T15:29:00.000-04:00

Catching up with the Classics Sometimes I get so caught up in current events (and distracted by immature ideas about peace) that I forget all about Classical Values. Now I see that while I was doing that, one of the most recent bloggers to link to me, Tim Sandefur has been doing a better job of citing the classical authors than I am:

“If she enquires the names of conquer’d kings, Of mountains, rivers, and of hidden springs, Answer to all thou know’st; and if need be, Of things unknown seem to speak knowingly: This is Euphrates, crown’d with reeds; and there Flows the swift Tigris, with his sea-green hair. Invent new names of things unknown before: Call this Armenia, that the Caspian shore; Call this a Mede, and that a Parthian youth; Talk probably,—no matter for the truth.”

That's Ovid on love. The Romans were quite free and unrestrained in matters of love, and in many ways their attitudes toward love and their attitudes toward war were analogous. They tended not to mix modern morality with either. I love Ovid -- who was of course censored in ancient times, in Renaissance times, and in more recent times.

The Roman poet Ovid was banished from Rome for writing Ars Amatoria (The Art of Love). He died in exile in Greece eight years later. All Ovid's works were burned by Savonarola in Florence in 1497, and an English translation of Ars Amatoria was banned by U.S. Customs in 1928.

Ovid has been put him on stamps too. Wish I had one. In another post, Tim speculated about the bust in the upper right hand corner of my blog -- making a remark which continues to crack me up:

I think it’s cool how he found a Greco-Roman bust of Micky Dolenz.

There are a number of images of Antinous floating around on the Internet, but I think mine is better than any of them. More, er, contemporary looking. But still Classical. The tie-in to Mickey Dolenz clinched it for me. Tim Sandefur, by the way, has distinguished himself as a journalist, attorney, and political gadfly, and I am delighted to report that he similarly excels as a Classical scholar.

2003-07-23T11:48:00.000-04:00

Frankincense, sausage offerings, and other LINKS for PEACE

Si vis pacem, para bellum: If you wish for peace, prepare for war. Cicero

Much as I try to practice the Classical Values, I can't keep up with the kids these days. I really can't. This Frank J. stuff, frankly, is beyond me. Last night I saw that someone had written Frank a long, lovely frankophile sonnet (entitled "Gratuitous Pandering for Linkage, a Sonnet to Frank J.") consisting of some of the most extravagant sycophancy I have ever seen. Frankly, I think the sonnet would impress even the most decadent and cynical Roman emperor. Here, in the interest of complete accuracy (and in furtherance of the Classical Values Peace Plan ©), is the whole thing:

If there were but one perfect site,
A treasure to beguile with prose,
humor, irony, unfair blows,
then here my browser would alight
for funny potshots from the right:
There is none but IMAO's
for reading while your laughter grows
and bringing forth of pure delight.

Sound the applause - sound the alarm!
Let no more puppies instablend,
but only monkeys come to harm.
Buck the Marine will us defend.
Rumsfeld, Chomps and Condi charm
and foes of freedom meet their end.

Whew! This guy's more slick than William Shakespeare -- who couldn't possibly have done that! But the people I worry for are the innocent young kids who so admire Frank that they are willing to do anything to get links -- so they can get ahead in blogging. They are being herded into packs and readied for war. I have complained about the human waste involved, and begged, implored Frank to stop. His response? Well, I got a mention (and I am grateful for the hits Frank), but -- my goal remains PEACE IN OUR TIME. Frank's comment -- "madness is all I got" -- seems to underscore the problem. And ominously, his enemies list grows. In short, something must done to appease Frank. Otherwise, I fear that HEADS will roll! Please, Frank, try a new slogan! Not "INSTAPUNDO DELENDA EST" but PAX POTIOR BELLO!!! Here is what I propose as a peace solution. What Frank really wanted -- what really started this war -- is hits. Originally, Frank was angry because Glenn Reynolds failed to link to him directly as Frank had demanded. Instead, Frank felt ridiculed. Well, I have a plan. A dream for a lasting PAX BLOGIORUM! Now, I don't know whether what I am proposing is a breach of blog ethics (I have only been blogging for two months and, quite frankly, I have never been noted for my ethics anyway, so how would I know, and if I did know how would I care?) To be frank about it, I thought, well, frankly, if Frank wants hits, if all of his allies just started franking their blogs and every time the word "frank" appears in any context (even as a part of a larger word, like "Frankish") they could put a link to http://imao.us/, then maybe, just maybe, Frank would be appeased for a time, and the war at least postponed. My tentative peace/ceasefire plan (and you don't have to be a genius and write syrupy sonnets to do this): Just frank the hell out of your blog. If everyone put the word "frank" with a link to http://imao.us/ each time the word frank appeared, then technorati and truthlaidbear would have alltime new records, Frank's hits would exceed anything in blog history, and war might be averted. It really doesn't matter whether you even spell frank's name right. Some Guy called him Frnak and who cares? As long as the link is there Frnak will get the hits he wants. Frnak? What the hell kind of a frankensteinian name is that anyway? There are ethical considerations, and let me give an example of a line which should not be crossed. I think it is perfectly acceptable to be creative and insert a link to "frank" every time the name or word appears. You could even offer a reading list:

Frankenstein Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin Diary of Anne Frank Dune, by Frank Herbert Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, by Al Franken Etc.

But don't just post a gigantic list consisting of the word "frank." That would be an abuse of the system. Link ethically! Link politically! Link locally! Link globally! Link for peace! Come to think of it, isn't frank another word for "link"? And, to take this a step further, are not such links both the essence of politics and the essence of frank link sausage manufacturing? This is not my opinion, but a long tradition:

"To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making." Otto von Bismarck

How much more frankly political can I get than the above link to Bismarck?

2003-07-22T15:36:00.000-04:00

Think Globally, Blog Locally! Idi Amin died recently -- in Saudi Arabia. Where else? I have seen very little about this monster cannibal -- the "Butcher of Africa" (also notorious for his comradely sponsorship of terrorism at the Entebbe airport), reported anywhere except by blogs like Mike Silverman and Little Green Footballs. What made Idi Amin such a welcome guest of our "ally" Saudi Arabia for so many years? I mean, they're so jaded that I don't think mere cannibalism and mass murder of Ugandans would particularly give the Saudis a hard-on for the guy. Do you think maybe his torture murder of an elderly Israeli woman named Dora Bloch might have had anything to do with it? Not that she matters to anyone in the mainstream press, but here is an account of that poor woman's death:

....an Israeli commando team storms the plane and frees all of the hostages, she had been transported earlier to a hospital. When the hostages were rescued, an angry Ugandan president, Idi Amin, reportedly showed up at the hospital to personally strangle her with his bare hands.

Dora Bloch's murderer (and the murderer of millions of his countrymen) spent his Golden Years happily ensconced in Saudi luxury. With my gas pump money? How is it that Saudi Arabia is able to avoid scrutiny in the mainstream press? I don't know, but God bless the bloggers! Today Glenn Reynolds took time away from his vacation to remind everyone that the Saudi-September 11 "connection still isn't getting enough attention":

Saudi Arabia was deeply implicated in the attacks of September 11. A close associate of the al-Qa'eda hijackers, Omar al-Bayoumi, is alleged to have been working as a Saudi agent, operating from the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles. The Bush administration has censored an entire section from the report, detailing the Saudi role in the events leading up to the attacks.

Censorship. Isn't that a close relative of cover-up? Lest anyone get the wrong idea here, I am not one of these kooks who maintains Bush knew all about the attacks in advance, or that this is all part of the Great Plot by the Globalist Trilateral Skull and Bones Commission to rule the world. There were good reasons for our alliance with Saudi Arabia, as the Telegraph pointed out:

During the Cold War and even later, Soviet-backed secular Arab nationalists, from Nasser and Gaddafi to Saddam and Arafat, posed a greater threat to the West than militant Islam. Saudi Arabia, the richest and longest-established of the Arab states, was treated as a valued ally. American and European governments, accustomed to cordial relations with the Saudis, turned a blind eye to its state religion. Only after the September 11 attacks did the global extent of the Wahhabi menace become clear. From Algeria to Bali, from Tunis to Tel Aviv, from Moscow to Riyadh, Islamist suicide bombers left a bloody trail behind them. In the background lurked the shadowy network of Wahhabi influence.

That is a pretty accurate assessment. So why do we have to go to England to get it? Why does Glenn Reynolds have to take time out of his vacation to make sure? During World War II, the U.S. was allied with Stalin. Once his evil designs were crystal clear, the Soviet Union was recognized and dealt with as the dangerous enemy they were. What's the deal with the Saudis? My local newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer relegated the important story to the inner pages, assigning a new spin: whether or not the knowledge of Saudi involvement could have stopped the attacks.

The informant also may have been introduced to Hani Hanjour, who U.S. officials believe piloted that hijacked plane. Blacked out in the report is a 28-page section that the officials say criticizes Saudi Arabia's government and details its lack of interest in tackling Muslim extremism. The report finds no single piece of intelligence or information that could have stopped the attacks, stating at one point: "The joint inquiry did not uncover a smoking gun."

But the issue is not that kind of "smoking gun"! The issue which is being buried here is our betrayal by an ally. Whether we knew about it in advance, well, that's like asking whether FDR should have known about Stalin's expansionist plans. The point is, the bastards are our enemy, and THAT is what's being covered up. Only a tiny minority of American citizens (100,000 or so who read Glenn Reynolds link to the Telegraph) are able to read the following words:

"Saudi Arabia was deeply implicated in the attacks of September 11."

The rest of us have to fend for ourselves, victims of government whitewashed journalism which will not dare tell us the truth about our enemies, instead mischaracterizing malicious Saudi treachery as Saudi (are you ready?)

"lack of interest"

Technically true. I guess the Russians displayed a similar lack of interest in stopping the actions of their agents during the Cold War. Idi Amin showed a lack of interest in the few years Dora Bloch might have still had left to live. "Blame to go around," says Democrat Roemer. (Would it be too reckless to characterize that remark as "understatement?") Read the whole thing (if indeed this sordid little driblet of censored pabulum can be called a "whole thing") -- and weep.

A side note: I am sorry if I bored anyone by carrying on about Idi Amin, who, as a non-issue, does not deserve top-level coverage anywhere. But during the original Operation Desert Storm back in 1990, I wrote an emotional letter to the Saudi government about how I as an American taxpayer was upset that they sponsored Idi Amin. No reply yet! (And knowledgeable friends told me at the time that all I would get for my efforts would probably be a place on some official list of troublemakers. But as I keep saying, the First Amendment is a good form of exercise!)

2003-07-21T16:27:00.000-04:00

Eyes Only! This post will self destruct in 60 seconds! Glenn Reynolds links to this report about possible secret involvement -- by Saudi government operatives -- with the September 11 hijackers:

The report is sure to reignite questions about whether some Saudi officials were secretly monitoring the hijackers—or even facilitating their conduct. Questions about the Saudi role arose repeatedly during last year’s joint House-Senate intelligence-committees inquiry. But the Bush administration has refused to declassify many key passages of the committees’ findings. A 28-page section of the report dealing with the Saudis and other foreign governments will be deleted. “They are protecting a foreign government,” charged Sen. Bob Graham, who oversaw the inquiry.

Don't you just love government cover-ups? If in fact the Bush administration is protecting the Saudi government, then what are the implications? This is not my speculation, but a question begging to be answered by a series of events: Price Bandar's close relationship with the White House; the spiriting away of bin Laden family members before they could be questioned; and (most suspicious of all in my humble opinion) the role of Saudi Intelligence Chief Turki al Faisal -- who retired from his post just weeks before September 11. Arthur Silber is someone I have cited many times in this blog, and with whom I sometimes do not want to agree, because his conclusions are so deeply disturbing. But regardless of whether I or anyone else agrees with him, his analytical skills are only exceeded by his impeccable integrity. Might Arthur be right about the following?

The roots of that foreign policy have now produced an enormous plant -- one with lengthy tendrils which reach into every corner of our domestic economy, and which simultaneously reach overseas to almost every corner of the globe. The very nature of this international corporate statism profoundly distorts everything it touches: an accurate assessment of genuine threats to our security; a determination of the most efficient, and least intrusive, methods of eliminating those threats; and the overall health of our economy, to name just a few.

I'll go one further and pose the following question: Was September 11 a case of the chickens ("the roots of that foreign policy") coming home to roost? Or, were we simply betrayed by an ally? If the latter is the case (as I would like to believe it is), then WHY THE HELL ARE THEY COVERING IT UP? Then there's Don Watkins echoing similar thoughts on the same subject. Watkins concludes:

Here's what bugs me. Do you think Bush would have covered up this information if it was about Iraq? I mean, Jesus, we just went to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and here's our own government protecting a country which very well might have had something to do with 9/11. How's that for consistency? If the American people really ever did have a right to know something it is this. I hope someone with some goddamn integrity leaks those missing pages.

Before anyone dismisses this as antiwar leftism, remember that Don Watkins devoted a great deal of time to disagreeing with Arthur Silber -- specifically on war issues. But if these views are insufficiently conservative for your tastes, how about Michelle Malkin? (Link courtesy of Arthur Silber.) Or how about the ultraliberal WorldNetDaily? On a practical note, the cover-up is failing, and Liberia isn't a big enough tail to wag. The only thing to do is to release the report and level with the American people. If American voters think the government is covering up involvement by Saudi government operatives, I don't want to think about what they might be ready to do.

On the other hand.... Government cover-ups sometimes can work, if they are bipartisan in nature, and if the government and the media work hand in hand. Just for fun, read this remarkable story. And just in case that doesn't jumpstart your curiosity, read this (spend some time reading through the documents; it's incredibly rich and I am not supposed to talk about it). If that only whetted your appetite, by all means check out this too. What I am quite deliberately daring to talk about here is Vincent Foster. He was Bill Clinton's White House Counsel, who was found shot to death exactly ten years ago today. I am not talking about the unmentionable Mr. Foster because I am trying to shock you, my un-shockable readers. (I know you can take it or you wouldn't be here.) I want to make an important point about the nature of cover-ups. They can work if they are bipartisan in nature and the media cooperate fully. The Vincent Foster case ought to outrage the public, but it cannot get its foot in the door because -- well, how do I put this? If you talk about Vincent Foster, or ask questions like "What happened to Vincent Foster's hard drive?" you will never be invited to the really cool parties, you won't get promoted to any position of responsibility, and intelligent sophistos everywhere will roll their eyes knowingly at each other. You will be considered either an outright mental case, or at the very least, a pathetic right wing conspiracy theorist kook. (Never mind whether a murder is being covered up at the highest levels; let's think about our social status, and what other people might think.) That's why I never discuss the Vincent Foster story at elite cocktail parties. I know better. I first heard about the story ten years ago, and I watched as the cover-up forces -- people who really know how to snub a guy -- deliberately, systematically spun the story way out into the Outer Limits of the First Amendment. Forget completely about whether the official story stinks to high hell; Vincent Foster has been placed in the same league as the Globalist UN Bilderbergers plot, the old fluoride-in-the-water, Council on Foreign Relations, homos-are-taking-over-the-world bullshit. (And people who believe in such things are the only ones whose laughable social standing grants them permission to talk about Vincent Foster.) I never talk about Vincent Foster anymore. I swear I don't. And if perchance I am at one of those elitist parties, if anyone were to ask me about what I just said in this blog, I'd ask "Where's your sense of humor? What's wrong with asking questions about a little murder, or what happened to the victim's hard drive?" It's all in fun. As I said yesterday, the First Amendment is just an exercise. Nothing to ruin your social standing over!

2003-07-20T19:11:00.000-04:00

Prelude to war….in a world gone mad

Accurate scholarship can Unearth the whole offence From Luther until now That has driven a culture mad, Find what occurred at Linz, What huge imago (sic) made A psychopathic god: I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return. -- W.H. Auden, September 1, 1939

With a heavy heart, I must once again admit that I was wrong. I jumped the gun -- not in declaring war, but in declaring peace. "PEACE IN OUR TIME," I said. Well, now it seems a more appropriate slogan should be PIECE IN OUR TIME. With an ominous sense of foreboding, I forced myself to read Frank J. this morning. My heart grew still for a moment, for I realized that the war I had just declared averted is now inevitable. The only positive thing I can say is that this could be the blog war to end all blog wars. Much like World War One, Blog War One seems to have been triggered by series of small, otherwise irrelevant incidents. No one knows or cares much about Archduke Ferdinand (just as people in the real world couldn't care less about the ingredients a man puts in his blender drinks) but such otherwise trivial incidents activate automatic pacts (now posts) which force countries (now bloggers) to line up on one side or the other -- without much regard to national interests. If you think my analogy about the lining up of alliances is flawed, check this out. Absolutely chilling. Even now, I am not at all sure that the good and kindly Professor Reynolds realizes the serious nature of the problem. His link to IMAO no longer goes to that nice young man; it goes to this, this thing. On top of that, there's this post. As for Mr. Wizbang, his remark can only be described as, well, ominous: "I'm fortifying my defenses for the expected counter attack." Not even Andrew Sullivan will be able to escape this war unscathed. Already Frank J. has mentioned ugly rumors about disgusting sexual practices shared by -- GOOD LORD! I CAN'T PUBLISH THIS IN A FAMILY WEB SITE! Can all of this really be happening? I feel like sitting down and weeping over the human waste. OH THE HUMANITY! What a terrible shame it would be to launch a long, bloody, costly, divisive war -- a war pitting blogger against blogger, grinding up and destroying valuable men and resources, and to what end? To turn us all into blog fodder? War! The horror! The horror! But if I must defend myself, defend myself I will. I found another test from Hondonius Aurelius, who said (and I quote):

I hope Frank J. would be proud.

Results?
Smith & Wessen .44 Magnum. You are old school. Fat
Sheriff Deputies fancy you. Reliable but not
too practical.

What handgun are you?
brought to you by Quizilla You know, I might be "old school" (after all this blog is about Classical Values, notwithstanding my satire), but does this test really have to tell me that "Fat Sheriff Deputies" fancy me? Yeccch! But let's get serious. War is a grimly serious business. Notwithstanding my willingness to defend my home and my castle, I nonetheless feel it is my sacred duty to make one last impassioned plea. Please, please.... STOP THE WAR! I conclude by quoting from whence I started:

We must love one another or die. Defenseless under the night Our world in stupor lies; Yet, dotted everywhere, Ironic points of light Flash out wherever the Just Exchange their messages: May I, composed like them Of Eros and of dust, Beleaguered by the same Negation and despair, Show an affirming flame.

Further your affiant saith not.

2003-07-20T14:48:00.000-04:00

In Whose Image? Let me remind readers of the test I took last night which called me an atheist. If only life were that easy! And life can be made almost that easy, if you simply turn off all inquiry into the nature of stuff, and either accept someone else's beliefs about God (regardless of what you think), or simply declare that you are an atheist, and thereby bypass detailed religious arguments (again, regardless of what you think). That would be a lot easier than grappling with stuff which is guaranteed to piss people off. I have found that even talking about the history of religion is enough to piss off numerous people, without even speculating about one's personal beliefs. Anyway, for today I will try to stick with religious history. My beliefs (if any) are irrelevant, but I have just as much right to speculate about why others believe what they do as to speculate why people might have voted for Clinton or Bush. (Glad we have the First Amendment, folks. This ain't Saudi Arabia yet. But I do believe that the First Amendment is a tool for freedom which requires constant maintenance, a set of muscles which must be regularly exercised. If you don't use it, you lose it!) Earlier I asked whether man has the right to be wrong. Now I wish to examine theoretically whether God (or the gods) are entitled to the same right. At the outset, I would note that on the issue of fallibility, the ancient gods win hands down. Here's Roger L. Simon reflecting eloquently on the Kobe Bryant affair:

[M]aybe this is a good thing for us, if not for him. We don't need to make athletes, even ones who can speak Italian in the middle of a three-sixty dunk, into heroes. In fact we don't need to make anyone into heroes. We're all just human and that's it. The whole idea of role models is, well, kind of pathetic. No one can live up to it.... Still, I have to admit I am hugely depressed by the whole thing. Watching Kobe was always a joy, a pleasure to see what the human body could do. The Greeks had it better. They knew we were all fallible and they made their gods that way. Note: Anyone who hasn't done so already should buy Roger Simon's new thriller, a terrifying new twist on "media terrorism."

I agree completely. I never liked the idea of role models either. Nor do I care much for super-authoritarianism. Humanistic or humanized gods therefore appeal to me. Might it be that this tension -- between authoritarian gods and the more human variety -- contributed to the appeal of Christianity? (After all, what better way to humanize a god than by making him a man?) Or did the old original Jehovah have human qualities? You wouldn't know it from the way the fundamentalist fanatics talk, but Alan Dershowitz, a Biblical scholar as well as a legal scholar, maintains that back in the old days, the original God of the Torah not only invited arguments, but that followers are obligated to argue with God:

Using examples, Mr. Dershowitz contends the Bible is a book for the ages. He points to a surprising range of people who invite us to argue with the Bible. Mr. Dershowitz tells why he believes we all have an obligation to argue with God. Mr. Dershowitz suggests that the God of Genesis is an imperfect god.

Once again, I see at least tentative confirmation of one of my theses. The original God of the Hebrews -- from which modern Christianity and Islam evolved -- might not have been quite the monster which some of today's fundamentalist bigots claim he was. At least, not to the ancient Jews. If ancient Jews worshiped a humanistic God, why has that been suppressed? And who suppressed it? I can't speak for the followers of Muhammad, but from what I've seen of Christianity, nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ would transform the god of the Hebrews into the bigoted monster behind September 11. Might a small minority of people be projecting their insecurities? What puzzles me the most about radical "Christian" fundamentalism is how such a doctrine could evolve when it is in such clear contrast to the personality and teachings of Jesus Christ. I have to suspect that some of these folks (especially the men) either hate the real Jesus, or are very uneasy about him and therefore want him recast in a more violent, more "manly" vein. In that regard, the following quote comes to mind:

Jesus was not a sissy!" -- Jerry Falwell

Similarly, a young self-styled "Pagan" who hates homosexuals once told me, "Jesus was a faggot!" (At the time I really didn't know how to respond.) A stubborn problem for some people is that the pure essence of the loving, compassionate, forgiving, turn-the-other-cheek, Jesus is just not something with which they can identify. Might some followers therefore have a major psychological need to transform Christianity into what they deem a "real man's" religion? This is not logical. But then, neither is pick-and-choose fundamentalism, because there is nothing literal about such selective interpretations of the Bible. They are looking for what they want. If these people want to create their own version of intolerant, brutal Christianity, that is their First Amendment right. However, I think they are biting off more than they can chew when they attempt to claim it is the only Christianity. What if the Rapture really occurred, and they were left behind? What then? How can they be so sure of their predestination? Let's move from Falwell's sissy concerns to Saint Sebastian, a favorite theme in Renaissance art. There must have been hundreds if not thousands of versions of that particular martyrdom. Here are some typical examples. For more Sebastian iconography and its interpretation over the years, see this. Much has been made of the choice of Sebastian (favorite of the Emperor Diocletian) as a homo-erotic theme by furtively closeted Renaissance artists. This, I think, is more of a commentary on Renaissance or even modern culture than Roman culture, as once again the Romans did not think in such terms. But then, religious themes have always been used as a "cover" for various works of art which might otherwise have generated controversy. (Cf. Bosch, Bruegel, et al.) In the film "Carrie," Saint Sebastian was featured as a statue in Sissy Spacek's prayer closet. Carrie's fiercely fundamentalist mom ended up pinioned by knives in almost exactly the same position, echoing a theme of Saint Sebastian as a sort of protest saint (if such things are possible). Protest saint or not, I see little evidence that Protestants ever cared much for Sebastian; I would not be surprised if Sebastian played a part in the development of Calvinist austerity. Wow. I really ought to do more research, because the above turns out to be more than my own speculation. Seriously, I just learned that indeed, the Calvinists didn't much care for Sebastian. When they found Saint Sebastian's shrine, they trashed his bones, throwing them into a watery ditch! Similar fates were meted out to Rasputin by the Commies, and to Buddhist statues by the Taliban. Now, if certain Christians are so dissatisfied with what appears to be too much traditional tolerance -- whether by early Hebrews, by Jesus himself, or by his early followers, then what are the implications vis-à-vis Islam? Might some of them have been similarly outraged over the idea of religious tolerance? Might some of them have wanted to come up with more of a "real man's" religion. Does that mean religion is a popularity contest? Or, in blogger language, how many hits are generated by God the Bigot as opposed to God the Compassionate? Bigotry, while never boring (and certain to generate hits) is not my idea of perfection. But then, doesn't that mean we've come full circle in this discussion? If bigotry is a human failing, and if failed human beings have attempted to project that onto God, then isn’t that another example of projecting human frailties onto a deity? Surely, the people who do that ought not object to dissenting views of God. Who gets to argue these things, and who gets to determine whether God is right, or which gods are right? (And I still haven't answered the more perplexing question about whether God has a right to be wrong.) Greek, Roman, or Hebrew, the ancient gods left some room for doubt -- something I think is healthy.

2003-07-20T00:14:00.000-04:00

NOTICE TO ALL VISITORS I am in the process of moving my blog from blogspot to Hosting Matters. There will be some inconvenience, which I hope will be minimal. As of right now, http://classicalvalues.com is temporarily DOWN, but you will still be able to get here by using http://classicalvalues.blogspot.com. In another few days, that too will be engulfed and devoured by the new site. Please keep coming back! This blog will be better, look better, and (hopefully) everything will be more efficient. Who knows, maybe I'll get to add comments so you can all yell at me! Thanks, Eric

2003-07-19T19:16:00.000-04:00

Balance? Having been tested and found to be a liberal asshole, I am relieved to find a ray of hope. I like to think of myself as a Classical liberal (definitely not liberal by modern standards). Now comes Victor Davis Hanson on Classical Values (not my blog, just the concept, which I like to capitalize):

The Greeks were fascinated with the need to adhere to the mean (to meson). The idea became commonplace that there was a sort of natural equilibrium in things that tended to pull events, emotions, and people themselves back to the center, away from both hubris and inaction. I think such a classical concept of the need for balance can explain (though in ways many it would not appreciate) many of the crises of the last two years — at least far better than does the caricature of Mr. Bush and his administration as shoot-from-the-hip cowboys unfamiliar with the unnecessary requisites of polite diplomacy. .... Over the past two years we have been trying to return from an out-of-kilter past to the mean: to a place where terrorists do not believe it is tolerable to poach some Americans, where nations do not unleash their stealthy killers loose against us, where we cease ignoring — or paying bribes — to murderers, and where our allies resemble friends rather than enemies.

Balance? I like that, and I appreciate Mr. Hanson's praise of the ancients. The way some conservatives routinely smear the ancients, it is refreshing to see one highly respected conservative praise them.

2003-07-19T17:55:00.000-04:00

War in our time?

