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!!!!

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.

(End test! Now I get to see whether this feeds through.)

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.

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)

(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

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."

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.

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!

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Once a bigot, always a bigot?

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

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?

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.

Isn't the Culture War lovely?

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..."

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!

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!

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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!

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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).

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.)

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.

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.