How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing! I would not hesitate to pay even a third visit to Germany, if I thought it would do any good. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me; but if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted. Under such a domination, life for people who believe in liberty would not be worth living; but war is a fearful thing, and we must be very clear, before we embark on it, that it is really the great issues that are stake. Neville Chamberlain, 1938

Now that I have established my right to be wrong, I can begin my wrongheaded freefall into my private liberal hell. Liberals have just as much right to be wrong as conservatives do, but they are so much better at it that many people think they're right. So do they. I say this even though I confess to being a Classical liberal. And considering some of the things I read, sometimes I wonder whether I am a real liberal. From The Bitch Girls via my blogfather I learned that Sarah Brady -- NOT a Classical liberal -- is against Howard Dean. That fact alone militates very much in Dean's favor. If Sarah Brady is against something, I tend to feel that I should be for it. So, am I now a liberal? Well, if THAT didn't convince you that I am a liberal, then how about the latest test I took, which makes me look not only like a liberal, but like a despicable fool!
Threat rating: extremely low. You may think you can
subvert the government, but if you should try
you will be smited mightily because God likes
us best.

What threat to the Bush administration are you?
brought to you by Quizilla Link to test courtesy of Hondonius Aurelius (not sure if he's related to Marcus…). So, thanks to these warning signs, I am deeply, deeply worried that I am a liberal -- or at least developing liberal tendencies. But, as if that wasn't bad enough, I recently discovered that I am also an asshole!
your asshole.

What swear word are you?
brought to you by Quizilla Imagine that! A liberal, an asshole, and (unless I am serious) a clown! This puts me dangerously close to taking sides in a war I would rather avoid; the Liberal Assclown War. I sure am glad Frank J. has called it off! (And more than anything, I hope the intel is accurate.) Because history shows that liberal assclowns have a very poor track record of preventing wars. Where would that have left me? I would have been on both sides in this war, which means I'd have been sawed in two. Instapundit linked to me, and IMAO also linked to me, even complimenting me on my age. I was also placed in Frank's Peace Gallery. (That's for "Peace in our time" isn't it?) This made me feel doubly honored, and duty bound to stop this awful war. Glad I don't have to.

2003-07-19T14:27:00.000-04:00

Wrong by right Is there a right to be wrong? This question is often posed by philosophers, some of whom maintain that there is no such right, usually because of the duty to the good to which all men must aspire. Certainly, there is no moral right to be wrong, particularly if such a state of wrongness is grounded in a deliberately sophistic mindset. An example of this would be a deliberate insistence (by a person who obviously knew better) that the earth is flat, or that the Holocaust never occurred. But is there a legal right to insist -- quite deliberately wrongly -- that the earth is flat? Of course there is! That is the essence of freedom, notwithstanding the protestations of some moralists. It might be absurdly wrongheaded, but there is still a legal right to be deliberately wrong. It follows necessarily that there is also a right to be mistakenly wrong, whether one knows one is mistaken or not. In a piece titled "Hey, It Was Consensual Adult Sex--What's the Big Deal?"Clayton Cramer argues that homosexual sex followed by murder followed by cannibalism is analogous to consensual sex without the ghoulish sequelae. To me, that's a little like saying that permitting the elderly to drive countenances this, which it doesn't. (Not to blame conservatives any more than liberals for it, but quite frankly, I am sick of the growing national trend of punishing the good for the actions of the bad. I can't have a gun or a pit bull or a cell phone in my car because bad people shoot people and sic their pit bulls on people and run over them while they talk on cell phones? Our supposedly free country is being transformed into a vast national kindergarten.) Consent, by the way, should never be allowed as a defense to a charge of murder, for solid public policy reasons. The victim is by definition dead, and is unable to be a witness, and even if one had his signed agreement and a video of him agreeing to be murdered, there is no way to know that this was not coerced. Mr. Cramer has as much right legally to his opinion as I do, though. This is not moral relativism, because the moral value of his argument is not a legal matter, nor should it be. Plenty of immoral behavior is legal, though, and being wrong in one's opinions, thoughts, or conclusions is only one example. Were society to make it illegal to be wrong, we would have no freedom. That is because there is no universally agreed upon standard of what is wrong. There never has been and there never will be. I tend to agree with the ancients, who believed that good men want to do good, but that does not settle the argument, because it is perfectly possible for two men of good will to disagree completely. What is tyrannical is when one man demands obedience to his opinion. The number makes no difference; 100 million people demanding obedience to their opinions is equally tyrannical. The right to be wrong is a cornerstone of freedom. Without it, we would all be at the mercy of those who have enough power to declare themselves "right" and criminalize disagreement. I say this as I freely admit that having the wrong opinions can be a form of immorality. Thus, in this instance I think immorality should be legal. To say otherwise would, in my view, be immoral. But legal. (Why is it that I don't think those who disagree would allow me the same latitude I allow them? If only the Golden Rule worked both ways!)

2003-07-18T23:26:00.000-04:00

Quote of the day (not that I need a quote of the day; it's just that I found one)

"I just let people assume. Its not my fault their assumptions aren't always accurate."

From this site via AgendaBender -- who also displays his artistic contribution to the war effort. AAAAGENDABENDER HU AKHBAR! I could use the above quote as a starting point for a very lengthy rant. But not tonight.

2003-07-18T13:23:00.000-04:00

New Emanations, Old Penumbras?

Be not afraid of any man, no matter what his size. When danger threatens, call on me, and I will equalize. Colt pistol advertisement, 19th Century.

Nobody likes new ideas, but I want to raise a legal question and I can't find much law in support of my position. I was practicing law the last time this happened. I was arguing a novel position in the Alameda County Superior Court, and my opponent slammed me viciously, saying, "Your Honor, Mr. Scheie cannot cite a SINGLE CASE for his position." Humiliated, I spent much of the night in the law library, until I finally found a case, which was right on point! The court had given both of us another day to do some more research, and I felt quite proud of myself for having found a case. But do you think my opponent was happy at my legal breakthrough? Hell no! When I cited the case, he promptly sneered, "Your Honor, that is just ONE CASE!" (He had found nothing to rebut my position, so my clients won.) Inconsistencies bother the hell out of me, and I cannot understand the mentality of people who on the one hand believe in a vastly expanded "zone of privacy" -- from Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception) to Roe v. Wade (abortion) and on through to Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy) -- but who think there is no right to possess firearms within that same zone. There is said to be a "penumbra" emanating from various portions of the Constitution, or even deriving from the concept of freedom itself. Emanations from this penumbra, says the court, give us the right to privacy in our homes which has been expanded over the years, ultimately to the point where states have lost the right to restrict it. It seems that in general, conservatives tend to dislike the expansion of privacy to deny states' rights, while liberals are all for it. Are they? Is privacy is now the law of the land? If the right to privacy, deriving as it does from the common law notion that a man's home is his castle, does not include the right to defend it, then of what value is such a right? Is it privacy at all? If, in the name of privacy, a woman is allowed to have an abortion, if contraceptives and sodomy are allowed in the home, it does not take much imagination to see that privacy must also allow guns in the home. Furthermore the Second Amendment recognized that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Retroactive by implication, the language makes clear that the right to keep and bear arms not only predated Griswold, Roe, and Lawrence, it predated the Constitution itself. I submit that the right to be armed is at the essence of privacy and of freedom -- part of that core bundle of rights from which all penumbra emanate -- whether the courts have said so or not. But wait! Hold on, your Honor! I have found a case! Just one case (and a dissent within the penumbra of the case at that), but it's still a case! Here is the citation: QUILICI v. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982):

[N]othing could be more fundamental to the "concept of ordered liberty" than the basic right of an individual, within the confines of the criminal law, to protect his home and family from unlawful and dangerous intrusions. The court today has also refused to recognize the tremendous impact of Morton Grove Ordinance No. 81-11 on personal privacy rights. There is no doubt that the right to one's privacy is afforded constitutional protection. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized a right to privacy implicit in the federal constitution. The Morton Grove Ordinance, by prohibiting the possession of a handgun within the confines of the home, violates both the fundamental right to privacy and the fundamental right to defend the home against unlawful intrusion within the parameters of the criminal law. There is no area of human activity more protected by the right to privacy than the right to be free from unnecessary government intrusion in the confines of the home. .... The right to privacy is one of the most cherished rights an American citizen has; the right to privacy sets America apart from totalitarian states in which the interests of the state prevail over individual rights. A fundamental part of our concept of ordered liberty is the right to protect one's home and family against dangerous intrusions subject to the criminal law. Morton Grove, acting like the omniscient and paternalistic "Big Brother" in George Orwell's novel, "1984", cannot, in the name of public welfare, dictate to its residents that they may not possess a handgun in the privacy of their home. To so prohibit the possession of handguns in the privacy of the home prevents a person from protecting his home and family, endangers law-abiding citizens and renders meaningless the Supreme Court's teaching that "a man's home is his castle."

Bear in mind, this is the dissenting opinion. (If you like, you can read the poorly reasoned majority opinion here.) There may be more cases discussing the Second Amendment in a privacy context, but I think the above supplies at least a good starting point. Dissenting opinion or not, I think it's brilliant. The fact that it is twenty years older than Lawrence's expansion of the privacy penumbra is actually an argument in its favor: yesterday's dissent should be the law of the land today (an oft-recurring legal theme). My question is quite simple: Might Lawrence have breathed new, unanticipated, life into the Second Amendment? If liberals will not admit this, then what does that say about their consistency? Likewise, if conservative purists cannot stomach citing Lawrence to support the Second Amendment, maybe some gay gun think tank could come along and argue in the alternative. One thing is clear: some Second Amendment supporters do not like Lawrence and the privacy cases. Here is my question to them: How does it harm the Second Amendment to claim that Lawrence has breathed new life into it? (Might Lawrence have even strengthened the Second Amendment?) Legally, it is sometimes a good idea to argue theories in the alternative. I see no reason to establish a division between Second Amendment supporters and right-to-privacy supporters. They should be able to work together when they find common ground, and complement each other's efforts. No matter what you're allowed do inside your home, it ain't much of a castle if you can't defend it!

2003-07-18T00:31:00.000-04:00

URGENT UPDATE: I posted this yesterday, but there may still be people coming here from Instapundit's link. If so, please read this before you do anything else. To anyone who is here today because of Glenn Reynolds' link, I would rather have you immediately visit my blogfather's home page, scroll down on the left hand column to the picture of the cats, and help him out. Please do that rather than get distracted here. (Not that I don't want you to read my blog, but Jeff is in dire straits right now. As I said earlier, I wouldn't be blogging but for his help.) Thanks, Eric

2003-07-18T00:18:00.000-04:00

Legalize WHAT? (Permissiveness can be carried too far, you know....) Wow! Instapundit reports that Senator Biden may be experiencing second thoughts about his anti-RAVE legislation. Does that mean WATER may become legal again? I kid you not! Yes, dear friends, pure, simple, water is yet another casualty of the War on Drugs. (Biden discovered that the kids like to drink the notorious substance when they get high on Ecstacy and work up a sweat dancing, so his bill treats water as "drug paraphernalia.") But if we're lucky, night club owners just might be allowed to turn the bathroom faucets back on! Or even (gasp) sell bottled water! Talk about going soft on the war on drugs! And just when we were winning? In an earlier blog, I said that I never thought I would see the day when I would have to advocate such a thing as this -- and I will dare to advocate it again right here:

End the Culture War now. Restore Classical Values. Legalize water.

Where else can you find a free country which passes legislation declaring war on: speech, association, and.... on WATER? "The Drug War must be fought on all fronts." Even the, er, water front? Here here! (Or, to pinch a favorite phrase from a favorite blogger Don Watkins, "No, seriously.") UPDATE: Speaking of getting serious, did you know that Roman citizens were allowed to petition the Emperor? Outrageous as the idea sounds, American citizens are (at least I think they are) still allowed to write to Senator Biden.

2003-07-17T16:44:00.000-04:00

A Good Archetype The Arch of the Minneapolis Train Station (featured in today's Bleat) reminded me of that gaping hole left by the savage destruction of the Twin Towers New York, and the nagging problem of what to put in it. While Lileks is not happy with the pointless nature of the Minneapolis arch (nor with the fact that a perfectly good street was destroyed in the bargain), he's nonetheless impressed by the grandeur of the thing:

It’s huge. My GOD it’s huge. The arches - which serve no function; they're purely decorative - are meant to echo the Stone Arch Bridge, an historic railroad structure that’s now a pedestrian walkway, and part of the extraordinary new riverfront redevelopment. It’s lovely, and it’s impressive, but for heaven’s sake look at the SIZE of that thing.

I can certainly see Lileks' point about the pointlessness of arches which serve no function, and the Minneapolis arch array is a bit, er, modernistic for my tastes. But what about majestic arches that do serve a function? What is function, anyway? While an arch like the one in today's Bleat would seem to elevate form over function, if we look at the history of single, standing arches, their form often IS their function -- provided, of course, that the function is the representation of an important idea. A good discussion of Roman arches (with nice links) can be found here Roman arches were huge, and like the arches featured by Lileks, not intended to be functional in the sense of going anywhere, but unlike the latter the Roman arches were there to make an important statement, in a majestically imposing, esthetically pleasing way. Examples:

Triumphal (Titus) And check out the view of the Roman Colosseum through this view of the same arch.

Triumphal (Constantine)

Or (for a more modern, French example) how about both Triumphal and Commemorative? If the French can celebrate their victories and memorialize their dead, why can't we? In my earlier blog on the subject, I complained about the demoralizing aspect of that gaping hole, and, noting New York's incredibly rich Classical architectural heritage, proposed a Classical solution. Admittedly, my satirical suggestion of reproducing the Colosseum and holding a series of victory games will never be on the Republican or Democrat agenda. But still, I am genuinely surprised that not one architect has considered the importance of having at least a Classical element. This makes no sense to me, as the history of the city, its architecture, and the nature of the events of September 11 evoke one theme: LEST WE FORGET Something is called for which will meet the test of time. The image of the arch (whether triumphal or commemorative) will do that. Literally, they span human history. They don't take up much space, especially when you consider that the World Trade Center area covers sixteen acres. And, considering that the preexisting nature of the demolition, we don't have to tear down a perfectly good street in Minneapolis to build one.

2003-07-17T09:37:00.000-04:00

Are You A NERD? Test yourself at home! This is the FOURTH one of these silly online tests I have taken. The first one said I was a wolf, the second gave my blog a very lame rating of only PG-13, the third said I was going to the Seventh Level of Hell, and now I am told that I am only 24% nerd. A quarter nerd? I would have thought I'd done better than that. (After all, some of my best friends are nerds.) I don't like the word "Geek" -- as it is often confused with "Greek." This causes all kinds of confusion, especially with the young and impressionable... As a matter of fact, I am not all that comfortable with "NERD" at this site. It looks too much like "NERO" and could also cause confusion. I mean, if I said

NERD FIDDLED WHILE ROME BURNED

wouldn't you be confused too?

You are 24% geek

OK, so maybe you ain't a geek. You do, at least, show a bit of interest in the world around you. Either that, or you have enough of a sense of humor to pick some of the sillier answers on the test. Regardless, you're probably a pretty nifty, well-rounded person who gets along fine with people and can chat with just about anyone without fear of looking stupid or foolish or overly concerned with minutiae. God, I hate you.

Take the Polygeek Quiz at Thudfactor.com

(Link courtesy of Common Sense and Wonder.)

2003-07-16T16:52:00.000-04:00

A Deadly Silence Arthur Silber has taken on war advocates for not acknowledging the human costs of the policies they advocate:

I find it reprehensible that these people seemingly addicted to war cannot even take a few minutes to acknowledge the terrible costs incurred by those people their policies have placed in harm's way -- particularly when the greatest danger they themselves face is a broken fingernail as they type their endlessly hawkish posts on their keyboards (urging us on to Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Iran, or North Korea), safe in their comfortable, danger-free middle or upper-middle-class homes.

Arthur has a good point here, no question about it. I don't think I am addicted to war (I don't know whether I fit into the "war blogger" category or not), but I never forget what others have to face. Many face death. Still more face serious life-threatening injuries often disabling them for life. Even those lucky enough never to be wounded or killed face a daily battle with the elements unimaginable to guys like me, who suffer little more than occasional mouse-related carpal issues. Here's just one example, from last week (it is long, but worth the read, particularly for those armchair warriors who never think about the consequences of policies they advocate):

Friday, July 11, 2003 We are in the midst of a sand storm, the likes of which I have not seen for quite some time. We have all retreated to our tents of choice, which for me is the old bombed out radio station. Actually it serves me quite well as a place for refuge and protection during one of these horrendous whirlwinds that come our way ever so often. We have spent much time securing every crack and crevice, to make this old building as sand proof as possible. Regardless of our efforts, the sand has crept through into our inner sanctuary laying a fine coat of sand down on everything around us. No matter how many times we wipe it off, with in minutes the sand like a plague returns to pester our lives. It is as if the sand is looking for its own resting place away from the wind that is constantly twirling it about like inside of a large dryer. The wind is howling outside screaming let me enter your place of refuge, to dump my load on everything in sight. We are all covered with many layers of this fine silt, changing the color of our skin as if we all worked inside some kind of a milling operation. Even though it is not visible to the naked eye, one swipe of my hand across my brow reveals a coarseness to the touch confirming the sands presence. Our computers need constant care to prevent them from clogging up their systems. The tables, the chairs, the books and papers, are all like sand magnets pulling sand in from the air we breathe perhaps to diminish the quantity accessible to our lungs. We have covered up every hole, every opening, and every window, all to no avail. It is coming in no matter what. With every entrance into the building a gust of wind and sand that has been waiting for this opportunity jumps inside whirling about like dancing gypsies. Along with the heat we have learned to adjust to our cohabitation with sand. Today several times I have been forced to venture outside, beyond the walls of this brick oven. Before leaving I secure my hat and papers walking outside into the fierceness of the winds anger, which has picked up a load of sand along the way, hitting any bare skin like minute bee bees. Even with goggles my vision is impaired, not being able to see more than a few feet ahead. It is at times like a total sand black out; with the tents, the equipment, the vehicles all disappearing behind this khaki colored cloak of wind and sand, making it almost impossible to breath. I wonder at times how my lungs are going to dispose of the shear quantities I have inhaled or will it just settle to the bottom like what happens in our water heaters at home. I am waiting for it to resurface in some form to be coughed up into large mud balls. Just when I was starting to think we were rid of these storms, they pounced upon us again to remind us of our own frailties as human beings living in our varied environments. We do adapt and adjust regardless of the severity. All of us for the most part have become accustomed to the extreme 130 plus temperatures, the constant battle with the sand, and the almost lifeless desert landscape. As I attempt to walk I lean into the wind to keep moving in a forward direction being careful not to lose my step. I know the way so I rely on my instincts to direct me, hoping that I end up at my destination. But it is our way of life. Yesterday as I worked out in the pens for about 5 hours, I was forced to cope with the ever present blowing of the desert wind. I had the unique experience of interviewing the generals while battling the weather. We were in a tent but like all ways it found its way inside, with huge gusts of sand blowing in across us, covering every inch of us in a thick layer. I wasn't complaining, this time I was actually glad for the rough conditions, which I will now explain. Today was probably the best day out here in the desert. I just really had an extremely great day. It started out like any other day, but little did I know what was in store for me. I was not prepared totally for the events that were to follow. (Link via LTSmash, via Instapundit.)

I can't read something like that (much less read about deaths) and not be deeply affected by it. I am particularly sensitive for two reasons. First, I wanted to serve in the military myself (and spoke to recruiters at two different times in my life), but I never did, primarily because, I figured, the gay issue would come up sooner or later in the course of a background check. I am outspoken, and have had innumerable associates, friends, and legal clients who have been, hmmm, how should I put this? far more outspoken than I, and who certainly ranked high in the FBI's hall of subversive fame. (Don't expect me to name names, either.) I would have been outed, regardless of whether I asked or told. Anyway, the issue of military service for homosexuals has been a sore spot for me, one which I blogged about recently. The second reason I am sensitive about the fatal consequences policies can have is that I watched so many of my friends die of AIDS, and I blamed myself because I had (at least so I was told) advocated a lifestyle (if not that, then at least advocacy of a particular form of love) which had killed them. Rationally, love is not the same thing as war, but death is death, and the dead are dead. AIDS did kill more Americans than died in Vietnam. Rationally, I don't think I am responsible for the deaths of either group, but I am a human being, with the usual human feelings, which are not always rational. I will always feel guilty because my friends died and I did not. (I watched moral conservatives and the gay movement blaming each other for AIDS deaths. Regardless of blame, I still suffered.) Anyway, Arthur is right about denial. Denial of the reality of war is dishonest and immoral. War supporters who ignore the constantly-mounting casualties, while they may not be responsible for them, should take some time to acknowledge war's terrible costs. There is no better soldier in the country than this guy, who would be the last person to ever deny the horrible realities of war. His site is well worth a visit, as a reminder.

2003-07-16T11:17:00.000-04:00

The "dumb" Mr. Bush? Are Democrats stampeding into an ambush? Former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force Jack Kelly, (also former Green Beret, and national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) delivers the following warning:

….Democrats can dig themselves into a deep hole if they make extravagant antiwar and anti-Bush statements now that prove false later. Federal Appeals Court Judge Gilbert Merritt is one of 13 experts the Justice Department sent to Iraq to rebuild the judicial system there. Judge Merritt (a Democrat) wrote in the Nashville Tennessean on June 25 that he has seen a document, allegedly written by Saddam's son Uday that proves that an intelligence officer assigned to the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan was "responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group." Former Navy Secretary John Lehman is heading the congressional commission investigating September 11. Mr. Lehman has told reporters that classified information he has seen indicates Iraq trained al Qaeda operatives in how to prepare and deliver anthrax. Al Jazeera reporter Hamid Mir says he has "personal knowledge" of an attempt by an Iraqi intelligence operative to contact bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998, former Clinton administration official Jessica Stern writes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. Both the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a retired Air Force general have hinted that the Bush administration has more evidence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction than it is letting on. When might Mr. Bush make such information public? Perhaps when Democrats have gone too far out onto the antiwar limb to crawl back. Democrats may be racing into an ambush that Mr. Bush will spring at a time of his choosing.

Might it be true that the Bush administration has more evidence about WMDs than they let on? If so, then the Democrats (and the left in general) have seriously underestimated a popular Republican president. It wouldn't be the first time. If Mr. Kelly's warning doesn't quite jumpstart your political imagination, consider it in the context of this intriguing report about the French origins of the (allegedly) forged intelligence about Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger:

the president’s accusers may soon have to eat their words. A growing number of sources demonstrate President Bush’s words were accurate and based on intelligence that originated . . . with the French.

It is not my purpose here to defend Bush. (As a libertarian, I am highly suspicious and distrustful of both parties.) Rather, I am wondering whether his attackers -- blinded by an all-consuming hatred of Bush -- (how many times have they said this was "worse than Watergate"?) will spend the next two or so years trapped in an ambush they thought they had laid. Who is really being ambushed? Maybe the Democrats could ask this guy. (As to long term political fallout, is this merely a tar baby? Or might it be more on the level of mass extinction?)

2003-07-15T19:41:00.000-04:00

Disturbing thoughts I sincerely hope are wrong Are words like "privatization" and "competitive sourcing" becoming code language for increased entanglement between big government and big business? Leading Objectivist scholar Arthur Silber has a very interesting post on the subject. It is long, but worth reading carefully. Arthur warns:

Leave aside for the moment your particular opinion about the advisability (or lack thereof) of any of these particular policies, and the very obvious political bias which informs this presentation, and focus instead on the general phenomenon: the blurring of the distinction between the public and private spheres, and the manner in which business and government become indistinguishable from one another. .... [T]he Republicans demonstrate that they have learned nothing from history (except how to direct government power to their own ends), and are not concerned at all with actually freeing the economy from governmental constraints -- because they once more merely ape what the Democrats did before them: [quote] .... [C]apitalism and the free market are made to bear the brunt of criticism which, in fact, ought to be directed at government intervention. In this case, it is privatization that becomes the villain -- and this is precisely the kind of thing that gives privatization a bad name, even though it is not genuine privatization at all: [quote] .... I emphasize again that these manipulations and this alliance between government and certain business interests have nothing at all to do with genuine capitalism. This is the exact counterpart of the "outsourcing" I discussed in Part III: using nominally private business to do the government's work, thus disguising the costs to the taxpayer, and fundamentally distorting the political process. I do not think most people understand this phenomenon, but it is one that now dominates both domestic and foreign policy, fundamentally altering the goals of policies in both arenas. And in fact, outsourcing itself is another weapon deployed by the Republicans in their efforts to create a governmental-business giant, one which is taking over more and more of our economy: [quote]

This is very disturbing, certainly by any informed libertarian standard. As I have said before, I do not like the use of language to manipulate people -- especially where well-meaning libertarians might be hoodwinked into supporting the antithesis of what they want. One of the things I learned in Berkeley is that if you make things complicated enough, and stultifying enough, your enemies will be exhausted, and ordinary citizens will never figure out what you're doing. In this case, I worry that libertarians (especially the live-and-let-live, small "l" variety like yours truly) will never realize what is going on, instead accepting the assurances that government is being made smaller by "privatization." If the reverse is going on -- a major power grab by a new government and big business nexus -- the citizens should at least know about it. As a free market advocate, I wouldn't want to be forced to become "anti-business!" Most of all, I hope small businesses aren't being given the shaft. Additional note: My discussion cannot do justice to Arthur's meticulous analysis. If you got this far, you are hereby ordered to "read the whole thing!"

2003-07-15T15:23:00.000-04:00

The Ultimate Ad Somebody has finally figured it all out. Stream and scream! (Link courtesy of Vodkapundit, via Horologium, via Instapundit.) Jeez, do I really have to put all those links in just to avoid plagiarizing what I really didn't plagiarize?

2003-07-15T10:47:00.000-04:00

URGENT: PLEASE HELP MY BLOGFATHER! I haven't been blogging all that long, and the last thing I would do would be to ask for money. Not that I oppose the free market system, but blogging is largely an idea sharing network which operates as an alternative to the commercialized information infrastructure, and I see a genuine sense of community among bloggers which depends on integrity -- something money can't buy. That does not mean bloggers should not take care of each other and help each other out on a voluntary basis. There have been a number of stories about some of the big bloggers raising hundreds of thousands of dollars by asking for money, and as a libertarian I do not oppose that. But my blogfather really, really needs money, and I am deadly serious. He hasn't raised much, and I have sent him what I could. He is on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot pay his medical and dental bills. (Bankruptcy is one of the worst things that can happen to you -- and I speak from personal experience.) Anyone who has enjoyed anything I have written has Jeff to thank for it, because he encouraged me and blogfathered me when I had zero hits, zero links, and not much of an idea what I was doing. Jeff has been a longtime asset to the blogosphere, a credit to the Second Amendment, and an inspiration to all homosexuals seeking self respect (especially the right to think independently, which is the essence of human dignity). Please go to Jeff's blog, and scroll down to the picture of the cats. Click on that, and you can contribute via Paypal. Thank you! Eric

2003-07-15T08:12:00.000-04:00

Now you see it, now you don't! Years of news stories do not provide evidence? Late last week, Glenn Reynolds linked to this article by his former employer, Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, described as "a lifelong Democrat and a man of unimpeachable integrity." Then yesterday, Instapundit offered plenty of links to stories about the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Particularly interesting were the old stories, documenting al Qaeda links from 1999. This was shortly followed by this link -- to a huge pile of news stories documenting Osama bin Laden's Iraqi connections. Of course, most of the reports were before Bush was in the White House. This morning, the Weekly Standard called the Instapundit "indispensable". The Standard goes on to report links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda going back to 1998. What I want to know, what happened to all these old news stories? Was Saddam Hussein's slate wiped clean once Bush was elected? For more than six months, I have been reading -- over and over again -- that there are "absolutely" no links or connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Old news vanished. I don't think the problem is so much a short public memory span, so much as it is one of the mainstream media simply not reporting news -- new stories are ignored while old stories disappear. Either way, Glenn Reynolds is indispensable!

2003-07-14T23:43:00.000-04:00

From guilt to innocence and back Ah, the good old days. Before the War. There is no experience like the feelings of nostalgia that can sneak up on you when you take a lazy Sunday drive in the country, in a pre-war automobile. Which war is that, you ask? Let's see.... That would have been the War to End All Wars, as the car I was riding in was made in 1913. A 1913 Buick Model 25 Touring Car, restored by a Buick dealer in the still good old days of the early 1960s. This car is a fully drivable restoration, not one of those fussy museum pieces you'd be afraid to take out on the road. When the dealership had it restored, it wasn't much older than a car sold by the dealership in the early 60s would be now. Gives you some perspective on time. In 1913 my father was four years old. Drugs -- marijuana, cocaine, heroin, you name it -- were all completely legal in this country, and available without prescription. World War I had not started, although the "winds of war" were blowing then, as they always are. And that 1913 Buick was on the road clattering along, lurching through the gears, at a top speed of about 40. Amazing that no one had thought of valve covers; you have to lubricate the push and rocker assemblies manually with a little oil can before each trip. Park the car and oil drips on the ground. To start the engine, you must cup your hand, thumb backwards, on the underside of the crank, then give it a yank upwards, making sure to pull back your hand when it engages. Otherwise, you can break your hand or dislocate your thumb if the crank kicks back. I rode in the open back seat, which had a carriage feel to it. The crude suspension and mechanical brakes made the ride distinctly rougher than any car today, and I was reminded of riding in a World War II Willis Jeep. Because of the open valves and primitive exhaust system, the engine made a noise which at first sounded a bit like a diesel, but listening more closely I could hear little puffing and hissing noises, of the sort you hear in an old two stroke farm engine. If you want to hear the engine sound, you can. Simply go to this web page, and click on 1913 Buick. It is the exact same sound I heard yesterday. The world was still a pretty innocent place when that car was made, and it wasn't all that long ago.

2003-07-14T23:17:00.000-04:00

Once again, I stand accused, misunderstood! Mike Silverman posted this test, and I just took it. In the interests of fairness, I think I should disclose that I am a very bad person, even though I am not. I am NOT a lustful, prodigal, avaricious, wrathful, gloomy, violent, fraudulent, malicious panderer! What I cannot understand is why it says that I am violent, because I am a very gentle person, neither violent nor bad tempered in any way. Nor am I prone to even the slightest dishonesty or malice. Why, I wouldn't even engage in the mildest exaggeration! So, just wait till I get my hands on the bastards who designed this test! I hereby sentence them to die the same miserable death I promised the awful spammers! Test designers, your fate awaits! The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Seventh Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	Moderate
Level 2 (Lustful)	High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	Moderate
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	High
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	High
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	Low
Level 7 (Violent)	Very High
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	Very High
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	Very Low

Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test

2003-07-14T16:39:00.000-04:00

Is this a matter of bright and wrong? Thanks to the Imperialist Dog, I just found the most complete dissection yet of an annoying topic which is fast becoming tedious: the use of the highly manipulative term "bright." Why the constant need to come up with new, exclusive, elitist terms designed to make like-minded people feel better about themselves at the expense of others? Sure, it's fun to be bright! That's because if you're bright, others are by definition dim. Dim is of course an alliterative synonym for dumb (itself an invitation to further political alliteration -- "dumb, dumber, dubya…"). Why the sudden display of militant triumphalism of the bright? I don't know, but I am a tad suspicious. I don't like manipulation of language for concealed political ends. Not to defend the obviously "dumb" (and certainly not "bright") Mr. Bush, but there is something just ever so more than slightly evocative of a political aroma here. "Bright" being released as an adjective right now just feels, well, political. I can't prove political intent (and, of course, the brights claim to be above politics), but I dislike being manipulated by words, and I refuse to hang my head in shame if and when the Bright People take over The World. If they keep pushing this nonsense, I'll just call myself a "blight."

2003-07-14T15:07:00.000-04:00

Sins of the flesh.... Baptist Cannibals? Now that's a new one. (Again, thanks to Instapundit.) Read all about it here. Really now, I thought I'd heard everything. Remember the good old days, when cannibalism used to be a charge only leveled at pagans? Remember "heathen cannibals"? How times change! For years, guys like Robertson have scolded, heckled, hectored, and hounded perfectly reasonable people with endless charges of "moral relativism." And now, they are supporting cannibals -- as long as they're Baptist cannibals. So how come they won't support Baptist homosexuals, anyway? Reynolds also links to a very astute blogger who proposes simply ignoring Pat Robertson from now on. Does that mean he's dead meat? Can he be "cured?"

LIBERAL UPDATE: In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the Reverend Jesse Jackson also supports the Baptist Cannibal. (Also, "It is possible that either, or both, of these men were duped.") So I guess I should be more forgiving, and chalk it all up to just another matter of taste. Bon Appetit!

2003-07-13T06:25:00.000-04:00

States' Rights for Me, But Not for Thee What the hell happened to "states' rights?" asks Arthur Silber. A good question, and one which I've blogged about before. As Arthur says,

conservatives only use that doctrine when it gives them the result they want. When it doesn't, forget about it, and let's federalize everything.

That's why I found it so difficult to go along with the argument many conservatives were making in Lawrence v. Texas. They do not apply the doctrine of states' rights consistently. As I posted earlier:

many conservatives are all for states rights when a state is trying to take away freedom, but let that same state dare attempt to expand freedom (as in the case of liberalized marijuana laws), and they'll goose step all over everyone in the name of federal supremacy.

Well, it didn't take long for another piece of evidence to appear, did it? The ink on Lawrence v. Texas is barely dry! And the issue? Medical marijuana, what else? Worse yet, Arthur makes the point that they compound this hypocrisy with an even greater hypocrisy, by demanding the courts step in and enforce their version of the Culture War:

But the hypocrisy of Bush and his gang is even worse. What about those voter initiatives that approved decriminalizing marijuana use for medical purposes? Well, we can't have that, the people expressing their will by "democratic" means. So let's use the courts to get the result we want -- which is precisely the charge that all the conservatives made about the recent Supreme Court sodomy decision, for example.

Anyway, read Arthur's post, and this story, and then weep. Don't expect the conservatives to whine and complain about the federal government stomping all over the rights of states, and using the courts to enforce the Culture War. Such overreaching is just fine -- but only when they happen to like the result. One thing I have learned: if you believe in principles, stay the hell out of politics. (You might try blogging instead.)

2003-07-12T13:06:00.000-04:00

URGENT UPDATE AND NOTICE Apparently I must make it clear once again that this website engages in satire! I am already getting apparently genuine hate mail from people who imagine that I am a supporter of the Orange Order! While it is ridiculous on its face that such a thing would happen, I think because I am a new and not well-known blogger, the situation calls for a disclaimer. Ahem. I, Eric Scheie, do not support the Orange Order in any way, shape or form. Whether William of Orange was gay (or homosexual, or whatever you might want to call him) is not relevant to the Orange Order or my opinions of that organization. My purpose here is to poke fun at hatred in general, and move the world towards tolerance. Satire is one tool I use, so please take that into account. If anyone was offended, I suggest you reread this piece, and, please, think. Remember, please read the following with caution.... And try to keep an open mind. Orange you glad today's your anniversary?

Poor croppies you know that your sentence has come, When you hear the dread sound of the Protestant drum! In memory of William we hoisted his flag, And soon the bright Orange put down the green rag! Lie down, croppies, lie down! -- Orange Order Marching song, memorializing July 12, 1690

I wonder whether I'll get to see the July 12 reenactors marching today. July 12 always makes me think about the rewriting of history -- a fascinating topic, because there is so much to rewrite, and in so many ways. (And that is without ever departing from the truth.) It is natural for people to not want others to know about anything which makes them look bad, the Greeks being no exception. Let me contrast the attitude of two modern tour guides -- one Greek, one Turkish -- towards ancient history. When I visited Corinth, the Greek guide there was not happy with my even mentioning the rampant sexuality of Corinth -- which no doubt played quite a role in Paul's dicta condemning it. (I'll respect your intelligence and my time, so I won't bother to cite Corinthians here.) But the Greek guide was not worried about Paul; rather she was concerned about anything being said which might make anyone -- in any way -- think less of the Greeks. No such problem in Ephesus (an ancient city located in Turkey)! The Turkish guide was more than delighted, and in fact went out of his way to dwell at length upon such juicy topics as Hadrian's relationship with Antinous (which, as he took delight in stressing, was wholly in accord with Plato and Socrates' teachings). If the Greeks ran Ephesus today, I have no doubt that the guides would tell a very different story. These guides reminded me of a very conservative friend's outrage when I commented upon the modern-ness of regular bathing, and the simple yet unavoidable fact that some of our favorite founding fathers went for very long periods between baths. He immediately saw a plot to make them look bad, even though I made clear that I thought no less of any of them. Same thing with Benjamin Franklin's illegitimate kids; he said that was a lie. Can we expect any less from the Greeks? And to think that I am so naïve as to imagine that I can wave my magic wand and the entire establishment will correct Watergate history? In this blog I have discussed religion, as well as antihomosexual bias in general, but there is something much deeper, a raw nerve rooted in our history and in our particular military tradition, geopolitical in nature. Whenever there is a war, and one entity "wins" over another, there is always a deal to be made if the two sides are to live in peace. The subjugation of an enemy is never without costs to both sides. Where there are cultural divisions, both sides, like it or not, tend to be changed, sometimes willingly, and sometimes kicking and screaming, but never unaffected. We have seen this in countless contexts over the millenia. From Alexander the Great's aping of his conquered Greek subjects, to the Romans shameless cultural borrowing from the Etruscans, Greeks, and Egyptians, there is a pattern of endless repetition of this simple formula. It runs in my gene pool, and the argument could be made that it is evident in the style of my personal emotional, creative and destructive patterns. I am about one half Celtic (one fourth Scottish and one fourth Welsh) and one half Teutonic (Norwegian and German in roughly equal parts.) My ancestors pillaged, killed, plundered and conquered each other for a very long time, ultimately leading back to prehistory. I feel and sense the various aspects of these peoples, and I feel very fortunate to have genetic material rooted as it is in the conflicts between such gifted races. Ironically, tragically (in the truest sense of the word), all of this warfare combines to strengthen the races, much as the Nazi regime's defeat helped give birth to Israel, and the Viking occupation of Ireland gave rise to Brian Boru and Irish nationality. One of the methods commonly used by a "conquering" people (I use the term in quotes for often the conquered become a Trojan horse, when the right opportunity arises, as the Romans found when their legions were filled with the "blue eyed devils"!) is the principle of co-opting the conquered. Anyone who has read Machiavelli will know that this is often in the best interest of everyone, but a little something is always lost, just as virginity, once lost, can never be regained. The Romans had a lot of trouble with the Celts, and the issue was still unresolved when the western empire fell to invading Germanic tribes. So the conflict persisted with the Church becoming a vestige of Roman rule (except in Ireland which escaped Roman rule and is thereby "purer") Yet paradoxically, the Celts tended to cling to the original conquering Church when it, in turn became threatened by Protestantism, an early Germanic "invasion". In England the issue became somewhat confused, and for a time in Scotland there was a three way split between the Catholic Church, and the British Church of England, and the Scots' own brand of Protestantism. The ultimate and ironic hyperextension of this principle was the introduction of Celtic (but Presbyterian) Scots into Ireland as Britain's proxy soldiers, so today we still have Celts fighting each other when both groups are victims of a long since forgotten divide and conquer shell game played by the British. One man, Wolfe Tone, saw through this (Rising of 1798) and the British put his movement down with ferocity exceeding that meted out to any other British colonial rebellion. (They selected just the right man for this vicious job -- General Cornwallis, still smarting from his humiliating defeat at the hands of our forefathers. The Irish paid dearly for our victory!) The interesting thing about the Scots is that since the British never fully subdued them culturally (they couldn't enforce even the ban on kilts, which carried the death penalty) they made a classic deal: Join our military and keep your cultural eccentricities (the Scottish regiments were strictly segregated) and we'll all be happy. It worked quite well, for it gave the Scots a legal outlet for their crazed brand of militarism, and they were an absolutely quintessential cornerstone of modern British military history. Today there is no longer much use for brave young Scots, and Scotland has (at least so I'm told) one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in the U.K. A deal was also made to keep the Welsh quiet, drunk, and digging in the mines. They were incorporated into the Royal Family itself with the somewhat strained "Prince of Wales" concept. In Scotland this was also done by getting a Scottish king on the British throne, and then declaring Scotland part of this "union". Note that since 1296 every British monarch has been crowned whilst sitting on the "Stone of Scone", a.k.a. "Stone of Destiny". That very stone was stolen from the Scots who had also used it for coronations, but they had stolen it even earlier from the Picts! (The Scots were, of course, early IRISH, Christian invaders who conquered the Picts.) Aren't we a quarrelsome lot? As recently as 1950, the stone was recaptured by some kooky Scottish nationalists. Those Teutonic bastards haven't won yet, have they? Has anyone? Last I looked, the damned Teutonists had given the Stone of Scone back. I think that's as it should be. This historical background will hopefully give a little insight into my point. We as a nation also fought a war and then made a deal with the conquered, similar to what England did with Scots, although the Civil War (or should I more tolerantly say the War Between The States?) was far more costly. The cornerstone of the deal we made as a new nation was the pedestalized enshrinement of Southern manhood (and all associated sacred cows) as the backbone of the U.S. military. This deal is not written, and it is not legally enforceable. It is simply the acknowledgment of a covenant collectively born in the blood, gratitude, and guilt of an entire nation, but it is still a deal. Southern men have more than lived up to (and died for) their side of the bargain! No examples are needed. A more controversial topic is whether the Scottish cross of Saint Andrew should be allowed to live on in the United States -- in the form of the Confederate Battle Flag. I have spent a great deal of time in the South in my lifetime, and I know that old ways die hard. I remember that as recently as 1994, an interracial couple who sell at gun shows had a pretty bad time of it at a show in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and I understand why. They wouldn't draw a glance in most places these days. (On the subject of "old ways" I would venture that if the good citizens of Spartanburg studied their military history, they might have picked a different name for their fair city!) There is a popular bumpersticker against gays in the military -- a cartoon depicting two little stick figures. One figure, smiling, is anally penetrating the other, bent over, frowning figure, and superimposed over the scene was a red no-smoking-style circle and slash. I hate to make light of this, but they've got the picture bass-ackwards if they think it's the homo who's smiling and the hetero who's frowning. Ask any homo who's been in the joint. But I think that we should be careful about the mixing of gays and straights in the military for this very reason. Ours is not a culture which can honestly understand facultative as opposed to instinctive homosexuality. Most people just don't get it, in particular the often self-serving gay rights movement. I disagree with the common notion that everyone who has a homosexual encounter is a homosexual, but the left and the right enjoy buying into it. Straight prison inmates can "choose" homosexuality. Their targets usually cannot. Just go next door to Mexico, and you will see homosexuals routinely used as a sexual outlet by young unmarried straight guys who have absolutely no concomitant loss of masculinity, because they would rather have a woman. What does it matter to them if the homosexual would not? (This is a phenomenon called "trade" in the United States, and, except for limited cases of street prostitution, for the most part it has fallen victim to mindless identity politics.) So, for starters, there is a distorted view of homosexuals as rapists. To the extent that anyone applies this view to the issue of gays in the military such a view is utterly bogus. Further, rape is rape, and is unacceptable human behavior regardless of sexuality. I have seen no epidemic of rape in the military, even with women added to the picture, so the spectacle of homosexual rape is an utter red herring especially were homosexuals allowed to serve a segregated setting where all sexual conduct could be easily governed by an elaborate system of militarily logical rules, as was done in the past. (The latter is NOT a proposal to replace "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL," or to do anything else; it is merely a politically irresponsible remark.) But that bumper sticker is evidence of a feeling of being raped -- at least, that's my thesis. The South was defeated, and had to swallow its pride, and more important, a consequent loss of manhood. The way they got it back was by becoming the closest thing we have to national soldier caste. Bear in mind also that until a couple of weeks ago homosexual relations were still illegal in almost all of the former Confederate states. To suddenly decree that homosexuals must be counted within their ranks amounts to an all-out, treasonous assault on the last bastion of Southern manhood: in this case (at least it is so perceived) SOUTHERN MANHOOD ITSELF!! I care about this stumbling block, and that is why I am going to such great lengths to blog about it, because I think it will not go away easily. It has been my experience that the best way to deal with emotionally laden issues is with simple, fearless honesty. There is the further issue of cultural shock. Homosexuals are perceived as Northern, urban, whiny, effeminate, and definitely UN-military from a Southern military caste perspective. Many homosexuals are just those things, and probably would not get through basic training, nor would they want to. They HATE actual gays in the military! And I can tell you, the feeling is mutual. So, we have an unwritten gentlemen's agreement handed down by our forefathers without much relevance to the modern age. Traditions die hard. The only solution to all of this emotion is rational thought. It starts at the level of the very discussion of an issue which was not easily mentionable even twenty years ago, but which is now middle American table talk. My biggest question is, once the shock value recedes, why are real men so worried about the sexuality of others? Surely they don't really fear rape by homosexuals. If they do, they are being genuinely silly and childish. And if the fear is that others will think them homosexual if there are (and there are!) gays in the military, that fear is ludicrous. There are already many sneering people out there (gay and straight) who feel that those who most viscerally oppose gays in the military are themselves hiding something. I do not happen to be one of them. I simply feel that there has not been enough honesty, and that has led to a gigantic chasm of distrust on both sides. Lastly, we come to the religious angle. As I said, I think the primary raw nerve involves sublimated Confederate rage, but religion is also a powerful factor. The problem is that it is not being applied evenhandedly. Fornicators, blasphemers, atheists, abortionists, Satanic cultists, even Nazis are all free to join the U.S. military. So the obsession with the homos is obviously much more than merely religious. Theologically, homosexuality simply doesn't rank as high on the sin list as where the shrill Savonarolists claim it belongs. And they had best remember well two things. One, this is a secular society, containing many religious variations, and it is not supposed to allow any one version to dictate governmental policy, especially military policy. Of all things in our country which must by their nature remain secular, it is most of all the military, for it asks people to die, and nothing is more deserving of utmost respect and acceptance than the particular religious views of a young person facing death in battle. From a military perspective (and from the Classical Values perspective) the virtue of patriotism trumps any particular religious dogma. Second, all people who can recognize reality must remember that each one of us is considered, by the majority of the people in the world, to be headed for hell for the very failure to follow the tenets of opposing religious doctrines. I don't care what (if any) religious views one has; the earth's other religions clearly earmark all nonbelievers as EXCLUDED!! The Ayatollah, the Pope, the Hindu Fakir, the Generic Reverend Sunday, Rabbi Schneerson, Reverend Farrakhan (partial list -- I hope readers will understand) by their own admission are not going to the same place, nor are their followers! Hell must be pretty full by now. Wait just a minute... They can't keep the homos out of hell, can they? I demand inclusion! Turning now from hell in the afterlife to those who prefer hell in the here and now, I would like to examine objections which I increasingly hear on the left, including the gay movement. I have had more occasion than most people to listen to views on gays in the military, but the more I tried to discuss workable military policies toward gays, the more I kept running into a visceral antipathy towards the military from the very people who were the most gung ho on the issue of gays in the military. I couldn't but suspect that many of them only wanted gays in the military as a way of hurting the military. They recoil in horror at the prospect of making it help the military. In another blog, I discussed my experience with "Gay Guns" in the 1982 San Francisco Lesbian Gay Parade. We were accused of "joining the enemy" by idiots who somehow feel that homosexuality equals pacifism. There is also a fear in some quarters that homosexuals -- armed or otherwise -- represent a throwback to Paganism, with all of its dangerous excesses. After all, look what armed, militaristic homosexuals did in Germany in the 20's and 30's. The wild energy which can be released scares people. My only response is to say that any link between homosexuals and Nazi Germany falls when we look at what Hitler did to them, beginning with Ernst Roehm. Just because some homosexuals helped put Hitler in does not make them any guiltier than the other, heterosexual 95%! Germany was Germany; this is America. But the argument is often made that homosexuality is evocative of Paganism. Those Celts (and Romans, and Greeks) were pretty wild sexually, and homosexuality was definitely part of the picture. Saint Paul's strict Pharisaic background was very intolerant of sexuality in general, and his reaction to Pagan sexual practices led, in my opinion, to an improper grafting of his own beliefs onto the early Church. (The Galatians were early Celts living in Turkey.) That is another topic, but as to Celtic behavior, for alternative contemporary opinions to Saint Paul's horrified reactions, read Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and (even earlier) Aristotle on the Celts. That last one's a bit fuzzy, so here's an exact cite for the occasional pendant who might stumble into this blog:

… among the Kelts and other peoples among whom male homosexuality is openly approved. (Politics – BkII.9 – Penguin translation, 1962, p.85

(And despite what some of the mean spirited modern moralists have said about the man, Aristotle was actually pretty cool.) But even if homosexuality was a common Pagan practice, how is that an argument against gays in the military? If anything, it is an argument in favor, as history demonstrates. Back to square Orange. It ain't about Anita Bryant anymore. And it isn't just about terrorism. This pro-Orange essay cites with approval a letter from a woman who derides the double standard of allowing huge gay parades, but not "Protestant" (Orange) parades. This newspaper article features a photo of a bloodied Iranian protester which continues to circulate in today's news items (even though the photograph was taken in 2000). But more interesting is that between the Iranian crackdown and another news announcement of a crackdown on Orange Parades, we find a curiously incongruous story of a big Gay march in Rome (between 70,000 and 400,000 marched past the ancient amphitheater and the Vatican). I don't believe in rewriting history, but I did find this oddity about the oddly tolerant William of Orange. As I have warned in my blog before, there are serious problems in judging the past by modern standards, but when people get this silly about celebrating what occurred 313 years ago, why can't a little whimsical historical mischief be indulged? Then there's this offhand remark, by a gay Dutchman:

Orange harks back to William of Orange, a good gay Hollander like myself. But it's also the color of the juice that anti-gay crusader Anita Bryant used to sell.

Funny, because I thought he stole my idea. Must be the mischievous doppelganger effect. (Swear to God I wrote about Anita and Oranges before I found his quote, but who cares. This is not plagiarism; it's color coordination!) Some of these colors all run together after awhile…. But please, no rainbows! I'm with Judy Garland on that issue. Her daughter, Liza Minelli:

was in the ladies room with her mother when she was about 14 and this drunk lady came in and started saying: "Oh, Judy, whatever happens, never forget the rainbow." And Judy said, exiting grandly, "Madame, how could I forget the rainbow, I've got rainbows up my ass."

I'll stick with the colors we've got.

2003-07-12T11:17:00.000-04:00

"Third" Way or "Fourth" Way?
No Way! This statement -- from Bill Clinton to Tony Blair -- appeared in today's Drudge Report:

"I say to you there's a fourth way out there. It's not a do nothing conservatism, it's an aggressive pro-change conservatism. "It survives on enemies and attack and triumphs our evidence and argument."

Bill Clinton claims he is a champion of the "Third Way." Watch out for the definers. Define and conquer is their game.

2003-07-11T17:36:00.000-04:00

First Chastity Belts, then Blogger's Itch, and now this… WAIT! Before any of you dear readers venture out for the weekend, read this.... Another Blogospheric genius, Don Watkins, has just linked to an unbelievable story about a boy with a very strange medical condition:

[H]e first felt pain in his abdomen almost a month ago. And then he saw the flies intermittently coming out of his penis.

See what can happen when you forget to keep your flies zipped?

2003-07-11T12:22:00.000-04:00

Blogger's Itch Agenda Bender, a true genius of the Blogosphere (not just me talking; he was described by Colby Cosh as "one of about five or six hitherto undiscovered genuine American geniuses that have been unearthed by the emergence of blogotopia"), posts this from his vacation site, where he is forced to use a wood-burning PC:

I am otherwise covered in mosquito bites and can attest to the luxurious truth that the scratched-itch region of the brain lies in sacred proximity to orgasm central.

He's right, because I had exactly the same experience with poison ivy. (You can avoid scratching by applying hot air from an electric hair dryer -- and believe me, this really hits the itchy orgasm neurons.) Luxurious truths! I love it. And I barely scratched the surface. If you're itching for more, you'd better read the world's most dangerously wicked social satirist, Agenda Bender.

2003-07-10T22:53:00.000-04:00

Fire me for writing this! Hey what's with this O'Reilly guy anyway? Why doesn't he like bloggers? His biggest complaint about bloggers seems to be that "they work for no one" and thus they cannot be fired. (Thanks to Instapundit for this link.) Satirically helping myself to a Victorian expression (after all I work for no one), I called O'Reilly a "white slaver" in a previous post, because he helped the Saudis get away with kidnapping two American girls. He is hoping that this story will go away, so if you have not done so already, be sure to read it (and please check out the links). He can't fire us all!

2003-07-10T15:07:00.000-04:00

The high cost of private morality (a classic case of confused values....) A friend recently asked my opinion about this ebay item (if you hurry you can still see it while the pictures are up) -- an apparently authentic Victorian chastity belt. He was rightly suspicious, because he assumed things like this had gone out of fashion in the Middle Ages (where, I guess, things like that belong). I know, I know, this is hardly a "Classical Value." (The closest thing the Romans had was the Fibula -- not a chastity belt but a toga fastener which gave later Medieval prudes the idea.) Nor is the ebay item a good value, by any standard. My immediate concern was the ridiculous price: the wretched thing sold for over $500.00. I hate to see friends get ripped off, so I did a little research, and found a more "modest" reproduction -- at a far more reasonable price. Here it is! A nice deal for any parent or husband who wants the best value in "blocking hardware" to be found anywhere in any store that I know of. I sent the URL to my friend immediately, not to butt into his business, but because I worry that he is wasting money on frivolous items he will never use -- the genuine Victorian chastity belt being a perfect example. The modern reproduction is the way to go. Plus, the reproduction is more strictly "TRADITIONAL" -- as I will soon explain. (So much for my "value judgment.") But economic issues did not end my inquiry, because my friend raised another point about the distinction between devices available in the respective Medieval and Victorian marketplaces. Not that he is intending to use the thing, but he expressed concern about the mechanics of taking a dump. Indeed, if you look closely at the monstrous ebay contraption, there is no opening to speak of in the anal area. Instead, there are a few holes through which a girl under suspicion might have been barely able to wiggle a turd, but only if she shifted her already tortured derriere to an insufferable degree. And I stress "might"; I wouldn't want to try it, especially if I had the frequency which must result from eating the food in the days before such things as refrigeration and running water. I thought about this problem, and I realized that the designer of the Victorian chastity belt was in one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations. The problem, of course, is obvious from the laws of physics. To allow egress is to allow ingress. And, considering that the Victorians were the sort of people whose sensibilities were offended by things like uncovered table legs (see this article), I think it is fair to conclude that they would have wanted to skirt (sorry!) the anal issue entirely. But what about the call of nature, you ask? Isn't it a stretch to thwart one of nature's laws in order to prevent a violation of nature's laws? Not so fast! This is a bit complicated, and I will try to explain. Take a look at this more, er, "classical" Medieval chastity belt. Clearly, the designers anticipated the problems of both ingress and egress. Instead of concocting a fanciful array of fluted iron shapes (which must have chafed unwashed private areas something awful), they had two simple holes -- the smaller one in front and the larger one in the rear. BOTH feature "one-way" spikes pointing outward, in a similar manner to modern urban parking garage treadles. You can drive it out, but you can't drive it in. (Again, I am sorry to have to engage in such circumspect language, but I am trying to live up to my PG-13 rating.) I hate to say this, but clearly, the Medieval chastity belt designers were more realistic, and more humane. If I had to wear one, I would go for the strictly "traditional" value. There I go -- upholding traditional values. What is coming over me, anyway?

2003-07-09T20:44:00.000-04:00

Patient answers As I earlier vowed that I would endeavor to address my errors fully, I think I should answer a criticism of me by another blogger. I want to be fair, so here is his critique of me, in full:

NO STRANGERS -- JUST LUNATICS I HAVEN'T MET YET. The Ole Perfesser links to this story at something called Classical Values. Oh God, I said when I first spied the masthead, please let it be a joke. Alas, it wasn't. The proprietior is a gay guy who spends most of his Lawrence v. Texas post talking about how great states' rights are. Elsewhere he states: "My life has been largely wasted opposing fanaticism. This does not mean I have no opinions." Oh boy, does he! The aforementioned post seriously claims (and I mean seriously -- I ran the Ironometer over it several times and came up with nothing) that Michael Savage is an agent provocateur set up by the Left to discredit conservatives. (He doesn't mention how Fox got in on the scheme, though.) He also tells us how he was pulled out the depths of despair by G. Gordon Liddy. Well, there's my horizon expansion for the day.

I am glad to expand anyone's horizon, and I really don't mind being called a lunatic (I even call myself a nut), but I think this guy misrepresents my views on states rights. In the post which so upsets Mr. Edroso, I criticized conservatives for their double standard on states rights:

[they're] all for states rights when a state is trying to take away freedom, but let that same state dare attempt to expand freedom (as in the case of liberalized marijuana laws), and they'll goose step all over everyone in the name of federal supremacy.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of states rights. But then I explained my own position:

I like states rights. I just don't think that an expansive reading of the doctrine should give any government -- state, federal or local -- the right to force me to go to the back of the bus, or to force open the door to my bedroom.

For this pitifully weak endorsement, I am accused of spending "most of [my] Lawrence v. Texas post talking about how great states' rights are"? While I thank Mr. Edroso for crediting me with the honor, I think conservatives who champion states rights can find a better spokesman than me. The poor man obviously fails to see my humor. Not only doesn't he appreciate the tongue-in-cheek aspect of the "Classical Values" blog name, but he didn't bother to read my sarcastic aside about states rights in a hypothetical case against Jesus Christ:

shouldn't it be up to the states to punish such things as healing on the Sabbath, wandering or strolling from place to place without apparent business, or aiding and abetting accused prostitutes?

I am new, but I am learning. I had thought the satire in the above was quite obvious. Obviously, I didn't make it obvious enough. Obviously, I'll have to work on being more obvious. One Edroso complaint has me baffled completely. I am charged with not mentioning a crucial piece of evidence:

"how Fox got in on the scheme."

He's right, of course. I missed that completely. How did Fox get in on the Savage scheme? Last I looked, Savage's show was syndicated from KSFO (a Disney-owned station), and he also worked for MSNBC, which just fired him. His syndicated show is carried on hundreds of stations around the country. How Fox? How MSNBC? How the hell am I to know? Am I supposed to ask each station? Please tell me, someone, how did Fox get into this scheme? I thought they only hired real conservatives. Were they duped? Am I helping to cover up for Fox? Does this mean Savage is an honest conservative after all? I need to know! Either I suck as a fact finder or I'm not the only lunatic patient in the blog asylum. More patients needed?

2003-07-09T19:22:00.000-04:00

More Savage conservatism In yet another remarkable twist in the story, Michael Savage, instead of facing up to his own remarks, is blaming another radio show for them. He now claims that the man he called a sodomite and whom he hoped would get AIDS was put up to it by or somehow working for the Don and Mike Show. But even if this is true, how does it change the nature of Savage's remarks? Let's see… it's OK to call someone a sodomite and tell him to go die of AIDS if it turns out he works for another radio show? (Please explain, someone… anyone!) In any case, Don and Mike deny involvement. Here is Don and Mike's answer (you have to scroll down and click on the article, and I am not sure how long it will be there):

The Westwood One duo insisted during their Tuesday afternoon show that they didn't know the caller who phoned in to Savage's MSNBC show and who mentioned their names. Don Geronimo said he'd never even heard of Savage before his firing from MSNBC, and Mike O'Meara added that Savage "needs to make this go away as soon as possible. The more he keeps dwelling on us setting up a caller, the more we're going to have to come in here and talk about it." Geronimo noted that what's upsetting him is the association of Savage's comments with his and O'Meara's show. "There is a story in the national press about a stupid disc jockey wishing AIDS and sodomy on someone, and in a roundabout way — which really isn't roundabout — the disc jockey who did it is blaming us for it," Geronimo said. "That's my problem."

Hmmm. I thought conservatives believed in things like taking personal responsibility for one's actions instead of blaming others. Oh well. Does this mean Savage isn't a conservative? (Or is that a rhetorical question?)

2003-07-09T16:27:00.000-04:00

The real Michael Savage? More questions abound… I was fascinated to read this post from Clayton Cramer (a conservative supporter of sodomy laws) which raised even more questions about Michael Savage. Cramer disdains the fact that Savage's anti-homosexual remarks got more play than his blatant racism (which Cramer attributes to "the relative acceptability of racism vs. "homophobia" to the mainstream media"), but the following remark really got my attention (please remember, this is a moral conservative talking):

I can't say that I ever listened to him for more than about ten minutes, because I found him too irritating. He was to conservatism what Michael Moore is to intelligent leftist analysis. Savage dripped insincerity. He struck me as someone who, 20 years ago, would probably have been one of the obnoxious insulting leftist talk show hosts that were all the rage at the time. I don't ever sense that Savage believed terribly deeply in anything he said--he was just saying it to get a rise out of his audience, and it worked.

Then I received an email from a man in the talk radio business (whose name I will omit because I don't think I should use source names without permission -- although I will say it's NOT from G. Gordon Liddy), expressing a similar view:

Today, I'm a talk host on a station that carries Savage. He is tremendously popular and, I believe, he's tremendously dangerous to conservatism, in part because it's clear he's not being honest. He doesn't mean the stuff he says, he's just playing the part of the "bigot next door," saying "what people are thinking," as his promos claim...if those people are members of the KKK.

What the hell is going on with this man, and why haven't these questions been asked by any of the responsible voices in the mainstream media? Another email to me stated:

"Liddy wasn't taken off the air for any more nefarious reason than that his numbers weren't high enough and Michael Savage's obviously were."

The writer's assumption -- though sorely mistaken -- reminded me of a very troubling fact: G. Gordon Liddy had an established national audience and a local audience in San Francisco, while J. Paul Emerson and Michael Savage were new, and virtually unknown -- yet deliberately, strangely, promoted by Disney. The last time I looked, Disney was no champion of conservative causes -- certainly not far right, John Birch society ones. I have distrusted Savage and the people involved in his career from its beginning. I think he is bad for the cause he claims to represent as well as bad for the country. Now, the possibility does exist that Savage has done so much damage to the cause of anti-gay bigotry that I should just shut up and gloat. So why am I complaining? Because I cannot stand such dishonest media manipulation. It's one of the reasons I took up blogging. I believe that the only way to keep these people honest is for ordinary people to take the medium into their own hands. Outfits like Disney, ABC, or MSNBC should not be allowed to get away with fraud. There is something utterly creepy about a fake media "homophobe." (Frankly, the concept is a lot creepier than a real homophobe, honestly stating what he really believes.) Once again, I cannot prove my suspicions, but I think it is almost foolish not to examine the possibility of Savage being a secret poseur, deliberately undermining and discrediting the people who imagine he is on their side. Then again, he might just be an ordinary demagogue without any principles whatsoever. But all these coincidences bother me. Police detectives usually begin any investigation with the question, "Who benefits?"

2003-07-09T15:17:00.000-04:00

A note to all new visitors (especially those referred by Instapundit's recent link): Thank you for visiting this site! I am a 48 year old longtime gay activist (who disagrees with many of the premises of the "gay movement"), a Second Amendment supporter, Deadhead, pit bull breeder, a (gulp) lawyer in recovery, and in general, a freethinking nut, and I thank you for visiting this blog. I started my blog a year ago, but abandoned it because I wishfully imagined that we had entered a new era of tolerance. However, the recent fussing this Spring over the preservation of sodomy laws made me decide to take my blog more seriously -- if in a satirical manner as originally intended. (So I have only been blogging seriously since May 16, 2003.) I tend to be skeptical of all "isms" because no matter how expansive or how beautifully sublime any system of thought or philosophy might be, once the tenets are laid down, vested interests tend to evolve which stultify further growth. That said, I try to be open-minded and tolerant of every view except extreme intolerance. (Threatening to imprison me for failing to conform my life to particular interpretations of religious texts is one form of extreme intolerance.) I think history should be respected, but examined carefully. I like Western Civilization, and much as I distrust religious excesses, a central thesis of this blog is that we should be careful not to throw the Classical "baby" out with the Traditional "bathwater."

2003-07-09T01:31:00.000-04:00

The "Gate" opens in Iran? Today, July 9, is a big, big day in Iran. Not only is this the day designated for the general strike, but its historical importance cannot be underestimated. The "Bab" (Farsi for "Gate") was martyred on this date in 1850, but his revolutionary ideas cannot be kept down. To understand why July 9 is such a big deal, this wonderful Tennessee news item I found will get you started. I blogged about this before, here, and if you didn't read it, please do, as it contains more good links. I think this is an important enough issue that I am taking advantage of the increased traffic caused by Glenn Reynolds' very generous recent link to my post on Michael Savage by staying up late and repeating myself a little. Persia is a proud and ancient culture of people who want to help lead the civilized world, not retard it. They are sick and tired of being under the yoke of Medieval mullahs, and they deserve our support, our love, and a better understanding and appreciation of Persia's place in the history of civilization. Religious tolerance is not new in Persia. It happened before and it will happen again. It may be happening right now.

UPDATE: Not so fast! Instapundit reports that the big strike has been canceled. I agree that success through patience is far preferable to another Tiananmen-style slaughter. If Iranians can topple the Medieval mullahocracy without a bloodbath, their country will be a better place for it. So will the world.

2003-07-08T15:19:00.000-04:00

Strongly Cautioning My Inner Child It's a hell of a thing to look at your blog the day after you've shared your inner angst with a bunch of strangers. I don't know whether it is a good idea for me to read my own blog. I am not sure how to rate myself, so I took an official blog ratings test which I found at Dean's World. Here's my rating:

What rating is your journal?
brought to you by Quizilla Gee, I thought I was a little racier than that. I feel less guilty already now that I know I couldn't possibly be offending anyone. I mean, come on! PG-13 ! That's kids' stuff!

2003-07-08T01:26:00.000-04:00

The Suspicious Rise Of Michael Savage Please brace yourselves, because this post will sound a bit crazy. But I have to say it, and it's personal. Earlier today, while in the middle of writing the last post in which I mentioned Watergate and my history with G. Gordon Liddy (a good human being and a dear friend despite all the stuff leftists say about him), I was greeted with the news that Michael Savage, a demagogic bigot I have loathed for years, was fired for calling a gay man a "sodomite" and saying that he hoped he'd die of AIDS. I witnessed firsthand the rise of that son of a bitch. And now -- I hope -- I am witnessing his fall. Because the paranoid side of me fears that some of my actions might have helped launch Michael Savage's suspicious career in San Francisco in 1994, I can't remain silent. This is a tough story to blog, and I apologize for what I am sure will be a lengthy rant, but this is personal, and I'm a witness. Let me start with some background. I saw G. Gordon Liddy for the first time when he debated Timothy Leary in 1979 on the UC Berkeley campus. While I was more inclined at the time to be a fan of Leary, I had rather liked Liddy's spunky bravery, and had enjoyed watching him telling all three branches of the federal government to fuck off during the Watergate era. (Little did he know then that far from protecting Nixon, he was unwittingly assisting a domestic coup d'état.) Anyway, Liddy won me over at the debate even though I disagreed with him on a variety of issues (as I do now). The guy was simply a class act, a good debater, and most of all, a gentleman. I loved Liddy's book Will, which contains excellent advice on dealing with life's adversities, and explains his defiance of the state, the left, and Judge John Sirica, whose 20 year sentence of Liddy (for a first time non-residential burglary) was described by no less an authority than historian Paul Johnson as an "act of judicial terrorism." The ancients would have been proud of Liddy, himself an admirer of the ancients. I admired him then, and I admire him now. Whether I agreed with all his opinions was completely beside the point. Fast forward in my life to 1993. In a state of total despair, I had decided to kill myself. My lover John was dying of AIDS, and my previous lover had already died. I was on Methadone, drinking heavily, and had decided that once John died I would be free to kill myself. One day, on my way to the Methadone clinic, I happened to see a billboard advertising Liddy's radio show, which I did not know even existed. Reading Will and seeing Liddy speak years before had become a distant memory by then, but his show soon captured my imagination, and actually helped me decide against suicide. It is a complicated story, but Liddy's vibrancy in the face of despair, and his zest for life convinced me that it would be ridiculous to surrender my life and die. I truly, consciously, wanted to die until Liddy's philosophy activated something which made me stop and think logically. I realized that my very desire and ability to kill myself was, literally, the conquest of the fear of death. Now, if you reason logically, why fear life if you do not fear death? I realize that this might not make sense for many potential suicides, but I have always been a logical person, and my refusal to continue living was grounded in a logical desire not to go on living in a world of continual death! If you can't beat death, I reasoned, why not join it? I wanted to be with my friends. Liddy's cold but compassionate logic made me realize that this would be a stupid move for me to make. Not that I ever asked him or anyone else for help, for that is not my style. It just sunk in. I'll never forget a letter he read from a man facing prison. His wife had left him, his kids had changed their names, he was to go into custody soon, and he despaired, "I am a broken man!" Liddy's advice -- that he simply "get over the "broken man" stuff. No one can break you but you!" -- struck me like a bolt of lightning. I simply picked myself up, and if I hadn't I would not be alive to blog today. (Pretty heavy stuff, and not easy to discuss, but isn't that as good a reason as any to blog?) Not long after deciding to live, I got into a disagreement with Liddy about gays in the military -- something I continue to disagree with him about quite strongly. He took the time to read my faxes, put me on the air and couldn't have been more polite. (Something of which Michael Savage types are simply incapable.) Having read about Watergate, I was overwhelmed with a gut feeling that he had been treated unfairly and deserved a pardon. How could I, as a gay Clinton voter (and lifelong registered Democrat) do any less than ask a president I helped put in office for simple justice for a man who had helped me a great deal? I wrote to President Clinton in April of 1994, strongly urging that he grant a presidential pardon of Liddy. A few months later, G. Gordon Liddy was summarily yanked off the air in San Francisco, along with libertarian Gene Burns (another real gentleman who'd been kind enough to put me on the air). Their ultimate replacements were -- guess who? -- two hitherto unknown local San Francisco novices, Michael Savage and J. Paul Emerson. I listened as these slimy people advocated things like a nuclear blast to clean out San Francisco's Castro District, and I wondered, "Hmmm… Does someone here have a plan to discredit the right wing?" To this day I believe they were agent provocateurs -- deliberately inflammatory poseurs masquerading as conservatives. I was absolutely certain that Emerson was an agent provocateur, and told as many people as I could. After an outburst not unlike the latest one from Savage, he was fired from the San Francisco airwaves, moved to Little Rock, Arkansas, and simply disappeared from public sight. While I can't prove Savage is an agent provocateur, it certainly looked like it to me for many years. And it looks like it right now, too. As my blogfather observed today:

Discount Blogger sums it up perfectly at this post: Michael Savage is as bad for conservatism as Ann Coulter is. Dumbass. Exactly.

If Savage is doing such a great job of making conservatives look bad, well, is it unreasonable to ask just who the hell he's working for? To me Michael Savage is more than just a bigoted radio hatemonger. I take him as a personal insult. I worry that he is an agent provocateur. I hope nothing I did helped launch him. (But I am often haunted by FDR's warnings that there are no coincidences in politics....) Most of all, I hope he's gone for good.

2003-07-07T23:53:00.000-04:00

Enemies In Need, Indeed More on fanaticism. Radical fundamentalists often strike me as insecure people who use fanaticism to bolster an unacknowledged lack of confidence in their beliefs. Sometimes I see atheists behaving the same way. Fundamentalists and atheists act as if they absolutely KNOW they are right -- and both share fierce beliefs that anyone who doesn't know is absolutely wrong. Personal attacks mischaracterizing those who disagree are all too common; atheists characterize people who refuse to solemnly assert atheism as "religious" while fundamentalists call anyone not sharing their fundamentalist philosophy an "atheist." What is behind this insecurity? Whenever you state an absolute belief in something that is almost by definition unknowable, you're biting off more than you can chew. Chutzpah -- in the form of fanaticism -- is oftentimes the best way to conceal massive insecurity. Fundamentalists and atheists share an absolutist view of things which, while it may be charming to others and comforting to them, is often precisely this sort of cover. That said, I want to come to the defense of atheists, for they are generally braver and more honest than fundamentalists. They reject the need for the security which a belief in God offers, and they are willing to face a certain and absolute death. This takes quite a bit of bravery. Religious people are often motivated by fear of death. People want answers and they do not want to die. Atheists fear death too, but they face it without the comfort of religion, which is braver. I have more respect for an honest atheist who accepts his ultimate nothingness than someone who subscribes falsely to a religion simply because he is afraid to die. Motivations behind belief systems, of course, have nothing to do with truth. Whether there is a god has nothing to do with the motivations of believers, and whether the human soul simply enters a vast nothingness has nothing to do with why an atheist wants to believe that. Hey don't look at me to prove or negate God, or gods, or infinite spirituality! That ain't my job! I wouldn't tell you even if I thought I did know. Asserting that kind of stuff only leads to trouble. Too many people get all pissed off and kill each other that way. What does bothers me right now is the ferocity and hatred being exhibited by people claiming to follow one ancient Jewish rabbi who came along, tried to moderate some of the harshness of the Mosaic Law, and was executed for his efforts. I cannot claim to be a witness to anything, but taking what I have read at its face value, he was a good man. Why the hell are radical fundamentalists determined to make Jesus Christ out to be a bigot on the level of, say, Mohammad? (I am not saying Mohammad WAS a bigot, mind you, because I don't know, but many of his followers behave as if he was.) At the center of the sodomy debate are Medieval interpretations of Mosaic Law, which was originally intended to govern the ancient Jews. Sodomy was condemned along with a variety of other things, including breaking the Sabbath, talking back to parents, astrology, screwing around with menstruating women, wearing the wrong hair styles, and so on. How is it that the followers of an early rabbi who wanted to simplify the law managed to reinterpret that law not only to govern non-Hebrews, but in such a way that it is enforced more harshly than the way the Jews themselves enforce it? Will someone tell me the logic behind this? Another thing which bugs me: How is it that "fundamentalists" get to pick and choose so that homosexuality becomes the most important principle of Mosaic Law? What about breaking the Sabbath, cursing one's parents, or practicing sorcery? The only logically consistent fundamentalists I know of are the followers of R.J. Rushdoony, who called for the execution of not only homosexuals, but liars, drunkards, sorcerers, and children who curse their parents. Why do the others, the pickers and choosers, focus upon homosexuality? They are insisting right now that God will punish the entire country because of the actions of six members of the Supreme Court. Remarkable, really. I don't know what to make of it. Certainly, there is no way to reason with these people. Not to be outdone, the atheists have come up with a new label for themselves: bright. (The implication is that all who disagree with them are dumb.) Why this need to be better than others? To be saved, more worthy, brighter? This apparent insecurity is making me feel insecure. What's making me feel even more insecure is the need to divide the world into only two camps: ATHEIST versus RELIGIOUS. "Religious" is coming to mean "fundamentalist" as is the word "Christian." When I was a kid, fundamentalists were simply one particular, kooky, variety. I hope they're not working in an unholy alliance with each other. That would be almost as bad as collusion between fundamentalists and gay activists. It must be comforting to divide the world into those who agree with you and those who are your sworn enemies. If I refuse to do that, whose enemy am I? Fanatics tend towards what Marx and Hegel called the dialectical struggle. Thus, while they always oppose with a special passion those fanatics on the other side, they regard them as kindred spirits -- much the same way that soldiers engaged in protracted battles tend to understand (and even admire) their mortal enemies -- sometimes even more than they admire the peacemakers and bureaucrats who end up in charge after the cessation of hostilities. The world is an easier place when it can be divided into two camps: you and the enemy, and of course the goal of every fanatic is to somehow force everyone into either being "with us or against us" -- meaning that the slightest disagreement can land you in the enemy camp -- regardless of how you might feel about the enemy. Ann Coulter will serve nicely as an example, and at the outset, let me say that for the most part I agree with much of what she says about Communism and the supporters of that wretched, evil, and failed ideology. Doubtless all Communists will now consider Ann Coulter to be the Devil Incarnate. Many liberals will too, as they have fallen into the line of Ms. Coulter's withering fire. Her objection to liberals -- that they enabled Communism -- is well founded. But to say that this makes all liberals traitors is as unreasonable as the claim that all of Weimar Germany's political leaders were traitors to their country for cooperating with (or at least acknowledging the superiority and inevitability of) the forces which had defeated Germany in World War I. I am fascinated by the fact that genuine fanatics -- and real ideologues in general -- detest pragmatists and compromisers even more than their ideological enemies. Perhaps this is because the pragmatists are so often the ones who end up holding power; perhaps there are other reasons. In a recent post, Ms. Coulter lists five much-maligned figures: Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, Whittaker Chambers and Ronald Reagan -- all those men "who did the most to defend our freedom in the last century." For a moment, I was taken aback, because I never thought I would see Richard Nixon, true pragmatist that he was, fiercely defended by such a staunch ideologue as Ann Coulter. But then I read the piece, and saw that Nixon was barely mentioned. The right wing does not like Richard Nixon, because he was the author of détente with Russia, normalized relations with China, and ended the Vietnam War. Watergate is an uncomfortable issue with them too. Nixon was so bitterly hated by fanatics of both sides that I naturally find myself attracted to him. When I discovered that he was brought down by hidden skullduggery never made known by the major media, I naturally assumed that "the left" was behind it all. It took years for it to sink in that Nixon was a victim of collusion between fanatics of the right and the left working together. That in bringing down Nixon, they had established a new power elite which upped the ante and pushed this country much closer to a real Culture War instead of the cute media variety characterized by long hair, patchouli oil, and bellbottoms. Everything was henceforth to be politicized. I came to realize that Nixon was indeed brought down by the forces of the Culture War -- much to this country's detriment. A new and ugly spirit took over, transforming America into a land of media heroes and villains, liberals and conservatives. And not old style liberals and conservatives, but newer, meaner, infinitely more in-your-face, ad hominem, varieties. "You're either with us or against us!" Nixon's Great Silent Majority (which tends now towards live-and-let-live libertarianism with a small "l") has been sitting out the elections since. They are not fiercely partisan "McGovern Democrats" for Hillary Clinton nor are they the "Moral Majority" ushered in by right wing ideologues. My life has been largely wasted opposing fanaticism. This does not mean I have no opinions. I did what little I could to persuade Big Media to take a second look at Watergate, and I tried to get a pardon for the much-hated, much-stereotyped G. Gordon Liddy. If fanatics attack something, I feel obligated to examine it closely. Maybe I'll defend it. Likewise, if they promote something, I'll also feel skeptical. As Glenn Reynolds points out, President Bush is now attracting favorable attention from left-leaning types who ought to know better than defending an evil Republican. Liberals generally hate him, but these days so do many conservatives. His efforts to fight AIDS in Africa is seen as too altruistic (something which hasn't earned him too many points with Objectivists, either). Here's Instapundit:

It's funny that Bush's behavior here hasn't gotten more attention from mainstream media. I guess it's because it doesn't fit the heartless-Republican stereotype.

Bush had better watch out, because if he keeps this up, he'll win by a Nixonian landslide, and fanatics of all stripes will be out to get him. Nixon, clever politician that he was, was so preoccupied with his enemies on the left that he failed to anticipate the fatal course of events which would be set in motion by his "friends." Paranoid, but not paranoid enough... (Et tu, Brute?)

2003-07-07T13:46:00.000-04:00

Hadrian hits Madison Avenue! Thanks to this tip from the esteemed I. Punditus (whose all-knowing, all-seeing eyes miss nothing), I just discovered that the multinational corporate giant Pitney Bowes is using one of Rome's best emperors, Hadrian, in a New York Times ad. I like it so much that I have to display the image here. (It's a rotating ad which has already been replaced by a Toyota ad which does not feature Hadrian.) Wow. Talk about Classical Values! Any idea what Hadrian would drive?

2003-07-06T15:53:00.000-04:00

Dead to Rights I'm back! I want to thank my blogfather Jeff as well as Don Watkins for mentioning me even while I wasn't there. I am still trying to get caught up with my blog reading, because I make it a daily habit to read every new post by each link in my blogroll every day, and a lot gets said in an entire week. A lot has been said about Lawrence v. Texas, too. Tactically, I still think it would have been better to get rid of sodomy laws state by state, because that would have been a more democratic, more final, victory. The sodomy laws were ultimately doomed, but the fundamentalists will now falsely claim that the "good moral Christian people of this land" were stepped on by a totalitarian Big Brother Supreme Court. They will never shut up about it, and there will be much to blog about. Read Don Watkins' very thorough fisking of Cal Thomas. (I am feeling too magnanimous to remind anyone of the pre-911 love affair many of the moral conservatives were having with Islamic fundamentalism. They'd better be nice too, or I might start remembering a few morsels....) As I had told Don Watkins, many conservatives are all for states rights when a state is trying to take away freedom, but let that same state dare attempt to expand freedom (as in the case of liberalized marijuana laws), and they'll goose step all over everyone in the name of federal supremacy. Read this chilling account of precisely such a federal railroading -- of individual rights, states rights, and local rights. Never mind that California's voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996. The jury wasn't allowed even to hear about it! (Similar laws were passed by voters in Alaska, Arizona, Maine, Oregon and Washington.) Problem is, I like states rights. I just don't think that an expansive reading of the doctrine should give any government -- state, federal or local -- the right to force me to go to the back of the bus, or to force open the door to my bedroom. I wish people would remember that government force does not always come in the form of Bull Connor or John Ashcroft, though. Government force can masquerade as an altruistic concern over the very rights many of my friends demand -- so dressed up in human rights or domestic rights drag as to be unrecognizable. A couple of weeks ago, I expressed reservations about the wisdom of inviting the government enforcement mechanism (and the long arm of the law) into a lifestyle which has long been invisible on the radar screen. This is from the latest Reason Magazine:

What do you do after you've won one of the most important Supreme Court cases in decades and shoved the state, kicking and screaming, out of your bedroom? Apparently, you beg the government to walk right back in. "The Marriage Revolution" has arrived, and homosexuals are the unlikely heroes of the quest to revive a fading institution.

Once again, I ask, what if you don't want anything to do with marriage? "Rights" which entail responsibilities always come with strings attached. Social security is a hell of a "right." But just try to opt out of it. I blogged about these concerns before and I am just as worried now about the state's foot in the door. A recent post in Samizdata made me think some more about the infinite expansion of law and bureaucracy to regulate anyone and everyone, in this case in the name of protecting everyone from "domestic violence":

The government’s war against men is now plumbing ever more astonishing depths. On Radio Four’s Today programme yesterday, the Home Secretary David Blunkett could scarcely wait to boast of new proposals to deal with domestic violence. Anyone truly concerned with civil liberties could not fail to have been appalled by Mr Blunkett’s comments. The problem was, he enthusiastically explained, that at present ‘you have to get someone through court’ before a domestic violence suspect can be restrained. So his solution is to restrain them before they even get to court. In other words, he wants action taken against a man on the basis of an unproven allegation by a woman– made under the protection of anonymity, to boot. So much for this Home Secretary’s understanding of the presumption of innocence, the meaning of justice and the necessity for a trial of the facts.

Sure, that's over there in England, you might say. Here we have rights. Really? What about federal gun control laws which take away your Second Amendment rights on the merest accusation by an aggrieved "domestic partner?" As the law stands, a woman need only ask for a restraining order and, as if by magic, her partner loses his Second Amendment rights. Read about it here. (In that case, a woman simply complained that her husband had verbally threatened her boyfriend, an allegation which automatically criminalized any gun ownership by her husband.) Slippery slope? Will homosexuals be allowed to opt out? I doubt it. In fact, based on my personal experience with gay activists around the gun issue, I can state with confidence that far too many homosexuals fear and loathe firearms as it is. Given an opportunity to disarm a gun-owning lover by simply filling out the correct legal form, many a vengeful politically correct ex would jump at the opportunity.

2003-07-06T15:46:00.000-04:00

[another blogger "BIG POST ERROR" forced me to continue this from the above post] I am delighted to see two esteemed scholars from the libertarian camp endorse the idea of simply privatizing marriage. Arthur Silber presents a logically unassailable argument for marriage privatization, and Reason magazine cited David Boaz' similar idea. Catching up with Arthur Silber, I found myself also drawn to a most unpleasant analysis of the sodomy law issue, by a guy who thinks that the government ought to persecute and lock up homosexuals for -- get this -- being too "pagan":

Although sodomy laws often did apply to members of both sexes and to married couples, the Christian religion has always stigmatized homosexuality—not just behavior but the inclination—as evil and unnatural. It is true that even in the most rigorous Christian societies, a distinction can be (and should be) drawn between sin and crime. Pride, envy, and disloyalty may be more sinful than adultery and homicide, but the former are typically ignored, while the latter are punished severely, often capitally. Most Christian societies, however, have punished notorious cases of homosexuality with rigor, partly out of a desire to extirpate a vice so closely connected with paganism and partly in order to discourage homosexuals from recruiting young men and destroying, so it is believed, their chances of salvation.

States rights my ass! This guy is talking -- right here in modern enlightened America -- about the right of "Christians" to persecute "pagans!" Few things have so raised my Classical hackles as this nonsense (or given me a better reason to have taken up blogging). Why, the guy wants to rid us of dangerous Renaissance and Enlightenment thinking, and he says so. All that he loves was "undermined by political dreamers during the Renaissance and Enlightenment."

Christians don’t have the time and resources to police the neopagans. We can, however, take care of our own business. This means restoring marriage to its proper place and stigmatizing divorce, adultery, and fornication as anti-Christian practices we shall not tolerate in our communities. If we belong to a church that condemns homosexuality, we can make sure that there are no openly “gay” pastors, including gay pastors who claim to be celibate. If you belong to a tolerant denomination, you can find another church. Today.

All hail the Bigot God of Intolerance? How dare this guy speak in the name of all Christians, anyway? And in the name of a reform rabbi who preached tolerance? I am beginning to wonder, if the guy they claim to follow really did return to earth, whether he wouldn't be put to death by all these worshipers of the Bigot God of September 11. (Well, shouldn't it be up to the states to punish such things as healing on the Sabbath, wandering or strolling from place to place without apparent business, or aiding and abetting accused prostitutes?)

2003-07-04T21:58:00.000-04:00

Happy Fourth! Still at sea, return tomorrow. Thanks for checking in!

2003-07-03T14:47:00.000-04:00

Sea Me Blog This is a wild experiment, and I don't know whether it will work, but I am at sea on that diving trip and until today I couldn't get this satellite rig to open blogger.com. Now that I have a moment of opportunity, I am going to attempt a post, for better or worse. No editing allowed, obviously. (The guy who runs this system said to tell you he is sorry!) Anyone still checking in here, THANK YOU for doing so. I will be back this Sunday July 6. Until then, please go and spend some time at my blogfather's site. He wrote a piece about his dead cat which I had planned to comment upon. Find it and read it, because it is another piece of evidence for phenomena often called "supernatural" but which we simply are unable to measure scientifically. (So far....) Yesterday I visited the wreck of the famous "Oro Verde" off Grand Cayman Island. Watched a sea turtle battling a pesky angel fish over a coral stalk which the turtle rightfully owned, for he had done all the work in tearing it free. (Amazing how loud were the noises made by the turtle's crunching and scraping beak.) Then I got bitten from behind on the finger by an angry black fish. No sign of the lost Altlantis Civilization so far. Wish I could impart a lesson in Classical Values from under the sea, but I'm afraid not. The turtle versus the fish is about as Aesopean as I can get. (Perhaps it is a lesson in Natural Objectivism....) There! Let's see what happens to this post.....

2003-06-27T12:53:00.000-04:00

Submerged Classical Values TOTAL IMMERSION.... As of tomorrow, I'm on vacation. I have no idea whether I'll be able to blog. I am going underwater too, and if I can post anything I will let you know what I find. I stole Glenn Reynolds' idea, except I don't have a decent picture of myself underwater. This is the best I can do. Let's see if it works. __ o /' ) /' ( , __/' ) .' `; o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ; _.--' b) ``--...____.' .' ( _. )). `-._ < `\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'. `---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.; `-` ` Help!!!!! Shark!!!!

2003-06-27T08:53:00.000-04:00

Here to there I want to get this blogger thing working properly, and I am posting this as a test. Last night the whole damned thing shut down and I lost my last (long essay) which I had to feed up in pieces. When I try to send a post of any length, I get weird "LONG POST ERROR" codes, and the post simply disappears. Iranian Culture War update: This is an interview with some leading Iranian opposition leaders. A sample:

the problem that we now face is that these regimes--by that, I mean Iran, China, and so forth--have an object lesson in what not to do, that is, they've seen what happened in 1989 in Eastern Europe. And they have no intention of going down that road. Given the brutality of the Iranian regime, which clearly exceeds the Shah's, I'd be surprised if it were to collapse quickly. Nevertheless, population trends are clearly not on the side of the mullahs. If they were smart, they'd cede power now rather than face what is sure to be a bloody uprising. But whether that happens in five or ten years is anyone's guess. I'd also like to say that, while I devoutly wish that the mullahs are toppled, it's not clear to me that a new Iranian government would be all that friendly to the U.S. or Israel.

As they say, read the whole thing. (End test! Now I get to see whether this feeds through.)

2003-06-27T00:07:00.000-04:00

Resolved: Sodomy was never a Classical Value! After all of today's earlier and more profound observations by others, I have little to add to the sodomy law debate -- which appears to be over. Is it time to declare victory and pull out? Along with Andrew Sullivan, I found food for thought in the Thomas dissent. For years I was taught (by conservatives and liberals alike) that the man was a devout bigot. These are not the words of a bigot:

[T]he law before the Court today "is…..uncommonly silly." [citation] If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

As Glenn Reynolds noted, his earlier predictions proved to be correct. (See this, and while you're at it, read Balkin's excellent analysis.) On the general question of sodomy, please read my post from last year, as well as my proposal for "biblically accurate sodomy laws". It is very difficult to analyze modern "sodomy" in terms of Classical Values, for the ancients didn't see sexuality this way. To them, sexuality was just sexuality. (continued below; blogger.com is not accepting large posts)

2003-06-26T16:53:00.000-04:00

(Continued from above) To many modern people, sexuality is so loaded with guilt, morality, religion, and personal judgments as to be incapable of rational discussion. Complete misunderstandings of the ancients are common to both sides of the debate over homosexuality. Modern gay rights activists often scream about how "gay sex" was common among ancients, while moral conservatives go to great, often tortuous lengths to deny homosexuality. Thus, clear references to sexual relations between men are hailed as endorsements of gay sex by gay advocates -- while indignantly labeled as lies by moral conservatives. Descriptions of the Spartans' sexual conduct (or that of Julius Caesar) are seen as advancing or threatening modern agendas, and in the process it is forgotten that these sexual details mattered to the ancient authors about as much as Julius Caesar's concerns about his hair loss. I spent some time yesterday poring over Diodorus Siculus in New York's wonderful neoclassical Public Library, and as I read about ancient sexuality I realized how pointless was my search for truth -- for my source would be hailed by liberal activists as a champion of a modern position never even contemplated -- and simultaneously dismissed as "unreliable" by today's moral conservatives. In a logical and dispassionate world, why should it matter whether or not Spartan soldiers were paired as lovers in battle? Or whether the Celts seemed to prefer sex with men to sex with women?

"Despite the fact that their wives are beautiful, the Celts have little to do with them, but instead abandon themselves to a strange passion for other men. They usually sleep on the ground on skins of wild animals and tumble about with a bedfellow on either side. And what is strangest of all is that, without any thought of modesty, they carelessly surrender their virginity to other men. Far from finding anything shameful in this, they feel insulted if anyone refuses the favors they offer..." From Diodorus Siculus Historical Library, Book V, circa 50 BC

A recent observation by John Derbyshire may, I hope, serve as a starting point not for any debate, but to show the difficulty in judging the ancients by modern standards:

RE: "REMEMBER THERMOPYLAE" [John Derbyshire] I shall continue to appeal the... WHAT? readers are asking me. Sorry, the e-mail got truncated. The last sentence read: "I shall continue to appeal to the spirit of the Three Hundred, who, I feel sure, neither asked nor told."

I won't make light of this issue, because it reveals a gap between us and the ancients so profound as to defy ordinary understanding -- as well as my ability to write about it. The irony is that Mr. Derbyshire does not know how right he is. Likewise, the gay activists are equally right, but not for the reasons they think. The Three Hundred neither asked nor told because there was nothing before them to ask or tell about. We cannot analyze ancient sexuality in modern terms. Any attempt to do so fails utterly. We do not understand true sexual tolerance. No; I am wrong right there. Tolerance is the wrong word. There was a very basic acceptance of sexuality that saw no need to define it. (I say this notwithstanding the additional issues of dominance and hierarchy, which, while complicated by modern standards, nonetheless did not invoke modern guilt or shame.) There was no such thing or such word or category of people as "homosexual." Nor was there any such thing as heterosexual. Putting a question like that in front of the Spartans and expecting an answer is an exercise in the absurd. To "ask or tell" would require a very lengthy modern lecture about such things as sexual guilt and sexual shame. Homosexuality would have to be defined for them as a thing, a concept. While we alternately condemn, stigmatize, celebrate, tolerate, refuse to tolerate homosexuality, we have the concept. Spartans never defined homosexuality, and they would not understand this. Of course Spartan men had sexual intercourse with each other. Anyone who claims they didn't ignores clear historical evidence. But applying the word "gay" or "homosexual" is absurd. To even begin to understand the ancients is to suspend all modern prejudices and values and visit an alien culture in the truest sense of the word. That's why I'm here. To try to do that. The very best I can do is not much at all. The more I read, the more I understand, the more I don't understand. (At this rate I'll be completely ignorant by the time I die.) I am not saying that sexual guilt is entirely a modern concept. (To do so would deny the antiquity of the Old Testament.) However, sexual guilt was definitely not the dominant concept in ancient Greco-Roman times. It set in later. (Much, I think, to human detriment.) These underlying Classical Values, which burst forth in the Renaissance (and were in turn repressed vigorously by puritanical zealots) can't be kept down forever. They have a way of resurfacing over and over -- no matter how many fig leaves are welded on top of them. Historical references may shed light on facts, but they do not explain the feelings of the ancients. Sexual guilt -- especially sexual shame -- was not there as far as I can see. Thus, any attempt to judge them by people steeped in sexual guilt (either by enforcers of it or victims reacting against it) will be problematic at best. However, we are no longer engaged in a simple dispute between guilt-mongers and guilt victims. There is a growing class of people who do not identify with the guilt at all -- people who cannot understand this insistence upon defining and then judging a man by what he wants to do with his penis. To me, that's a good thing. It is a return to Classical Values.

2003-06-26T10:18:00.000-04:00

Don't make "light" of a serious issue! Here's another bright idea -- from the folks at betterhumans.com. Taiwanese scientists have genetically engineered a variety of zebra fish, making it fluorescent.

….coming soon to a pet store near you. The so-called Night Pearls are likely the first genetically modified pets anyone will own. HJ Tsai, a professor at National Taiwan University, created the Night Pearls as a way to make fish organs more visible when studying them under the microscope. Tsai isolated a gene from naturally glowing jellyfish, extracted it, and inserted it into the DNA of zebrafish. To Tsai's surprise, the jellyfish gene made zebrafish glow.

Jeremy Rifkin, call your office!

2003-06-26T09:00:00.000-04:00

No posts yesterday -- my first blank day. I was in New York, and then when I tried to post this last night, blogger.com was being rebuilt. Funny, because I wanted to post the following rebuilding tip. (A blight idea?)

Things to do with a gaping pit For the first time since September 11, 2001, today I visited Ground Zero. A gigantic, gaping hole in the ground, it almost glares at you -- a wound still open, unhealed, unclosed, unbandaged. This was at the end of a long day spent running around New York, soaking up beautiful examples of neoclassical architecture. The best I saw all day was the New York Public Library. Anyone who visits New York should go there, as it is free, and incredibly opulent -- a marble palace of halls, arches, Escher-like stairways, and busts of famous Romans and Greeks. Just incredibly cool; I really think the place would be the envy of any ancient Roman emperor. Check it out!

"the apogee of Beaux-Arts design, [the Library]was the largest marble structure ever attempted in the United States." (Link)

With such an incredible thing of beauty in my mind, imagine how depressing it was to go look at the hole in the ground left by bigoted worshipers of a god said to have commanded it. (The longer it remains, the more likely they are to make false victory pronouncements, too.) When I got home I looked at some of the proposed designs, and frankly, I think they all suck. Here's a fairly comprehensive collection of proposals from some of the better recognized architects. Not one renews the Classical tradition that makes New York such a beautiful place. Nor do any of them invoke America's spirit of righteous anger and revenge as they should. I mean, it's all good and fine to propose building another building as big or bigger, but people are still really angry, and they deserve something grander. It is interesting to note that "elitist" New York is still very angry about what happened. If you don't believe it, ask anyone -- from a business executive all the way down to your regular old New York cabbie or typical working guy. They are all pissed. Much of the elitist East Coast would like to forget (and as to California, well, they were never really connected anyway, and much as I love them they just aren't into worrying their pretty heads), but New Yorkers have not forgotten and they won't forget. I notice some of the damnedest things, and today what really got my attention was the kind of people who are coming to New York to line up and stare at the gaping wound. How long has it been now? One year and nine months. The people are coming from places like Iowa, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Tennessee. The same places called "flyover country" by the elite. I saw a couple of them crying. They were all very respectful. Like New Yorkers, they have not forgotten. (Some country music guy even wrote a song about that….) I have been around, and I never thought I would witness such an emotional display of solidarity between New Yorkers and people once considered the epitome of hick tourists. Not now they're not. It is a very solemn, serious thing. Anyway, today, along with New Yorkers and with an assortment of ordinary Americans from around the country, I, simply, remembered. And then I started getting angry, and I thought about the beautiful Classical buildings like the New York Public Library. Beautiful Classical buildings, need for revenge, gaping wound in the ground. Suddenly, right there, I saw the Roman Colosseum, in all its splendor, loyally rebuilt. (Note: be sure to move your mouse over the picture to get before and after images.) Opening day, memorial for the victims, victory celebration, and a festival of revenge. There are a lot of really angry friends and families of the victims, and a lot of very angry Americans out there. This would give us something to do with all these otherwise useless al Qaeda/Taliban prisoners. They already whine and complain; let's give them an outlet. No need for gory details; I just got back and it's too late for that. Besides, the ideas would flow in -- just as they did after September 11. (Even famous liberals were advocating such things as torture and public executions…..) Furthermore, the Colosseum sits on only six acres of land. The World Trade Center complex is sixteen acres, so there'd be plenty of space for buildings larger and more grandiose than the Twin Towers. There's no reason why they couldn't also be done in the classical style. Take a look at Ground Zero's neighbor, the very Classical New York Stock Exchange. Many have made a killing there:

Its headquarters today is this roman-like temple of finance by George B. Post which dates to 1903. The pediment has an interesting title: "Integrity Protecting the Works of Man."

Note: the correct name of the goddess for Integrity is Fides. Or take a look at Grand Central Station. Again, a Classical theme, with Mercury, God of Travel, standing guard. All the best things in New York are literally right out of the Classical mold. Even if the idea of Victory Games is too politically incorrect for the Powers that Be, a Classical design is not. As it stands, though, that large gaping hole remains a blight. It's just crying out for revenge. Fun and games are the best revenge.

2003-06-24T21:16:00.000-04:00

Some of these Ayatollahs are pretty lively characters.... Events keep confirming my pessimistic view that compromise with religious fundamentalists is utterly impossible. It would seem that on this point at least, the fundamentalists agree with me. I guess I should be thankful that we still have the First Amendment. First, (from Instapundit) there's this none-too-magnanimous letter to Jonah Goldberg:

No clear-thinking person believes that the homosexual sexual ethic and that of the family-based society can peacefully coexist. The opposing presuppositions about sexuality, marriage, family and culture inherent in these world views are contradictory and mutually exclusive. One must prevail at the expense of the other. Scott Lively, Founder, Abiding Truth Ministries. Director, AFA, California.

We can't "peacefully coexist?" "One must prevail at the expense of the other?" What does this language mean? Speaking that way -- in the name of any religion -- evokes very dark periods in history, as well as recent periods in the past:

"Death to compromisers!" -- Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

At least guys like Mr. Lively can't issue fatwas against those they deem heretical. What really gets me is what I blogged about yesterday -- the sneaky and underhanded way the radical fundamentalists, like the Communists whose tactics they share, try to hide their true agenda. They don't merely want to cure homosexuals; they want to imprison those who would refuse their "cure." But they keep hiding it, making it tougher and tougher for the public to catch on -- just as the above letter was printed in the hard copy of the Washington Times but never appeared on their web site. This forces people to scurry around, combing through some very dreary web sites. I don't like it at all, as I have better things to do with my time. Anyway, because Scott Lively seems to enjoy evasion and obfuscation, I feel obligated to share the fruits of my research with you. Meet Scott Lively, the man. If he shuts that down, try this lively page. His primary organization. (Lively launched Abiding Truth Ministries.) This is the same outfit I have been complaining about for constantly changing its web sites. Really, it's like pulling teeth getting the truth out of these guys. They want to pose as quasi-medical "helpers" of homosexuals, when in reality they want to imprison them. As I said before, I don't think the goal here is to help homosexuals learn the fine arts of vaginal-penile intercourse. Lively also argues that Hitler was gay, and he has been pestering Jewish organizations and the National Holocaust Museum to stop portraying homosexuals as Holocaust victims and instead tell the world that the Nazi movement was gay. (A fact which, if true, proves what? That we need to copy Nazi Germany's sodomy laws?) What this means, of course, is that Mr. Lively is a Holocaust Revisionist. His claim that individual Nazis were homosexuals is about as enlightening as "proof" that some Nazis had Jewish ancestry -- or that some Jews helped carry out the Holocaust. Interesting that Mr. Lively's book was endorsed by R. J. Rushdoony a man well-known for publicly demanding the death penalty for homosexuals, and (why should this surprise anyone?) for his Holocaust denial. Also (again, not surprisingly) Lively has written for Rushdoony's magazine, The Chalcedon Report. Forgive me for getting carried away here. I know this blog is supposed to be about Classical Values, but I just get a little hot under the collar when a Holocaust denier accuses me of being part of the Holocaust. Where was I? Oh yes, here are a couple of pieces of Lively advice:

help for Republicans Sexual immorality caused Columbine killings. A fascinating rebuttal to the famous Michael Moore thesis that Columbine was caused by the guns themselves.

Has anyone ever heard of blaming the murderers? I thought I was being a bit hard on the fundamentalists yesterday, because for the life of me I try to be fair and I dislike attacking anyone's sincere religious beliefs. However, sodomy law advocacy goes too far. So does Holocaust denial. So does threatening my right to peacefully exist.

2003-06-24T15:09:00.000-04:00

Hypocrisy Means Admitting You Were Wrong? There are some very strange definitions of hypocrisy going around. One of the more ridiculous assertions (see also this story) I've seen in the blogosphere is the notion that because Clarence Thomas might have benefited from affirmative action, he is somehow prohibited from ever being against it. The reason given is that he is a "hypocrite" if he benefited from affirmative action and now dares to oppose it. This is logic? Remember Jim Crow? I am glad the white folks who eventually came to see the error of their ways were not condemned as hypocrites, or else change would have been impossible. How about George Wallace?

In 1982, he ran for governor a fourth time. In a watershed moment, he admitted that he had been wrong about "race" all along. He was elected by a coalition represented by blacks, organized labor and forces seeking to advance public education.

Under the logic being used against Clarence Thomas, George Wallace was a hypocrite to change his mind. Once a bigot, always a bigot?

UPDATE: Be sure to read Don Watkins on the supremely hypocritical Maureen Dowd! A good fisking. Go Don!

2003-06-23T15:23:00.000-04:00

Your Taste is NOT your Business Anyone who hasn't checked out the latest from my blogfather, Jeff (which I am sure most of you have, because he gave me my start) must read this. A police officer was fired for smoking -- OFF the job, at a party -- and why? Because some sneak ratted him out, and the law mandated his dismissal. As Jeff says:

I couldn't sleep... And it's stories like this that keep me up at night; the loss of freedom in this country. Did you know that it is against the law for cops and firemen to smoke -- on or off the job -- in Massachusetts?

I've had many police officer friends over the years, and I'm glad I didn't read that before I went to bed last night, or I'd have had problems sleeping too. Once again, this is an issue which will not go away. As Jeff asks, what's next? Food?

Remember, liberals are never content with just a little social-engineering. They never know when to stop. What's to prevent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from passing further regulations that say that a worker is forbidden from eating junk-food? Will they start testing for the presence of trans-fats and fire anyone who has "Twinkie-blood?"

Indeed! Dietary laws have an important place in history, they are in the Bible, and people are free to follow them or not. But they are not the business of government in a free country.

Additional Note: by the way, attempts to stamp out smoking are nothing new. Why, they are almost medieval! Sir Walter Raleigh's smoking was a major factor in his execution by the ferociously anti-tobacco James I, and he has been called the first martyr for smokers. Punishments have included flogging, slitting of the lips, and execution. Boy oh boy! It all sounds familiar.... Isn't the Culture War lovely?

2003-06-23T10:36:00.000-04:00

Emergency Use Only -- No Bull! More not-so-hidden agendas: Instapundit links to this shocker, which typifies the ruling class mentality our founding fathers wanted this country to avoid. Tom Harkin saw no need to stand in the insufferably long lines he helped impose on the American people, so he flashed his special Apparatchik card, and cut ahead of the 200 ordinary Americans -- "proles" who had been waiting obediently in their long queue. Tom Harkin, Populist!

"more worried about getting the job done for the people..."

Bah! Here's what I've been waiting for all these years. In California and in a growing number of cities, our rulers have constructed so called "environmental" highway lanes, called "High Occupancy Vehicle" or, simply, "HOV." Anyone who has been sufficiently steeped in Newspeak to bow his head reverently whenever the Holy Environment is mentioned will not question the "need" for these lanes. Only a right wing wacko would maintain that because he pays taxes he has a right to drive on roads he paid for. (Obviously, such misguided thinking must be stamped out. But what really needs to be stamped out is knowledge of history.) Too many of these right wing wackos recall that the busy Soviet Apparatchiks had their own special lanes. These were strictly "verboten" to ordinary citizens, but after all, their rulers were trying to help them. They were "more worried about getting the job done for the people." Just like Senator Harkin? Those who feel entitled to rule want Americans to hurry up and forget about the special Russian lanes. Meanwhile, they look at the "environmental" lanes they have created, and drool longingly. After all, the police can already drive in them. So can any "emergency vehicles." (Well, once we declare a permanent State of "Red," doesn't that make all cars driven by our fearless leaders "emergency vehicles?") Emergency vehicles (fire, ambulance, rescue), law enforcement vehicles, public utility vehicles are already exceptions. But after 9-11, shouldn't all government-related vehicles be considered emergency vehicles? (Some busybodies have lots of important meetings to attend -- and lots of emergency regulations to impose...) Meanwhile, they are encouraging modern Pavlik Morozovs to rat on their fellow drivers. What a cool number they have for the rat line. I think they've started a trend: First Seattle: (206) 764-HERO And now Texas! 713-921-HERO We can all be HEROs -- just like little Pavlik Morozov. One witty blogger thinks Pavlik was ahead of his time. Gene Healy is right. Guys like Tom Harkin want to reduce our lives to a modern rat race of despair hoping we will lash out at each other instead of the real enemy. Similarly, Spanish matadors fear the "smart bull." That's the occasional bull who realizes that the stupid red cape is not the real enemy. It's the guy who's waving it!

2003-06-22T18:58:00.000-04:00

Cultural Freedom? Not Yet.... Is the Culture War really over? "DON'T GO WOBBLY" That's what Jonah Goldberg is being urged not to do, by someone he respects "who toils in the trenches of the conservative movement." Mr. Goldberg (who has my sympathy for trying to be fair) cites the following email as a "common sentiment" among conservatives:

What they seek is not simply a comfortable life and social acceptance. They already have much of that. What they want is 100-percent complete acceptance. Many social conservatives in America believe there is a God and a Holy Spirit and a Bible that condemns homosexuality as an abomination, and they will not be defeated. The problem is that no one outside a few ragtag religious-right groups is really fighting the tide you cite. Most conservatives do not. The GOP certainly does not. It is considered censorship to fight Hollywood, and religious discrimination to fight it in Washington. But the real "culture war" on this issue is person by person, endangered soul by endangered soul. Don't be so pessimistic. The last great wave of gay activism was followed by the conservative takeover of 1994. A wave of gay-marriage activism in the United States could be yet another wave of political disaster for the Democratic Party. But it won't be if we wave white flags. Now is the not the time to go wobbly!

Don't go wobbly? What does that mean? No to gay marriage? Or yes to sodomy laws? Upholding the rights of teenage gay bashers to enforce "Traditional Values" by beating up sissies? Shunning homosexuals? Or shunning politicians who employ gay staffers? Or shunning all people who have gay friends? They will not say. I have seen such deceit before -- over on the left. I don't like to believe in slippery slopes. But when people refuse to tell me what they are seeking, then how am I to know what it is? How the hell do I know they don't share the agenda of the god they claim is so bigoted that he sent the 9-11 attacks to punish us? Many of them say they do. Take the time to read what which is preached routinely by the "few ragtag religious-right groups," and it becomes clear why they hesitate to tell you what they really think. (Similarly, Communist groups like the anti-war ANSWER do everything possible to conceal their real purpose.) Let me give a few examples -- "a few ragtag religious-right groups" -- of the sort cited in the above letter to Jonah Goldberg:

TEN COMMANDMENTS.ORG GOD HATES FAGS AbidingTruth.com (too slick; they pull the cool sites after I notice 'em!) HOMO FASCIST WATCH CovenantNews.com (Note that this and the linked HOMO FASCIST guys were both pulled from Abiding Truth since my post on the subject.)

While the above are all fun reading, my personal favorite is Reverend Ovadal, who, in addition to valiantly battling the homosexuals' famous "SODOMITE WAR MACHINE" (won't someone name a blog for that?) has now devoted himself to stopping nudity at a public beach. His website proudly features archived letters from angry beachgoers, called "More Malevolent Mutterings of a Perverted Elite." Whose souls are endangered? Homos or nudists? Does that depend on whose interpretation of whose god prevails? Is that really up to those who claim to be God's warriors here on earth? They think so. Is this the Culture War or is it a religious war? To the extent that it is a religious war, then the warriors lost before they started, because they're stuck with the First Amendment, and try as they might, they'll never be able to impose a particular interpretation of a particular book upon a free people. Seen this way, religious warriors in the United States are destined to be little more than permanently sore losers. But the Culture War, in the pure sense, will never be over -- not as long as some human beings believe they have a right (indeed, a duty) to force others to comply with their beliefs. There are too many issues to fit into a single war, and the attack on homosexuality is only one of them. I abhor people who attack lifestyles, because telling people how to live is the essence of tyranny. I'll fight any and all lifestyle attacks, because they strike at human freedom. I don't care whether they come in the form of taxes on the Internet, gun control, drug laws or numerous other attempts to control people. Most of these ideas spring from twisted altruism, which rationalizes one of the most insidious forms of tyranny. I speak of the modern idea that doing good unto others means interfering with their personal lives. As long as there exist busybodies with ideas about how others should be made to live, there will be a Culture War. The innumerable forms it takes are limited only by the imaginations of the cultural busybodies themselves. That is the Culture War. On the one side are those who seek to control. On the other are those who wish to be free. I don't think it's over.

2003-06-22T13:34:00.000-04:00

Marriage Fever or Marriage Allergy? "If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." -- George S. Patton Instapundit is trying to help a very worthy Canadian blogger, who soon may need to see a doctor. That blogger, Colby Cosh (someone I should have been reading long before), offers intriguing thoughts about gay marriage:

On one hand you have the judges, who have elevated the preservation of "dignity" to the highest legal principle of the land without coming within a parsec of defining it, and the gay and lesbian activists, whose blind worship of the state has them virtually falling over themselves to obtain marriage licenses the very hour Leviathan permits them to acquire one. We've got "dignity" now; I read it in the Globe and Mail. Poor sods, all they've done is relinquish whatever dignity they had to begin with. But on the other hand you have a pack of perspiring Christians (and Muslims and Sikhs) so befuddled about their own doctrine that they believe a change in civil marriage procedure somehow threatens the special status and nature of the marriage sacrament. I swear I'm just waiting for these people to call for a government ban on soda crackers because some consumers might accidentally conclude that they are ingesting the corpus Christi with their Campbell's tomato soup.

Cosh wants to get a note from his doctor so that he can sit this one out. I guess I should be glad I don't live in Canada, where I read you can go to jail for criticizing people or even listening to Howard Stern. In an earlier post I expressed misgivings about discussing gay marriage now that the Culture War is over. It is highly emotional, and I don't want to give ammo to anti-gay bigots, many of whom oppose gay marriage chiefly because they hate homosexuals. I like Colby Cosh's idea about getting a note from my doctor. First they pass laws saying you can get married so you can be "just like everybody else" but if you avoid that you can still get sued by the piece of trade you managed to con into a "relationship" and if you don't like that and you dump on the gay activists they can put you in jail for creating an oppressive climate? If there's one thing I can't stand, it's an oppressive climate. I think I'm allergic; I need a note from my doctor.

2003-06-21T13:25:00.000-04:00

Bring Back Gay Blackmail! I don't know why it didn't occur to me last night (maybe because no one has ever successfully blackmailed me), but with a start this morning I realized that I had forgotten about the blackmail angle of gay marriage. I don't want to get into an extended discussion of the ethics of "outing" here -- because I think it's a lot of crap. (Nobody's goddamn business what you do except those who do it with you.) However, extortion by means of legal process adds a whole new dimension to the analysis -- and it is something that Hollywood types would do well to keep in mind. Scenario: big-shot closeted gay star of a leading daytime soap picks up hustler on Santa Monica Boulevard. Smelling money, the hustler decides to go to a lawyer with a trumped-up, bogus palimony story. Even though he has no case, the lawyer takes it anyway because of the certain publicity -- and because he knows that the star will pay off big time to hush it up. Blackmail is nothing new, but a new legal framework inviting it is another matter. In fact, in the old days, a hustler threatening to expose his client would have been properly called a blackmailer, and could have been arrested for it. Today, he'd get his fifteen minutes of fame in the tabloids, and the payoff would be called "an undisclosed settlement." This bit of old history is just the tip of the iceberg. There are too many hungry lawyers as it is. Why feed them?

2003-06-21T00:07:00.000-04:00

First Acrimony, Then Alimony? Is the Culture War over already? Should I close down my blog and go party? It might have something to do with his writing style (and it might be because I don't like seeing someone bashed because the bashers don't like his parents) but despite many disagreements with what he has said, I have always found something likeable about Jonah Goldberg. His amiability came through in his piece today, in which he urges conservatives to face simple reality, and gay activists to be magnanimous in victory. With the war "over" I don't see much point in regurgitating what I wrote last year (before I began blogging in earnest) about gay marriage, but here's the gist:

Until now, consensual homosexuality has been one of the few remaining unregulated, private sanctuaries of bohemian life in America. I for one would like to keep it that way.

How could I -- a libertarian, someone who believes in maximizing human freedom -- possibly object to gay marriage? Wouldn't this simply allow homosexuals the same rights allowed everybody else? First of all, from where derives the assumption that I want to be like everybody else? Rights are one thing, but is it really fair to see marriage as a "right?" It is an entire institution -- one which I have rejected for almost my entire life. Who the hell has the right to impose it on me with the threat of governmental coercion? If you don't think there is governmental coercion involved in marriage, then I ask you, right now, to leave your house, get in your car, or walk -- down to the nearest post office. Look around the place, and somewhere on the wall you will see posters offering rewards for people known as "deadbeat dads." I am not defending them, because I think most of them are either con artists or abysmal failures in life, but how many of them do you think see marriage as a "right?" What do you think alimony is? Community property? These are rights, but they are also onerous burdens, because they can mean having to give up large sums of money (perhaps half or more of what you own) or else GO TO JAIL. Rights? The "right" to be jailed if I don't pay up to someone I no longer love? How is that a right? How is it a right to be placed by new laws in a position where I can be compelled to do something to which I never consented, under threat of imprisonment? What if I do not want such a right? May I simply opt out? Suppose I take pity on an unwashed, down-on-his-luck, young homeless person who'd otherwise be engaged in prostitution or other ruinous pursuits, and I take him in. Suppose I have more money than he does -- a lot more. Suppose further that we work a deal: in exchange for food and rent he takes care of the place and helps out generally. Suppose a mutual sexual relationship occurs. Suppose further that both of us benefit, that he gets a job and improves his life, but that after about two or three years I get tired of his sullen, studied ignorance and ask him to leave. No one has been harmed or taken advantage of. What would stop him from marching off in a rage to the nearest lawyer? In a state with legal gay marriage why couldn't he simply demand his "share" of so-called "community assets"? Moral conservatives can complain all they want about the immoral lifestyle and how it degrades the courts to be cluttering up their calendars with such litigation, but what about me? What "right" would I have gained? The way I see it, I would have lost, big time, and I would have government in my private life in ways never imaginable before. I saw too much family law, and I know how evil the system can be. I also know how vindictive an angry ex can be. There is nothing pretty about two people breaking up, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Until now the difference was that homosexuals were simply two free men (or two free women) and if they wanted economic benefits they would have to actually do things such as creating trusts, drafting wills, entering into adoption agreements, signing powers of attorney, and the like. If they didn't want to do those things, then they should legally remain two strangers. In a word, before gay marriage, they were free. This is a freedom which I do not want to surrender, certainly not because a large and vocal group of people are demanding something they think is a "right." If you think I am engaging in even the slightest hyperbole, then read this. Lawyers in New Jersey are already waiting in the wings. As it stands today, homosexuality does not threaten anyone's freedom in those states without sodomy laws. But taking away rights -- even if done in the name of giving rights -- does. Some might ask, how can there be rights without responsibilities? It is one thing to impose a responsibility on those who seek it deliberately, and enter into formal arrangements. It is quite another to create a new cause of action which is a trap for the unwary. To me, it smacks of a totalitarian foot in the door. One of the arguments often heard in favor of alimony is that it compensates a woman for having given a man "the best years of her life." She being "devalued" as a result of this, it is only fair for him to pay her. This does not apply to gay couples. I remember well breaking up with an ex, who made precisely that argument -- that he had given up his best years. Well, what did that make my years? My worst years? He said that I would never have finished law school without him; I said that I finished law school in spite of him. Granted, this was all terrible bitchiness, and much was said on both sides which was hateful, although later forgiven and forgotten. But had it been possible to state a legal cause of action, there'd have been hell to pay. Why? Simply because I was making more money? What is fair about that, unless the idea is to impose socialism? Many of the advocates of gay marriage also fight for socialism -- so many, that I am confident that were someone to propose a model gay marriage statute minus the alimony provisions, they would scream, howl (and blame objections to alimony on "internalized homophobia"). Doubtless they would come up with some argument that the "less advantaged" partner was being denied his "rights." I don't get it. If there is freedom, we all have the same advantages under the law, and anything more should never be imposed by force, but only by mutual consent. But then, I am no socialist. Gay marriage shows every sign of being another step towards creeping socialism. Glenn Reynolds linked to this story warning about the pitfalls of nanny state involvement with marriage:

...activists on the left and right still want to invite the state deeper into our relationships. They’re both wrong. It’s time to get the state out of our relationships.

I have nothing against consensus, mind you. But when I see activists on the left and right agreeing on the need for more regulation, I become wary. As the gay activists bask in victory, instead of thinking about what rights they are getting, I wish some of them would ask themselves what they might be losing in the process. I don't want the state in my relationships. I don't want to visualize gay alimony. There but for the grace of the gods went I -- and it wasn't a pretty picture.

2003-06-20T23:21:00.000-04:00

I, CLONIUS, promise to love, honor and obey -- me! Hey if the war for gay marriage is over can I be a mother AND a father? I wanna be a mom and a dad, God damn it! I found a link to this story about how they can make an egg from a man's semen, and then fertilize it with semen from the other man. I want to be the other man and the best man! The father of the groom and the mother of the bride! How about if I have them make the egg from my sperm, then fertilize it with own semen? That would be really cool 'cause then I can be both the mom and the dad! How many people can do that? I know, I know, it's bound to catch on as an idea, but can't I be the first? I will hear no condemnation of auto incest because it's MY business; I am only doing it to -- ME! Hey, why can't I improve on myself? My own superline! The ME generation! I will raise ME myself! I am me! Why can't I be more of me? Deep, super inbreeding -- in me! My purest essence! More pure and more essential than I am myself! There can be no purer blood imaginable! ME times ME equals ME squared! Of Caesar it was said with much fondness by his soldiers, that he was "every woman's husband, and every man's wife!" How jealous of ME would Caesar be! He never could be his own husband and his own wife at the same time!

2003-06-20T00:09:00.000-04:00

Children are adults because guns kill adults who are children, so let's take away all guns including toys! Deliberately misleading statistics fascinate me. And now that I am blogging, I can share my concerns about them publicly. A newspaper headline in today's Philadelphia Inquirer reads, "Murders of the young in Phila. are more likely to be with guns -- A study found that 90 percent of slayings of people ages 7 to 24 are done with firearms." The article goes on to say that "according to a roundup of statistics on city children released yesterday by Philadelphia Safe and Sound, a group funded with nonprofit, corporate and city money" (that's taxpayer's money, folks!), "of the 110 victims between the ages of 7 and 24 last year, 90 percent were killed by guns." Well, OK.... What that means is that 99 people between 7 and 24 were shot to death in Philadelphia. 11 were murdered by other means. The implication, obviously, is that if there were no guns, 99 "children" would be alive. The word "children" is key to understanding what is going on. The word "children" is used ten times in the article, while the ill-defined weasel words "young" and "youth" are seldom used ("youth is used three times; "young" is used only in the headline and the first sentence.) You don't suppose someone might be planting suggestive ideas, do you? Most ordinary citizens, I fear, read their local newspaper uncritically, and are likely to conclude that children are killing each other by leaps and bounds. I doubt very many of them think about what these statistics mean, and I would wager that even fewer would take the time to track them down. That's why I decided to do this -- just this once. I admire my blogdaddy Jeff for going after Yahoo the way he does, and well, I couldn't live with myself if I didn't make a stab at doing my small part, especially because this appeared here in my local newspaper. The "statistics" come from Philadelphia Safe and Sound, which has a web page where I found the following statement:

Guns and youth homicide in Philadelphia are closely linked. Between 1995 and 1999, more than 85 percent of all homicide victims ages 7 to 24 were killed by guns. Within the broader community efforts to combat crime and violence, intervention must be targeted and focused on youth-related crime. For example, increased efforts to reduce the number of guns available to youth would cut the number of juvenile homicides.

Guns are thus presented as the "cause" of homicide, and no supporting data are offered to explain why "increased efforts to reduce the number of guns" would lead to fewer homicides. (Did such efforts work in Washington DC and New York -- where all firearms are prohibited?) What about the word "children"? I was amazed and delighted to find that the web page actually displays a graph, because it indicts the bogus message that "children" are being killed in large numbers. No breakdown is given in the newspaper, of course, but here is the telltale graph -- lifted directly from the taxpayer-funded web site (where I hope they leave it): As you can see, the numbers have gone down slightly over the years; 110 total this year (versus 114 in 1999), which means these numbers (particularly the proportions of 7-17 versus 18-24) are all comparable. But as to the "children".... The last time I looked at the law, people aged 18 to 24 are adults. Not only are they adults, but this age group is considered to be at the peak age for commission of adult crimes. As anyone can see, those in the 7-17 category are only a small percentage of the total. The rest -- almost 90% of the total -- are simply, adults. ADULTS ARE NOT CHILDREN. (Do I need to explain the logic of my last statement? No wonder I have such a terrible time with definitions....) Self apparent though it is to any reasonable person that adults are not children, the message my newspaper presents, masquerading as news, is this: Adults in the peak crime-committing age group are actually "children." This is what mainstream journalists spend huge amounts of time trying to do; tricking ordinary people into thinking that adults are children. I guess if you read such Orwellian Newspeak long enough to start believing it, you might actually become a sort of child. Maybe that's the goal here. (Any wonder people feel compelled to blog? Hmmph! Back to the "news....") Precisely what would this fine paper have its readers to do about this explosion in "child" killings? One very civic-minded lady named Shelly Yanoff has the answer:

"Adults have got to determine to make this city safer for kids, and one way to do that is to get the guns off the streets and out of our homes," said Shelly Yanoff, executive director of another nonprofit, Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth, who attended a news conference on the report at Julia de Burgos Elementary School yesterday.

Doesn't this woman have anything better to do than interfere with my life? I must assume for the sake of argument that when she uses the term "adults" she does not mean the adults aged 18 to 24 who murder each other, because adult murderers are not interested in getting their guns off the streets and out of their homes. So, she must be referring to ordinary adults. People who don't use their guns to murder others. People like me. Is Ms. Yanoff actually saying that the "kids" will be "safer" if someone takes my gun away from me? The only children I can think of who might be made safer by that are the small minority of criminally inclined "kids" who might break into my house. If I am disarmed, and therefore helpless in the face of home invasion, through her twisted logic does that make young criminals safer? It would not make law abiding children safer, because I would not shoot law abiding children. Does Ms. Yanoff want the world made safer for "child" criminals to kill and rob people? That would be bad enough, but when we look at the 18-24 statistics.... Gee! Might she want to make the world safer for adult criminals too? How about making the world a safer place by outlawing even toy guns? Can you believe this insanity? Like Communism, gun control has not worked, but instead of admitting it, they want to extend it. If you ask me, I think we'd all be safer if children were taught how to shoot safely, properly, and responsibly. Bring back the high school rifle range! Fewer "children" (whether the adult criminal variety of "child" or real children) got killed in those days. Curiously, these statistics provide little information about the victims of shootings (especially those who might have been law-abiding as opposed to gang-banger killings). Aren't the law-abiding ones deserving of protection? Why not offer real protection to the genuinely law-abiding instead of more lame attempts to punish the many innocent for the crimes of a few?

2003-06-19T00:36:00.000-04:00

I am truly honored to discover that two more fine bloggers have linked to me. Roger L. Simon is a successful and distinguished author and quite an inspiring guy. I am really flattered that he likes my blog and has linked to me. An award-winning mystery writer, he has a number of famous novels in print, as well as an excellent blog. Read it! And check out his new book while you're at it. I just ordered a copy, and I can't wait to read it. The fascinating story of the creation of "hippie private eye Moses Wine," which turned the author's life around, is right there at his blogsite. A "happy accident" (as if hard work and talent are accidental) became a famous book (translated into a dozen languages) and was made into a hit film -- "The Big Fix" -- starring Richard Dreyfus. That a guy of this caliber would link to me is just too cool for words. THANK YOU! Mike Silverman is one of the very first blogs I discovered. He so inspired me that one of the first things I did as a blogger was to imitate him shamelessly. Read Mike's post today about screwball "gay activists" engaged in anti-Israel bigotry. This same outfit (Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism) refuses to condemn Islamic bigots who kill homosexuals, and they spend most of their time hassling ordinary people whose only crime is to have a cup of coffee at Starbucks. They get a well-deserved fisking. Also today, Mike links to a fascinating morality test. I took it, and was not surprised to see how low I rank on the morality scale. Too permissive… But then, I never had to raise kids, so I can't be too judgmental about the people out there who are not permissive. (I just don't like the idea of turning the nation into a giant kindergarten.) Mike Silverman is one of the best in the business, and I am honored for the link.

2003-06-19T00:08:00.000-04:00

Homos and Bigots Unite! John Derbyshire is not someone I particularly agree with, but he is right to sound the alarm about this:

69-year-old Harry Hammond, arrested last year in England and fined over $1,000 for holding up a placard that said: STOP IMMORALITY. STOP HOMOSEXUALITY. STOP LESBIANISM

I think it's a pretty sorry state of affairs when the government arrests people for voicing opinions, no matter how obnoxious those opinions may be. This is the crime of which this poor old man was convicted:

....display any writing, sign or other visible representation that is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm and distress thereby.

Hey, man, there goes my month-old blog! In England I am already a criminal. Anyone who opens my blog and sees the "homofascist" posting the other day might very well feel harassed, alarmed, or distressed. Brent Bozell and Bill O'Reilly might also feel the same way about blogs attacking them. As I said yesterday, "You have a constitutional right to be sickened by anything and everything which sickens you. Just don't get mad at me for not puking." In a free country, we have the following social compact: you promise not to arrest me for making you sick, and in return, I promise not to arrest you for getting sick. What is wrong with that? Does anyone think criminalization of offensive speech can't happen here? Do you think those who are "offended" could care less whether I am serious or engaging in satire? What if I get mad and ask, really loudly "Just who are these homofascists, anyway?" Arrest me! Please! My blog needs the publicity!

2003-06-18T23:43:00.000-04:00

Monotheistic Polytheism or Polytheistic Monotheism? That master of understatement, Glenn Reynolds, outdid himself here. I stumbled -- deeply -- upon the best discussion of Classical Values of any blog, anywhere, at Donald Sensing's great blog. "A bunch of good stuff," said the Instapundit. Indeed. (Hey, am I allowed to say "Indeed" when I'm this happy about something? Really, this gem of a post positively drips with scholastic brilliance, and it is so delightful to read that it really doesn't matter whether you agree entirely with the central thesis. That's as things should be.)

2003-06-18T12:03:00.000-04:00

Hanoi, Riyadh: Different Strokes for Different Folks? After thinking over the last blog, I have one additional thought about Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly's behavior in the Roush matter reminds me of Jane Fonda's infamous duplicity towards American POWs during her wartime propaganda tour of North Vietnam. Is this a fair comparison? Jane Fonda took at face value statements by POWs that their treatment by North Vietnamese captors was "humane and lenient" -- even though she should have known they'd been brainwashed and tortured. She will never live it down, no matter what she does. But unlike Bill O'Reilly, Jane Fonda was not a prominent journalist. She therefore did not have to answer to the higher standard we expect from journalists. I guess maybe the comparison isn't quite as fair as I thought it was.

2003-06-18T01:28:00.000-04:00

White Slaver? We Blog; You Decide! As Instapundit makes abundantly clear, every blogger worth his salarium (Latin for "salt" -- the salary of classical days) is tearing Bill O'Reilly a new one because of his attacks on the Internet. Instapundit Lileks Volokh Matt Welch, ad infinitum. O'Reilly has taken on the entire blogosphere. As a lowly little fish, I can't do much more than echo their criticism, and altruistically offer up one more tidbit. I think I know the real reason O'Reilly hates the Internet: his journalism is so bad that he knows that sooner or later, the bloggers will have at his carcass. The guy has much to hide, and this is not my accusation. I'll just play the parrot fish. A woman named Pat Roush made the mistake of marrying a Saudi who kidnapped her daughters, taking them back to Saudi Arabia. Imagining that O'Reilly would be on her side, Ms. Roush enlisted his help. According to the Wall Street Journal's Jack McGurn, instead of helping this desperate woman, O'Reilly stage-managed a classic back-stab:

- Stabbing an American mother in the back. Mr. O'Reilly admits he did not tell Pat Roush that her daughters--and her granddaughter--were in London. He arranged that secretly with Saudis. He further admits that he did this because he knew the Saudis would not go for a deal that included the mother. - Dria Davis. All Mr. O'Reilly seemed to know about her was that she was an American girl who escaped from Saudi Arabia. More pertinent, though, was that she too had been interviewed by a State Department representative who concluded that her father "is clearly fond of his daughter"; this at a time, as we know now, when her father was threatening to kill her. "If he [O'Reilly] had just shut up for a moment and listened," Miss Davis told me, "he would have known why Pat's daughters could not be speaking freely." - Colluded with the Saudis. Mr. O'Reilly originally proposed to Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.) that the delegation meet the Roush sisters inside Saudi Arabia before a Fox camera; the Burton people responded that such a meeting was unwise. Burton staffers say they were stunned to learn, upon their arrival in Riyadh, that the Saudis had spirited Ms. Roush's daughters out of the country on the precise day the delegation was there to press demands the women be brought to America. Mr. O'Reilly admits that he set the whole thing up with Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudis' point man. As he said, "We convinced the Saudis to fly the women, now ages 19 and 24, to London, where our producer interviewed them." In other words, the deal was: The Saudis supplied the women, he supplied the interview. In a statement issued on his return, Rep. Burton scored the Saudis for their "bad faith" in removing the Roush sisters out of the country, saying, "It is clear that they [the Saudis] purposefully were involved in an effort to undermine" his visit. If we are to believe Mr. O'Reilly's own words, it all happened at his instigation. My contention is not that Mr. O'Reilly deliberately set out to do Mr. al-Jubeir's dirty work. The point--as I stated on the show--is that Mr. al-Jubeir and Co. were looking for a sucker and they found him.

While O'Reilly denies complicity with the Saudis, there's a contradiction which bothers me. On the one hand, O'Reilly besmirches the girls for making statements in favor of Osama bin Laden:

That sealed it. If two American citizens are that far gone -- for whatever reason -- there is little anyone can do.

Like Pontius Pilate, O'Reilly now can wash his hands of the whole affair while the crowd he preaches to roars in approval. Those dreadful girls deserve whatever flogging they get from their Saudi captors -- just for being bad Americans. Except he doesn't end it there. Next, O'Reilly admits they were brainwashed:

...the hard truth is that human beings can be brainwashed, especially when they are kidnapped as young children. Both Alia and Aisha are married to Saudis, and Aisha has a baby. They are not going to fight for their freedom. They are going to stay where they are.

Wasn't that the mother's whole point? That her daughters had been kidnapped and brainwashed? I think she even wrote a book about it. How about slaves? Can't they also be so brainwashed that they identify with their captors? Wouldn't it be better to just recognize the "hard truth" that they are not going to fight for their freedom, and that they are just going to stay where they are? Freedom? I guess that depends on whether Bill O'Reilly likes what you say.

2003-06-17T19:23:00.000-04:00

Get the ~~Jews~~ Homos Out of Our ~~Theaters~~ Sewers! Andrew Sullivan is annoyed by Brent Bozell's amazing discovery that the theater industry is full of (gulp!) homos. This, Bozell claims, makes the theater a "sewer" (presumably from its infestation with the slimy, icky homos -- or as the great William S. Burroughs used to say, "faggot slime oozing osmosis.") Bozell's startling findings remind me of the way it dawned on some highly perceptive folks back in the 1960s that professional wrestling is "fixed!" Whoa! You're kidding! No way!! "Next you'll be telling me Liberace was gay!" "Or my wife's hairdresser!" These are times that try real men's souls. Now, I could see Mr. Bozell's point if theater attendance were drying up because the public was turned off by grotesque sodomitic performances. After all, they need to sell tickets, and if they don't, well, they'll all be out of business. But the last time I looked, you had to book theater tickets in New York months in advance (I think it was a year in advance for "The Producers" -- doubtless a gay theme because it involves the very gay Adolf Hitler). So, if tickets are selling, I am not quite sure what Bozell's point is exactly. I did read once about affirmative action for basketball teams. Apparently, if the teams don't include a smattering of white players, white people just won't buy tickets. Perhaps the homos who run the entire theatrical industry should mull over the Bozell complaint, and treat it as a plea for a little affirmative action. (That way, heterosexual actors won't have to pass themselves off as gay in order to get work.) Hey, I thought the Jews were supposed to be running these things! What happened, did they sell the theater industry out to the homos, or did the homos just sneak in and take it over? As I have said before, if homos make you sick, then by all means, go get sick! You have a constitutional right to be sickened by anything and everything which sickens you. Just don't get mad at me for not puking. (In fact, excuse me while I don't puke!) I have to admit, I have never watched the Tony Awards in my life. (You know, too boring! Too many "theater types.") But I sure am glad Bozell's watching, because somebody has to tell us what's going on. Sheesh! Next Bozell will claim that he really wasn't demanding the theater industry be purged of homos per se; he just wants to push them back into the closet. I agree! These awful homo show people should be forced to go straight back into the closet -- right now! And furthermore, they must do so publicly!

2003-06-17T00:45:00.000-04:00

Persian Classical Values -- Coming Soon? Don Watkins makes the following very prescient observation:

There's no telling how this particular protest will end, but one thing's for sure: it's only a matter of time before Iran's theocracy tumbles, and when it does, mark my words -- the new Iran will mark the beginning of the end for the remaining Middle East tyrannies. It's not an overstatement to say that we are witnessing the most important event since the American Revolution.

Don is right, of course (as are innumerable bloggers who support Iran) and his analyses of the Iranian situation (and the Mideast) are first rate. People forget that unlike most of the Middle East, Iran is steeped in its own Classical Values. The Persian Empire was a contemporary and a competitor with both Greece and Rome for hundreds of years. Iran is Persia, for God's sake! Persia is proud! Persia will not be kept down by medieval mullahs spouting psychotic gibberish. Persia has a long history of culture, civilization and religious tolerance. Not only did monotheism and polytheism lived side by side for centuries during Zoroastrian times, but later Shiite rulers (such as Shah Abbas) were quite tolerant of Christians who practiced their religion openly, building churches and missions. The Bahai faith (which is to Shiite Islam as Unitarianism is to Puritan Christianity) was born there, during the rebellion which led to the martyrdom -- on July 9, 1850 -- of the Bab. During the Babi rebellion, religious pluralism was declared. The Koran was abrogated. Women were liberated. Veils were removed. The significance of these events cannot be understated. As Karen Armstrong says in The Battle for God:

The Babi rebellion can be seen as one of the great revolutions of modernity. It set a pattern in Iran.

July 9 was a very BIG DAY in Persian history. It promises to be a big one this year too. It is the day Iranian dissidents have called for their general strike. Let's not let our Iranian friends down. In the middle of this thought, I came across a tantalizing NEWS FLASHBACK from last year! A truly excellent discussion of Classical Values occurred not on my blog, but on Instapundit, almost a whole year ago! Wish I'd seen it; what the heck was I doing? I should have been blogging, but I am delighted as hell to see it now. Anyway, here's the one-and-only Reynolds on Ares versus Athena as alternative role models for the United States:

In Stephenson's characterization of Ares as representing war in terms of mindless destruction and the practice of glorying in that destruction (with additional measures of macho posturing and egotism blended with ineptitude thrown in) it's easy to see why someone would be against it. And if you think that the Ares version is the sum total of what war's all about, then it's easy to reject any claim that war might be called for, and to brand people who think it's time to resort to war as, well, Ares-like. Which seems to me to be the essence of the antiwar position among many of the techbloggers. But, of course, there's more to it than that. (And, if you look at the other side in this war, it's pretty easy to see who's glorying in mindless destruction and engaging in macho posturing.) As Stephenson points out, there's another archetype of war -- one that is defensive, and that is based on cunning and technology. (And it's pretty easy to see which side fits the Athenean archetype, too).

Hey! I'm getting tired! Can Reynolds take over this blog for me? He's cooler than I am anyway, and would make far more people pay attention to the importance of Classical Values. He was, of course, very quick to spot the foolishness of Ares (the mindless destroyer in classical Greek mythology) as an appropriate role model for the United States. The Greeks did not like Ares (god of dumb wars) all that much, which made Athena (goddess of smart wars) the better choice. If you have to choose between those two, at least as presented in Greek mythology, Athena beats Ares. The Romans didn't go for the Greek version, however. They made Mars one of the most worshiped and revered gods, the father of Romulus and Remus, and the Conservator of Rome. Even Constantine the Great, though a Christian, put Mars on the back of his coins. (Hedging his bets, perhaps? Mars stayed on the coins until well after his conversion too.) The gods were more than a religion; they were a philosophy of life. The Romans revised and reinvented their gods as needed, which makes sense. Looks like the Iranians are getting ready to do the same thing. Nothing new about that. (And not all new ideas are good -- especially the idea of some of them crazy folks that everything you need to know about everything is written down in a single book.)

2003-06-15T20:20:00.000-04:00

Corrections -- Old, New, and Undeleted I received an email from Craig Ceely with the following "Corrections and Updates." (I should pay more attention to detail, and I am delighted to have another blogger helping me out, so THANK YOU CRAIG!). Craig writes as follows:

1) The Soviet Union 28 years ago thing is for Eugene and Sasha Volokh--THEY left the USSR 28 years ago yesterday. My parents brought me to America 43 years ago--from New York, where I was born. 2) On the altruism/fish thing--Ayn Rand died in 1982, not the late 1970s. 3) I blogged you again yesterday, adding more to the crucifixion discussion--for which, again, thanks for the initial idea, as well as for leaving comments on my blog. Yours, Craig

Corrections noted! I do appreciate them, too. Otherwise, how would I know when I'm wrong? Craig is from New York, not the USSR. ("Don't know how lucky you are....") I am particularly grateful for the additional information about Ayn Rand, and I am as intrigued as ever by the natural altruism issue. This bibliography is a good starting point in determining what, if anything, Ayn Rand might have known about animal altruism, and when she might have found out about it. Behavioral research has been going on for some time, but the data on genetic altruism is quite recent, and ongoing in nature. Solid evidence of natural altruism had simply not appeared in irrefutable form in Ayn Rand's day, so it is difficult to speculate about what she might have thought. First of all, the scientific complexities of behavioral genetics were simply not within her area of expertise. Second, her refusal to believe that cigarettes caused cancer -- even when faced with by-then overwhelming scientific data -- evinces a strong contrarian streak. Being a contrarian myself, I love people who think that way, but I think it might have made her quite resistant to newly discovered evidence (even assuming that it existed at the time and was made available to her). Still, I have long loved Ayn Rand, and I would rather give her the benefit of not knowing these things than shrilly insist that she refused to take into account scientific facts. But no matter how I look at it, the fact of altruism's natural occurrence in everything from insects all the way up to man militates against the conclusion that altruism is either man-made, or a bad thing per se. My objection to what passes for altruism is that much of it is not altruism, and much more is imposed against a person's natural will -- either by the threat of force (commissars, taxing authorities, and the like), or by manipulating the fear of death (threats of eternal punishments, damnation of the soul, offers of sainthood, etc.). I appreciated the email from Craig, and I welcome ideas or criticism. As I said before, I am not nearly as well versed in Objectivism as I would like to be, and I would enjoy hearing more about it. So much for corrections. But what about the larger issue of blog correction in general? (i.e., who polices the police of the police?) It strikes me that this goes to the heart of the difference between blog publishing and the publishing of books or other printed materials. Blogging is always a work in progress, and if you spent too much time worrying about perfect, finished, fact-checked copy, things would take far longer, and you would not have a daily blog. Therefore, corrections must sometimes be made later. The fact that I did not know when Ayn Rand died, and thought it was in the mid 1970s, was good enough for my purposes (my argument being the same even though she died in 1982), but such a guess would never fly with a magazine article or a book. But even now, my correction is based on Craig's word; I assume he is right and I see no need to research the issue any further. Were this to appear in real print, that date would have to be checked, and maybe rechecked. Still, what about Richard Goldstein's argument that blogging is unreliable because bloggers can simply erase anything they have written? Does he have a point? Let's examine Goldstein's criticism of blogging (remember, he's Editor of the Village Voice):

This new form of online discourse allows anyone to be a pundit by linking to another piece and then dissecting it. What's more, bloggers can manage their own archives, making it possible for them to say the most outrageous things and then hit the delete key when the objections roll in. Unless you've downloaded the original blog, you can't prove it ever existed. It's gone to that great cookie in the sky.

Is that really so? I would think that any blogger who operated this way would soon gain a reputation as dishonest, and would not last long. I have the right to say things that people might very well consider outrageous, but (fortunately) unless I am engaging in slander or plagiarism, there is not much they can do about it. While I see no problem in correcting links or ordinary typographical or grammatical errors, I would not in good conscience say something and then delete it "when the objections roll in." Anyone who would do that would be without integrity, and worthless as a blogger. Blogging has no enforceable rules, but I think there is nonetheless a very powerful, self-enforcing honor system. This is as roughly analogous to ebay, where there are few rules, but if you start to accumulate negative feedback, people will shy away from you. Blogging "feedback" is also built on trust, taking the form of links and comments; if you are a dishonest jerk or the type of person who says outrageous things and then deletes them, well, you'll end up with no takers. What I deeply admire about bloggers (I have already seen this quite often) is that many of them link to bloggers with whom they disagree wholeheartedly. Disagreement will not generally earn you a "negative." I have no idea how to rank myself as a blogger, and because there really isn't an official blogger rating system I can point to (I rank pretty low -- at the "fish" level -- here), I can only remind everyone that I am new to blogging and extremely grateful for the links I have gotten so far, as well as the comments in discussions and emails. But there is one "official" rating (of sorts) in my favor: I am not new to ebay. Here is my rating. Check me out. No negatives. (Nothing for sale right now, by the way -- unless you are looking for something I just listed as a joke.) Nor am I new to sounding off on controversial and emotional issues, especially on issues that guys like Goldstein would consider "outrageous." I am a member of the NRA and the ACLU, a pagan Christian Buddhist libertarian Democrat Republican pit-bull breeding Deadhead SCUBA-diving, Ham-radio operating, licensed attorney who hates most lawyers and most litigation. Former nightclub owner, clean and sober for almost seven years (but UGH! how I hate using labels like that to describe myself). For nine years I tried to expose a historical fraud called "Watergate," and reverse what I perceive to be an injustice. For all those years I was almost completely ignored. While this involved Classical Values only in the general sense (and is not the subject of this blogsite), the experience was a major reason I started blogging. And, considering the magnitude of what was successfully covered up in a bipartisan manner, I will always be skeptical of "established history" -- even ancient history. If there is one thing I learned in nine years of trying, it is that you are a fool if you think you can correct history by writing letters. And if you can't correct history by writing letters, you damned sure aren't going to end the Culture War or restore Classical Values that way either. If I reach only a half a dozen people by blogging, that is better than writing thousands of letters to people who will not listen, because the people I reach this way are neither passive members of the public, nor are they the people I am complaining about. They are bloggers. A few hundred of them made the New York Times come to terms with reality. Had these same few hundred people simply written letters, Howell Raines would still be there, cranking out whatever he deemed fit to print without any accountability. Jayson Blair might still be there, making up stories to his heart's content. Some journalists say the most outrageous things! (And then they think they can hit the delete key when the objections roll in....) Journalists don't want to hear about it when they're wrong. Bloggers do.

2003-06-14T15:00:00.000-04:00

The Great Big Penis Debate, Enlarged… Crucify Jello? Hello? I guess like many new ideas, my proposal to crucify spammers is already encountering resistance. I may be on "shaky" ground here, so let me be more specific.

"Pinning down a spammer is like trying to nail down Jell-O."

Point well taken. I may have to rethink this gooey business. Anyway, so says Robert Bulmash, president of the privacy rights group Private Citizen. Bulmash is skeptical that Senator Schumer's do-not-spam list would be as effective as anti-telemarketing registries. So am I. The hard core professional spammers, who use spoofed email address headers, hidden originating information (sent from computers that are not their own, and which point to websites that disappear a few days after a mass mailing), would only see the Schumer "Do Not Spam" list as a gold mine of email addresses for more -- guess what? spamming. Putting your name on Schumer's new federal database would be the equivalent of answering a spammer by clicking on "Remove" (which only tells them you are alive and exist). Gee, I hope Schumer isn't one of those guys who want to regulate what they cannot understand. Wired also discussed foreign spam, especially concerns that if the FTC is given the broad new powers they seek to regulate foreign ISPs, foreign governments would have reciprocity to regulate American sites. (Something to be kept in mind, particularly in light of what happened to yahoo and ebay.) But what about stuff like this? Is flying a plane (gratuitously offering a religious "cure" for homosexuality) over a gigantic homosexual festival a form of spam? By its nature, spam consists of unsolicited advertising; while the people who want to fly the planes over Walt Disney World claim to be operating for entirely altruistic reasons:

- It is the duty of individual Christians and Christ's Church to corporately bring the gospel to homosexuals and to speak out against the acceptance of sin in the culture. - Efforts to convince society that homosexual behavior is normal should be opposed for fear of the judgment of God on individual homosexuals, society at large, and on the nation.

Here we go again. Altruism. Is it really that? Or is it the more insidious, more malevolent disguised form? Is altruism-based spam less offensive than the commercial variety? Are well-meaning instructions "from God" on how to properly use your penis less offensive than commercial advertisements offering to enlarge it? I try to be tolerant and understanding. I really do. As I said before, I also believe that there is just as much right to leave a lifestyle as there is to enter it. But I think that if you are bombarded with unwanted messages, you have a right to at least disagree with the "messenger." If they want to fly their plane over Disney World, then others should have similar rights. Commercial spammer A tells me to grow a larger penis. "Altruist" spammer B then wants to inundate me with his god's instructions on how to use it. Spammer B wants to do this based on religious freedom. Well, why can't spammer C proclaim the right to penis worship? (An old idea, revived here for the Great Big Penis Debate.) As I want to be fair to both sides of the Penis debate, out of respect for tolerance and to increase my understanding I checked out the web site of those who want to tell me how to use my penis. The particular "altruists" who proclaim their right to lure-and-cure the homo tourists by means of aerial overflights, proudly link to this leading "Pro-Family News" site, displaying a prominent a get-tough editorial by a guy who's righteously in favor of sodomy laws:

We cannot successfully contend with the lawless by abandoning God's law ourselves. In the main, the defense against the sodomite war machine has been built upon a flawed foundation, and it would appear we may soon be able to say "the ruin of that house was great." But should that happen, it will do no good to point fingers at each other; rather survival of our liberties and all hope of pushing back the black night of sexual anarchy which is fast descending dictates that we clear away the rubble of that failed structure which the sodomites so predictably destroyed in their thirty-year offensive. We must get back down to the foundation which caused the collapse and build a new one based on true law and plain truth.

Reverend Ovadal -- who thinks Jefferson's reference to Natural Law in the Declaration of Independence requires criminalization of sodomy in "this nation and every state in this nation" -- keeps a sharp eye on homo fascists: Wow, that's cool! Did the image make it? (If you don't see it, just click on the rectangular shape above. I promise, you'll like it!) "Homo fascist." Is that a new label? Let's see. Is it worse than worse than a "homocon"? This Ovadal guy is almost as good as Richard Goldstein, who cooked up the term "Homocon" to insult non conforming gays like Andrew Sullivan and Camille Paglia. The bloggers, however, won't let such con artists get away with it. This post makes for some very entertaining reading on the subject. An exceptionally gifted blogger tore Goldstein a new one (and the fact that the exalted Goldstein hates blogging makes it even funnier). Time out -- for a plug, right here, right now: Read AgendaBender! Not only is he one of the most gifted writers in the blogosphere, but he has been kind enough to link to me. I've lived a long time, but I have never seen anyone with such exceptional talent at tearing someone a new one, or "Fisking" or whatever you want to call it. If you find a blogger who does a better job of new-one-tearings, please let me know. I am falling behind in my work. I thought this was supposed to be about spam. I'm afraid this has now gone beyond the crucifixion of Jello, and touches upon a central problem with altruism: the misdirected form of it. I spoke of my personal experiences with Cichlid fish earlier, and in another post I cited the work of Pinker and other naturalists demonstrating the omnipresence of altruism in the animal kingdom. Did Ayn Rand know about these studies? It is doubtful that she did, because she died in the mid 1970s before this newer research into animal altruism. I wonder what she would have thought had she seen clear evidence about the biological origins of altruism. I have reached the conclusion that fighting altruism is about as productive as fighting violence, or gravity. What does make sense, however, is to separate altruism from the fear of death, because the two were grafted together improperly. This, I think, might be what Ayn Rand would conclude were she alive today. She correctly spotted the connection which man had established between altruism and death, but incorrectly blamed altruism (as natural a phenomenon as death) for that connection. It is also a mistake, in my view, to blame "altruism" for such antics as flyover offers of "cures" by the same people who promote medieval laws which would imprison those who refuse to submit to the cures. I know, I know, the people in the cure movement claim not to be bigoted. But I must ask: If imprisoning people for a lifestyle is not bigotry against that lifestyle, then what is? Similarly, Torquemada claimed he was "helping" the people he put on the rack and burned. No one -- not even a lowly cichlid -- would call this altruism. That some people still imagine that it is illustrates the problem -- a monstrous philosophical abuse of natural altruism. (Sorry! I think by now the Jello has melted, and has fallen from the cross...)

2003-06-14T01:10:00.000-04:00

Luck is a Virtue, Not a Superstition I have now been blogging daily for one solid month. I started this blog a year ago but let it lie fallow because I thought we might have finally reached a new era of tolerance. Well, that hope turned out to be a bit premature, and after the pro-sodomy law chorus I saw this Spring, I decided to really get my feet wet and blog in earnest. I thought I needed encouragement from a seasoned pro, and I got it in the form of Jeff at Alphecca -- who agreed to be my blogfather. When I feel useless, unread, and unloved, Jeff has always been nice enough to put in a plug for me in his column. He got me started, and I can't say enough good things about this great guy. Amazing to have a feeling of knowing someone I have never met -- and I even call him a "father." Kind of renews my faith in life! This is my first Friday the Thirteenth post, and while am I having to force myself to write because I am tired, I wanted to thank not only Jeff but the people who have been kind enough to link to me. Bear in mind that I have found these by browsing around and by reading that constantly changing list down at the bottom left (showing only those who visit my site who share the same software). There may be others, but unless they contact me I don't know how to find them. I am honored that the following have either linked to me or (even more flattering) have quoted from my blog: If you are here, and if you like anything that I have written (or even if you haven't!), then please check out these fine blogs. Alphecca. (Jeff needs no further introduction; my blogfather -- the famous "Gay Gun Nut in Vermont" -- the one and the only!) Samizdata. The great and powerful British blog, Samizdata takes on the EU and all evil Statist forces, and ranks up there with blog greats like Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan. I never, ever miss it -- and I am sure no one here does either. I felt very lucky (as well as honored) to get linked there, and I can't speak highly enough of them. Arthur Silber's Light of Reason. Probably the most distinguished Objectivist blogger, Arthur Silber knew and worked with the legendary Ayn Rand herself. He makes me feel very guilty that I don't know as much as I should, and he was very kind to add me to his links. I read him daily, and so should anyone who wants to understand Objectivism. Anger Management. Don Watkins is pure genius, whose creative and analytical abilities are second to none. His blog and Arthur Silber's have forced me to reach a new understanding of Objectivism -- even if my reach exceeds my grasp. His three part essay on Altruism should be required reading for anyone interested in libertarianism or Objectivism. Catallarchy. Four guys -- Jonathan Wilde, Brian W. Doss, John C. Reif, Doug Alle. I love their blog, which provides excellent libertarian analyses of economic and social freedom. Be sure to read this one. which deals with the history of the Culture of Liberty in the US and the UK. The Anger of Compassion. A cool name, and one of the best libertarian blogs around (appears to be connected to the beloved Society for Creative Anachronism). Craig Ceely is a brilliant writer who is today celebrating his 28th anniversary in the United States; his parents brought him here from the former USSR! In my view, we need more citizens like this guy, because he knows the meaning of freedom. reflections in d minor. (A music-oriented blog with social commentary, I find it very educational, particularly because my musical background is not what it should be. You really should check this one out, as it is the only blog I have seen like it.) Walter in Denver -- a really cool libertarian site! "Walter rubs two sticks together, makes blog." Now that makes me feel inferior, as I have to use a computer and a modem.) Dustbury.com. Charles G. Hill, Oklahoma blogger, describes the origin of the name of his libertarian-oriented, beautifully written blogsite:

we want ritzy suburbia, but we know how hard it is to shake off the red clay of the country. Upscale, but still possessed by poverty: call it Dustbury — the dream home on the edge of nowhere.

Be sure to check it out! Be sure to check all of them out! As I said yesterday, I am just a little fish in a big pond. To know that people are reading me is incredibly gratifying, and this is the only way I know how to thank you. I thank all of the above for linking to me, and anyone else who might be reading this! Please keep coming back! It makes me very happy, and brings GOOD LUCK, for all concerned. It is quite fitting to promote luck on Friday the Thirteenth. After all, Felicitas the Roman goddess of happiness and luck, was not a superstition at all, but one of the virtues, personified as a goddess. Imagine happiness and luck as a virtue! Something to be pursued. A Classical Value? Do we have to go all the way back to ancient Rome to find such a thing as "pursuit of happiness?"

2003-06-12T18:56:00.000-04:00

Altruistic Fish and the Morality of Death I am indebted to two wonderful bloggers, Arthur Silber and Don Watkins, who have forced me to think about altruism in ways I never have before. (Both know more about Objectivism than I do, which I find humbling as well as challenging.) Bearing in mind that I am a bit out of my depth where it comes to Objectivism's fine points, I think I'll talk about my personal experience with fish altruism. The applicability of this to humans is itself debatable, but as I just finished likening bloggers to fish, I think I'm on the hook... Knowing what I know about the extremely limited brain power of fish, if I say their behavior is "altruism" I might very well deserve to be called anthropomorphic in the extreme, mightn't I? Well, if altruism is not conscious altruism (but something else -- occurring almost instinctively, and at the neurophysiological level), then it is an error to use the term "altruism" as we normally use it to describe what passes for unselfishness in human beings. But if we are therefore in error -- if the word "altruism" actually describes a baser, more natural process -- then I see no reason why it is erroneous to label certain fish behavior as "altruistic" any more than it is erroneous to so label human behavior. For years I owned several 50 gallon tanks with large cichlids. What happened during a particular morning feeding routine was that I threw in the usual chunks of corned beef, which I tried to disperse in such a way that each fish got his fair share. The Oscar, being the greediest, was fed first, and then while he snarfed down his portion I'd typically toss the Jack Dempsey a nice morsel, and so on. But one day, the Jack Dempsey was standing right in line for his anticipated beef chunk, which drifted down about two inches in front of him. He was about to snarf it down when -- all of a sudden! -- a juvenile Jack Dempsey I'd added not long before began swimming towards it from the opposite side of the tank. Even though there was plenty of time, the big Jack Dempsey stopped dead in his tracks, and seemed to watch as his little "soul brother" devoured a chunk of beef far too large for him to swallow immediately. This was certainly not a case of intimidation (for the size factor rendered that idea preposterous on its face). Nor was the big guy not hungry, for he immediately grabbed and swallowed the following two pieces. I had already read about "parenting" behavior -- for which the Cichlds generally (and the Jack Dempsey in particular) are noted, but what on this day I learned about a phenomenon called "flock tending" -- which may arise in apparently unrelated fish of the same species. It was quite obvious; my big Jack Dempsey took a "personal" interest in the wee one, and sometimes, for no reason at all, he'd just poke his head in and check out the little fish up close. This would frighten the little fish a bit, but the big one was very gentle and not once made an aggressive move. (Visually, the big one was eight to ten times larger than the baby.) This display of "unselfishness" was breathtaking to behold, as it was so against the big fish's basic instincts, and seemingly out of character for Jack Dempseys generally. I never expected to see that in a fish. What lessons might there for humans I don't know. But if "altruism" is something which occurs at an instinctual level in fish, the implications are quite profound. For starters, we ought to reexamine the whole meaning of the word "anthropomorphism." If generosity and unselfishness is not altruism in humans, then it certainly is not altruism in fish. So what the hell is it? Maybe it depends on which "school" you owe your loyalty... One thing is for sure; the Oscar would not have done that for a Jack Dempsey! According to C.T. Onions, altruism simply means devotion to the welfare of others -- so the definition would apply to parental-style sharing in fish as much as it would to the same behavior in man. Might it be that what concerns us is not so much the behavior, but, rather, the motive? If someone walked up to you on the street and handed you a hundred dollar bill, you would be wise to be wary. But here's a true story I witnessed years ago -- at a gay bar in New Orleans. There was an ancient queen -- really old, really effeminate, and obviously on his last legs. Except he wasn't even on his last legs, as he was in a wheelchair. The man's face radiated pure joy, and I swear to God, he was passing out huge amounts of cash! Hundreds, twenties, fifties -- it did not matter to him. He was having the time of his life just giving money away to attractive young men. Watching carefully, I could see nothing remotely sexual about this behavior, and I doubt that the man was capable of sexual gratification. But even if he was, that was not his goal; he just wanted to see young men happy in a gay bar with his cash! Altruism? This behavior irritated the hell out of a young military-looking guy, who was following at the "wheels" of the old man, angrily attempting to stare down all takers, his face contorted into the angriest, most Calvinistic scowl of moral authority he could muster. In some cases, he succeeded in taking back the money (sometimes grabbing it as was dropped guiltily to the floor by those he shamed) and handing it back to the old queen. The old queen laughed at him and tried to hand him the money back -- as if this too was all part of his "fun." Clearly, most decent people (certainly most altruists) would maintain that an old man like that should be placed in a home and cared for. But I don't know about that. He looked quite happy to me -- and he certainly did not appear senile. If this was altruism, it was not the type of which society would approve, that's for sure. (By the way, it gave me the creeps at the time, and I did not take any money. It struck me that the old man and the intermeddler were both slightly cracked. Each one was "altruistic" -- but in very different ways. And the whole scene -- in the midst of languid southern humidity and extravagant alcoholic decrepitude -- took on a Tennessee Williams, grand guignol, "Death in Venice" sort of decadence. I knew that the old man was soon to die, and I did not quite trust what might happen to me psychically if I took his money...) Are we insufficiently trained in the understanding of the guilt mechanism? Is this why we have an entire body of law which attempts to functionally erase last minute decisions by people in contemplation of death? I have noticed that even when reputable charities are involved, "altruism" is given severe scrutiny by the courts. (Of course, the latter bend over backwards in favor of often greedy relatives, who are said to "deserve" "altruism" -- of which they are legally considered to be the "natural objects.") What's the matter? Don’t we trust the dying? What is "competence" and who gets to decide? And is this ageist? Would we tolerate in a young person behavior we would never allow in the old? I don't know how altruistic it is, but to contemplate one's mortality, one's own death, is to grow. Therefore, the argument can be made that people who near death are better capable of knowing what they are doing. Is altruism the Morality of Death? We all die, do we not? I learned something invaluable from contemplating/experiencing the deaths of those I loved, and from contemplating/almost experiencing my own death. Just as all men are created equal, all men die equal. There is a great leveling which we all must face, and which we all tend to deny, try to avoid. Unless you believe that spending huge sums on tombs, embalming, mummification will make any difference, there comes a point where there is nothing more that you can do, and you achieve that true equality which comes from death, whether you want it or not! Running around in this life trying to achieve inequality may be lots of fun, and it may make you feel good, but it does not count with God, gods, infinity, eternity, or whatever you might call it. (And even if you're an atheist, it still doesn't count much when you're dead, does it?) I realized that regardless of religious belief, what you are now, you are eternally. So that means if you are alive, you must try to make each moment count, lest you waste eternity like the rest of the lost souls swimming about. To waste now is to waste eternity, no matter how you look at it. That said, the difference between us and fish is that we know we will die, and fish do not. We fear death, and fish do not. Altruism being an inescapable, possibly ineradicable, fact of nature, is it not possible that a few people, a long time ago (demagogues who desired great power) tried to create a link between natural altruism and man's profound fear of death? If so, then such a link is man-made, and profoundly evil. It has brought misery to millions. We cannot undo altruism, but undoing this artificial link is a good idea. Putting an altruistic pricetag on the soul perverts natural altruism, and is NOT a Classical Value. Altruism as the Morality of Death is unnatural, and I think Ayn Rand was right to condemn it as that. But -- I say this as someone who believes that altruism is natural.

2003-06-12T15:52:00.000-04:00

"School" for Solipsism? (Rule One: "Never Write about Yourself!") Hell hath no fury like a fanatic who feels patronized. If you are dealing with a fanatic or absolutist of any kind, you'd better either agree with what he says or else take the exact opposite position. If you agree with him partially, you'll really piss him off. Example? When dealing with Christian fundamentalists, don't dare tell them you believe in God or Jesus Christ. Because they will then consider it a moral duty to save you from the error of your ways. Better just to tell them you're an atheist, or a Pagan. That way, they'll be happier, they won't feel as threatened, and their absolutist world view will have been confirmed. You are either on their side or you are on the wrong side. I found this out firsthand in a lifetime of trying to be a nice guy. I tried getting along with Communists and other Marxist fanatics, with the Christian fundamentalists who hassle the kids on the Berkeley campus, and I even tried it with Moonies. The way they reacted, you'd think I'd stepped into the line of fire. Gay Guns, 1982, same thing. Some issues, if mixed together (no matter how politely or reasonably), create an instant combustion of emotion similar to mixing vinegar and baking soda. Yet in logic why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to own guns and speak out in favor of their right to do so? Even the abortion issue; if I say that the founders left things like that up to the individual states, it is guaranteed to annoy almost everybody. Never mind that it happens to be what I think. To the ultra-Orthodox Objectivists (even close friends), I am sometimes tempted to say something like, "Ein volk! Ayn Rand! Ein Fuehrer! " But they wouldn't get it. Besides, it's not really what I think, and it is a cruel, illogical, ad hominem attack. I really believe in tolerance. But no one -- NO ONE -- wants to be merely tolerated. I'll give you an example: Contrary to popular belief, New England Puritans did not come to this country seeking tolerance. Tolerance they had already found in Leyden, Holland -- but it was the "agreeable nature" of tolerance which the Puritans deemed "dangerous." They came to America get away from tolerance. I know how ugly this sounds, but it happens to be true. You will not make too many friends pointing it out to moral conservatives, either. This means that I will have to continue as an utter failure. I failed at Marxism, failed at Democratism and liberalism, failed at Republicanism and conservatism, failed at "homoconism," failed at altruism, failed at Objectivism. I am unable to live up to any of these definitions. (A topic which plagues me.) What about libertarian with a small "l"? I took a test which assigned that label to me, and I am pointing out the results in the interests of full disclosure. If the other small "l" libertarians won't let me have that label, well, find me another one, and I'll ask whoever the people who share that one to tell me whether it fits. After a lifetime of this nonsense, I have concluded that honesty simply means pissing people off, and it is a great way to ruin your life. Hey, don't take my word for it; Hollywood even made a film about this very subject. One thing I like about blogging, though, is that being honest is an exercise in the surreal and the absurd -- especially when, like me, you are a small fish swimming among many schools, with many different stripes and labels. You cannot eat the other fish, and they cannot eat you -- which is good. However, the other fish can't be expected to feed you. You might be able to gobble a few crumbs here and there, but the real food has to come from somewhere else.

2003-06-11T22:09:00.000-04:00

Some Cures are Worse than the Disease

"An entire range of federal regulations is going to be necessary if the Internet is to be kept usable"

So says the Weekly Standard. I found this horror thanks to Arthur Silber. No one is more personally opposed to spam than I, a longtime sufferer. Yesterday, I deleted over 300 spam messages -- 90% of which wanted me to grow a larger penis. I agreed with Howard Owens that spammers should be shot. I even went further with the idea -- suggesting crucifixion as a way to fix the problem. And we would not have to fell that many trees to supply the crosses; a mere two hundred spammers are responsible for 90% of the spam. (Amazing how much damage can be done by so few people; it reminds me of what I saw in Berkeley.) But the Weekly Standard's case for enlarging tyranny is worse fare than any penis enlargement scheme cooked up by the spammers. Here are their thoughts about the Internet:

[A] no-tax, low-regulation regime was devised for the Internet. It was market Rousseauianism, and for several years, the Internet economy has allowed us to conduct a long experiment on how the noble savage comports himself in cyberspace. Libertarianism has proved an attractive creed for the Internet generation in its lifestyle variant of live-and-let-live. But as a market system it has proved a flop.

Note the language about "comporting" and "noble savage." By uttering such telltale phrases, they give themselves away, and reveal the ethos of condescending tyranny. The veneer of refinement barely conceals a crude imperiousness of the George III variety -- a quasi-totalitarian mindset that the Learned Few should literally rule the rest of us great unwashed masses. This is not "American Greatness." It is the same pigheaded smallness our founding fathers overthrew. With great disdain, His Lordship Caldwell has peered down from his throne, proclaiming solemnly the "social necessity that the principle of taxing the Internet be established soon." Here here! Social necessity? Read their inanities for yourself. What the "Standard" is worked up about is not spam per se, but the content of it. Now that bothers me, because while I don't like seeing hundreds of offers to grow a larger penis (and I have complained about them repeatedly), penis content is not my principal objection to the spam. I just don't like the hassle of having to delete it. But now that I see the control freaks calling for "draconian" regulation, using the penis content as an excuse, well, that makes me almost feel like paying the penises some lip service. As Churchill said, " If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." To my mind, the problem with spam has nothing to do with the fact that it is "filthy" -- only that it is unsolicited and deceptive. But even if the filth offends you as much as the deception and the nuisance, the fact is that these messages can be deleted. Once Big Brother is in there with a tax scheme, no deletion is possible -- now or in the future. One cent per email. (Really now, that's not much more than the Stamp Act...) Sounds like a minimal intrusion, right? How do you think the bastards are going to collect and enforce this tax? BY KEEPING TRACK OF EACH AND EVERY EMAIL YOU WRITE. Why is it that they never target the people who are causing these problems? By the Weekly Standard's own figures, 200 spammers are sending 90% of the spam. So why should we all have to suffer for it and be made to literally pay for it? (Meanwhile, the spammers head to another country where the taxing authorities won't reach them; most of the scam spam originates in Nigeria.) The Weekly Standard's Senior Editor concludes that "the decision to leave [the Internet] unregulated was a serious, ideologically driven mistake." There you have it. Freedom is an ideological mistake. At least we know where their unelected Highnesses stand. Let's see…. 200 spammers already slated for crucifixion…. Don't crosses come in Standard sizes? (I'm sure glad we have blogging, because if there's one thing I can't stand it's the supreme arrogance of ~~liberal~~ media!)

2003-06-10T14:57:00.000-04:00

By What Objective Standard? This altruism stuff is really cool, because precise definitions are so evasive. One of the best posts I have seen so far on the subject is this post by Don Watkins. What most fascinates me about altruism is that it is so often used as a cover for selfishly evil motivations that it really shouldn't be called altruism at all. Selfishness can be just as evil as altruism. Take sodomy. (No, you don't have to take it; just take the laws. Or if you prefer, take the drug laws, like the notorious rave laws I criticized earlier.) A number of people (using God's "laws" as a pretext) would actually lock up homosexuals out of simple hatred. Ditto with the people who want to lock up drug users because they hate them. Both often sell their underlying hatred to the public by sugar-coating it with altruism. Why? Because they know that altruism sells. It has been used as a hatred-marketing tool for thousands of years. However, especially in light of studies by Pinker and others this begs the question: what is altruism? If altruism is self-sacrifice, then those who use altruism for their own ends are not altruists. Naturalists have discussed the paradox of altruism:

Altruism is the deliberate sacrifice of a portion of an individual’s reproductive capacity in order to increase that of another. This reproductive capacity is more often described as an individual’s genetic fitness, and is precisely defined as the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of succeeding generations relative to the contributions of other individuals within a population. Thus, an altruist is defined as an individual who decreases his own genetic fitness to increase the fitness of another. The concept of altruism is best understood through example: an African wild dog voluntarily “babysitting” the pups of a pack, while the pack’s hunters search for food ; a bird giving an alarm call to warn others of an approaching hawk, and thus drawing attention to itself in the process ; a man jumping into a swimming pool to save a drowning stranger.

If the above passage were shown to a time traveler from ancient Rome, he might very well conclude that according to the above definition, the two most altruistic groups of people in modern American society are homosexuals and soldiers. A frequent attack leveled at homosexuals is that they are "selfish" because they are not having children, and thus they are not contributing anything "to society." This assumes not only that altruism is good, but that having children is a contribution. Yet I have heard many angry denunciations of "breeders" by homosexuals who feel strongly that contributing more children harms society, and thus heterosexuals are the "selfish" ones. I do have a few questions: Is it selfish (or egoistic) to have children, or is it altruism? (Are people better or worse either way?) Are homosexuals selfish or unselfish people? (Again, better or worse either way?) Is consensual promiscuity selfish or altruistic? Is rape the only egoistic form of sexual expression? Is it possible to have an efficient military without altruism? (The concept of risking one's life just to retrieve dead comrades is an ancient one, and while I am not trying to promote altruism here, the idea behind it is based on morale. Similarly, Roman soldiers would risk their lives simply to retrieve a fallen or captured standard.) Do these questions matter in the real world, or is this just more libertarian Objectivist theorizing? No doubt greater minds than mine have weighed in with definite conclusions, but I am disinclined to see the world in terms of black or white. Particularly in view of the fact that altruism is so often used as a deception to advance purely egoistic aims, I cannot state with confidence whether a particular behavior (such as homosexuality or heterosexuality or the use of mind-altering drugs -- or falsely altruistic claims that imprisoning these people will "help" them) is altruistic or egoistic. Far too many shades of gray. Years ago, I saw a bumpersticker at a gun show, which struck me as very altruistic at the time. Now I'm not so sure. (Is the deliberate spreading of an opinion a form of altruism?) It read, simply, PLEASE GOD, DON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT HELP ME ANY MORE. If you want to practice altruism in private, well, that might be foolish, and you might end up unhappy, frustrated, resentful, and dead. Crazy as it sounds, I draw the line where people cross the line -- between reciprocal and non-reciprocal altruism. Instead of practicing the Golden Rule, some people expect that doing good entitles them to having good done to them in return, or worse yet, that it entitles them to demand that other people do good as they define good -- or else be ashamed. Do your damned good if you must, but please shut up about it. Above all, don't try to make me pay for it -- and please don't guilt-trip me or annoy me with bumperstickers saying things like PRACTICE RANDOM KINDNESS AND SENSELESS ACTS OF BEAUTY

2003-06-08T16:54:00.000-04:00

State Education, an Altruistic Oxymoron This article, written by author and blogger Katie Granju, is a very thoughtful defense of school vouchers from a liberal Democratic vantage point. Opinions like this do not conform to the herd mentality, and tend not to be reported in mainstream newspapers, which like to present home-schoolers and those in favor of vouchers as fundamentalist, Aryan Order types. Actually, it is worse than that; they want to send a message that those who involve themselves in their children's education are criminals who should be imprisoned. Right in the area where I live, attempts to exercise school choice will get you arrested on felony charges, and sent to prison. All for the "crime" of attempting to get a better quality education for your child. People who can't get their kids into a better school who then opt for home schooling may also face imprisonment. Even though I am not a parent, I can certainly understand why parents would be willing to face prison. Their children, consigned as they are to dangerous holding facilities promulgating little more than violence and illiteracy, are essentially imprisoned by the educrats. Katie Granju puts it thusly:

….[T]hese policy makers are fighting tooth and nail to protect a system in which less-affluent families are trapped inside the public schools that happen to be closest to their domiciles, no matter how decrepit or even dangerous they may be. As revealed by the growing body of research indicating that parents who have a choice in where their children go to school and how they are taught are more involved in all areas of their kids' lives, school choice will prove to be an empowering force in the lives of American families. I myself eagerly await the day when I can use some of the money I pay into the public school system to pay for the schools my children actually attend.

I am not a parent, so I am a bit out of my league here. But it strikes me that this is about control, maintaining oppressive bureaucracies, and keeping people down -- all in the name of altruism and "concern for the children." In ancient times, citizens were considered responsible for their children's education. (Here's a similar link.) Harsh by modern standards. But how far do we take altruism? In the name of altruism (so often taking the form of "social justice") we imprison parents for trying to educate their children as they see fit. The Romans, while recognizing that benevolence and charity were basically good, did not consider altruism a virtue, and certainly would have been horrified by the way modern man has transformed it into a morbid machine of genocide in the name of building a better world. Certainly, the modern statist idea of gassing children to make the world a better place is more fiendish than the worst cruelties of the ancients, whose slaughter and torture was largely self-aggrandizing, or "egoistic." In discussing libertarianism with friends, I frequently encounter resistance from those who have had to raise children -- the latter being the most common form of natural altruism. This can lead people to mistakenly think all altruism is good -- or still worse, that our society is a vast kindergarten -- a flock in need of a good shepherd. This can create a slippery slope. The "nice" idea of "It Takes a Village" ultimately must be accelerated by force, into "It Takes a Gulag". The ancient Romans, "egoistical" by today's standards, were more balanced in their thinking, and would have seen the folly of this modern triumph of altruism over egoism. (But does that makes all altruism innately bad?) Spencer saw both sides of human nature as essential and unavoidable:

If we define altruism as being all action which, in the normal course of things, benefits others instead of benefiting self, then from the dawn of life altruism has been no less essential than egoism; for such defect of altruistic acts as causes death of offspring, or inadequate development of them, involves disappearance from future generations of the nature that is not altruistic enough, so decreasing the average egoism. In short, every species is continually purifying itself from the unduly egoistic individuals; while there are being lost to it the unduly altruistic individuals.

Hedonism can, in my view, be unselfish, although I admit to a preference for pragmatism over theory. For some interesting thoughts on the subject, see this:

The Hedonists saw individual happiness as the only good and tended to shun public life as futile or bothersome. Today we still use the term "hedonist" to describe people whose only concern is to have fun and who do not care about their personal or public responsibilities. The other major school were the Stoics who believed that the highest good was to be found in service to the community or in public office and who believed that individual appetites and desires that did not help the public good should be controlled, disciplined, or suppressed. Today we also still use the term "stoic" to refer to people who appear to remain indifferent to their own pain or personal misfortunes.

It would be simplistic in the extreme to characterize hedonism as egoism, or stoicism as altruism, for hedonism can be as unselfish as stoicism can be selfish. Classical Values include systems which compete with each other, and represent different sides of human nature. Out-of-control altruism (with all its mutations, including Nazism, Communism, and fundamentalist bigotry) has brought far too much misery to the world. History shows that as a "virtue" (particularly an "assisted" one), altruism sucks! A Classical Value it is not. Once again, don't throw the Classical "baby" out with the totalitarian "bathwater."

2003-06-07T22:33:00.000-04:00

From Ranting to RAVEing ....Our Watered Down Freedom The RAVE Act is more than just another unconstitutional drug law. It is an attack on free speech, on private property, and on freedom of association. I don't take it as personally as I might have ten years ago, and I will try to explain. Funny how seemingly unrelated life experiences can tie themselves together as you age. (Okay, so now I get to tell you a little bit about myself, at the risk of appearing a trifle silly and foolish. Otherwise, it's just "a rant without a rave.") Life had always had its ups and downs, but by age 30, I had settled down into a fairly comfortable law practice where I could set my own hours, with work which was quite tolerable. I had a whole bunch of friends who were wilder than I was, and I always enjoyed encouraging them, because it warded off my own neurotic inability to really relax and have fun. At heart, I am kind of uptight and miserable, and a shrink would most likely say that because I have suffered from clinical depression all my life, I am unable to appreciate what I never had. Fuck them all; my deal was, I just liked giving other people the space to have fun and be themselves, and in that way I could derive vicarious pleasure from making them happy. That always struck me as better than making other people miserable. Once it became a habit, I enjoyed finding depressed people and cheering them up simply to make myself happy. Would Ayn Rand approve of such "altruism?" I am not sure it was altruism, but for the sake of argument let me concede that it was, and plead guilty to the dreadful sin of altruism. What I had not counted on was that fucking AIDS virus. It killed twenty of my friends, each irreplaceable, but the first, an ex, was the worst. He developed all your usual opportunistic infections -- one right after the other -- in 1985, and then died in '86. I could not handle it. Practicing law went from being a fun legal exercise into horrid and pointless drudgery. I mean, who cares about straining your brain to help Trucking Company A screw Trucking Company B when the people you love are dying? I wanted to help, I wanted to stop the disease, but I couldn't. The law became an annoyance. Once it became clear that I was to lose the people I had carefully chosen in order to thwart a life of loneliness, I grew restive and rebellious. What should have been "normal" depression became a desire to do something to level the scales, balance the karma… Next thing, an opportunity for a night club presented itself. ... I knew that I shouldn't start a nightclub, but start a nightclub I did. It was incredibly cool -- a surreal, ghoulishly classical design. I built it myself and simply enjoyed being in the place -- particularly when it was closed and no one was in there. Then, it seemed, the ghosts could dance and frolic, and have fun. The place was packed, and became famous locally. We helped give birth to the local gothic scene, and won the 1993 San Francisco Bay Guardian Best of the Bay Award (for "Best Place to Go Dancing In Black"). Unfortunately, local fame and large crowds did not translate into an ability to pay the $10,000 a month rent. We were always behind with everything and after a three year struggle (with partners dying of AIDS and the IRS about to padlock the place), Thunder Bay breathed its last. If you really want to hate government, I suggest going into the nightclub business. As an attorney, I considered myself better equipped than most to fend off the bureaucracy, However, the average person would go crazy running a business for three years in the red, with endless bureaucratic hassles including the Health Department, Fire Department, Alcoholic Beverage Control, underage drinkers with ID capable of fooling the CIA, violent rap shows turning into full scale riots, egotistical rock stars, community activists hurling accusations of discrimination, and Federal, State, and local taxing authorities. (All the owner's fault, of course, for being the owner. Such is life.) So why am I writing about this now? Why relive such a horror after almost ten years? This fascistic RAVE Act, that's why. I think I must have suffered some form of post traumatic stress when I read about Biden and company's attack on freedom, because I thought, "My God, what if they'd passed this back in 1991?" My biggest problem as a club owner was that the kids drank water. I was in the business of selling alcohol. Water is free in the bathroom, and cheap as hell in refillable plastic bottles. Imagine how I hated them for drinking water -- ungrateful little brats! I needed to pay my goddamned rent! Well guess what! Now I could be arrested for selling them water. WATER! (Latin "aqua" -- another substance much in demand in classical times.) I am absolutely not kidding. Congressional findings state explicitly the intent of the federal government to criminalize water:

"congressional findings" that, according to the Washington Post, declare bottled water, chill rooms and glowsticks to be drug paraphernalia. It also retains the crackhouse law sentencing guidelines: Party organizers whose patrons get busted with drugs can face fines in the millions and up to 20 years in federal prison.

If you think I am making this up, read the story yourself. While you're at it, by all means read Glenn Reynolds and Dave Kopel's excellent analysis in the far-left, pro-drug National Review Online. Twenty years for a water crime. Is this supposed to be a free country? Where do they get off, passing such fascist drivel? As reported by Don Watkins via Arthur Silber and Glenn Reynolds (who deserve great credit for getting the story out as well as activating my Post Traumatic Sress), it is not merely water they want to make a felony: it is FREE SPEECH. That's right; they are using this disgraceful law to stop political benefits the government does not like. As Don Watkins noted:

In my worst dreams I would never have imagined that the RAVE act would have been used to block speech. I shouldn't have been so naive.

Boy is he right! When water and little glow sticks are made felonies, it is naive not to expect as a logical sequel the criminalization of speech. But wait. The dead lawyer inside me wants to play Devil's Advocate here. "Had the founders wanted to protect the right of the citizens to keep and drink water, or to have small plastic sticks which glow in the dark, they would have added an amendment to that effect." (That's what they say about Drug Laws.) So why is it that when they wanted to give the federal government power to prohibit alcohol, they had to pass the Eighteenth Amendment? Glenn Reynolds is right when he says:

I blame Joe Biden -- for sneaking through this abomination -- and Ashcroft's Justice Department, for applying it this way. This legislation has always been part of a culture war, not an anti-drug effort, and this application just makes that crystal clear for anyone who hadn't noticed.

End the Culture War now. Restore Classical Values. Legalize water. (I am getting old. I never thought I would see the day when I would have to advocate such a thing.)

2003-06-07T14:15:00.000-04:00

How to Survive Religion-Based Government Cuts A sign of the times? Beep beep! Move over John Ashcroft! Latest news on godly government: Highway 666 is gone! Beastly traffic jams will have to move elsewhere. I have mixed feelings, but I guess at least stuff like this won't be happening on Highway 666 anymore. My source for the 666 story, Ibidem, also has a very touching story with tips from Saudi Arabia's new executioner on overcoming stage fright . The guy is a real trip; he cuts off heads, hands, legs off men, women, anybody.

“It doesn’t matter to me: Two, four, 10 — As long as I’m doing God’s will, it doesn’t matter how many people I execute,”

Boy am I jealous! At first he was nervous because "many people were watching, but now stage fright is a thing of the past." Learn from a pro! (Good advice for any new blogger...) Get ahead!

2003-06-07T01:54:00.000-04:00

Terrorism Sucks -- Fundamentally! Arthur Silber links to a New York Times report that the Justice Department is not allowing gay employees to celebrate Gay Pride Day or whatever the hell it was. Religious discrimination? Don't laugh yet, please. What is religion? Isn't it a religious belief that God commanded that planes be flown into infidel buildings, because the occupants thereof lived in a country which was too tolerant of homosexuality? Osama Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell are in concordance on this point (see my post), as are other American fundamentalists. Is such a belief religious terrorism? I certainly hope that Attorney General Ashcroft doesn't subscribe to this belief, for that might tend to create the appearance that our top Justice Department official sympathizes with religious terrorism. We certainly can't allow even a hint of support for religious terrorism in the Justice Department, can we? But, let us give Ashcroft the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that he does not personally subscribe to religious terrorism, but instead is merely trying to appease or placate those who do. If that is the case, the belief that God punished homo-loving Americans on September 11 is still religious in nature, is it not? Does not the First Amendment protect belief systems disagreeing with it? If a group which prays to a homo-hating god so bigoted as to give us 9-11 is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, then how about a group praying to a different god or gods? Or how about a cult devoted to phallic worship? Just a thought, folks. This is the land of the free and the home of the brave, isn’t it? Are we still allowed to have thoughts about alternatives to bigot gods? Sheesh! But what if -- just suppose with me for a moment -- what if the god of Christianity is not a bigot? What then? I mean, I am not such a bigot as to claim without any evidence that Jesus was a bigot! I was not there, and I never spoke to him. But there are people who claim to have spoken to him, and I am not 100% certain that they are being heard or respected by the Jesus-believing people at the Justice Department. Here; I'll even give you an example: at this site, a number of gay Christians claim to have been born again in Jesus Christ, saying that he accepted their homosexuality. Are we to disbelieve them, and on what basis? Who is Ashcroft to contradict a sincere witness to Jesus Christ? Sure, he claims to be a Christian and all that, but then here we have clear evidence that he might be ignoring the will of Jesus Christ. Is he doing that in the name of Christianity? What gives? Hey give me a break! This is not even my job here at the libertarian/pagan Classical Values blog site! Yet here I am, trying to be fair to Jesus Christ and some of his worshippers (isn't that supposed to be Ashcroft's job?), and what thanks will I ever get for it? Didn't Jesus say something about rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar's? I'm no Bible expert, but wasn't Caesar supposed to be some big pagan Roman emperor or something? If Jesus was willing to be fair to pagans with their alternative lifestyles, then why can't Ashcroft do the same -- especially for those who believe in Jesus but don't think he was behind the carnage on 9-11? I know, I know, Bush has to win the election, and he might have to throw the homos to the lions. But what about that guy who helped bring down the third plane in Pennsylvania? He was gay, and so are the Justice Department employees who want to hold an event. Can they hold it in his honor? Or does the bigot god of 9-11 say no?

2003-06-06T00:29:00.000-04:00

Damn! Another @#&% test! How'd I do? I just got to take a test promising to label me. I must be a glutton for punishment or something. Anyway, here are (gulp) the results:
Libertarian - You believe that the main use for
government is for some people to lord it over
others at their expense. You maintain that the
government should be as small as possible, and
that civil liberties, "victimless
crimes", and gun ownership should be basic
rights. You probably are OK with capitalism.
Your historical role model is Thomas Jefferson.

Which political sterotype are you?
brought to you by Quizilla