It is the policy of this blog to courageously confront bigotry and homophobia whenever and wherever observed. Not even the gods are exempt -- especially a monstrous usurper going by the name of "Allah!"

This very same "Allah" -- a former Pagan deity -- has not only had the effrontery to start a blog, but almost immediately launched into a vicious and cynically hypocritical diatribe, positively dripping with venomous, internalized homophobia:

Allah checks his stats often and is amused to find that booze-swilling infidel Steven Green (sic) has dropped a sweet link on him. Tell me, infidel, do you think this will atone for calling your blog "VodkaPundit"? You should know that Allah forbids the consumption of alcohol by his children except for Saudi royals on vacation in the south of France. Allah also wants to know what the deal is with that photo on your homepage: Are you trying to get Allah to switch sides, with your Semitic good looks and come-hither stare? Because while Allah is flattered, and is not embarrassed to admit that if he were gay you might make a nice pony boy until you were beheaded, the fact is Allah doesn't "read the Daily Dish" if you know what Allah means.

Allahu Akbar.

* Sura 52:24. "And there shall wait on them young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls.
* Sura 56:17. "And there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and pitchers of water and a cup of purest wine."
* Sura 76:19. "They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."

What the hell is going on with your insane religion anyway? And how dare you threaten a leading heterosexual blogger as you have?

I defy you! I will link to you, yes. But only so that I can mock you! Your past is well known! You are the upstart Moon God!

Moon! That's what all Americans should do when they think of you!

URGENT UPDATE AND NOTICE: It is now obvious to me that Frank J.'s Nuke the Moon plan is a product of divine inspiration.

This is serious business, folks -- so the Moon God better beware!

A very astute blogger, David Adesnik, has noticed that Howard Dean and his supporters are now being subjected to ad hominem attacks. Carefully chosen culture war language is being used: among other things, Dean supporters are derided as "Birkenstock liberals." Here's more. Instapundit (my source for these links) cited a Democratic insider who "thinks that Dean is likely to win the nomination, and that he can give Bush a tough ride in the election. He may be right."

May be. But if so, then why is a leading New York Times writer (who defends 1960s radicals like Bernardine Dohrn and Kathy Boudin) going out of her way to launch ad hominem attacks on Dean supporters?

My gut instinct tells me that this is direct evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton is serious about running in 2004. She and her handlers see Dean as improperly corraling her potential supporters, and I believe every Birkenstock liberal for Dean makes her see red. Thus, the ad hominem attacks, not strictly against Dean, but against his supporters.

Can I prove this? Of course not; political machinations are by their nature covert. But why the New York Times? Whose turf is that, anyway?

Why do they suddenly fear Dean?

Because Dean has been earning his supporters the old-fashioned way, through hard work, one vote at a time. Dean alone threatens the agreed-upon vision the media have of the Democratic race as lackluster, deadly dull, and just waiting for an interesting candidate to appear (and just who might that be?). The more strength his campaign gathers, the less dramatic a potential Hillary entrance would be. From Hillary's point of view, Dean has already gotten out of hand. Her entrance would be marred, and if there is one thing this very regal lady does not like, it is a marred entrance.

So, something had to be done. And in my opinion, the dutiful Jodi Wilgoren wielded the hatchet. (Has she helped out in the past?)

From a rhetorical standpoint, of course, there is nothing new or surprising about Wilgoren's focus on items of apparel like Birkenstocks. She blamed the Columbine shootings on a $99.00 trenchcoat. [Wilgoren, Jodi. "Society of Outcasts Began With a $99 Black Coat." New York Times 25 April 1999: A30.]

Fashionism? It's wearing thin, Jodi.

Instapundit is getting flak for (let's see now, I hope I get this right....) attributing to George Washington language written into the Treaty of Tripoli during his presidency, but which was not ratified until after his term, when it passed the Senate with little debate -- when John Adams was president.

The language in question recited that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

What's the big deal here? The government wasn't founded on the Christian religion -- whether Washington said so or not. George Washington would certainly have presented his treaty to Congress had he been president. Why such sensitivity? Why do so many people want to make the founders more "religious" than they were? I'm glad we have the Constitution, because such unpatriotic ingrates sure as hell can't read things into that. God is not mentioned anywhere -- not even in the presidential oath, which is spelled out. At the time the Constitution was adopted, clergymen complained to Washington that there should be a mention of Jesus Christ. As was typical of the man, he gave them a very polite, dignified, brush-off.

Never once did George Washington call himself a Christian or mention Jesus Christ publicly. Check it out in the George Washington Papers (link via Clayton Cramer).

So, now we must decide whether this is a tempest in a tea pot, a mountain morphed from a molehill, or a distinction without a difference. Am I, a philosophical pantheist, supposed to care?

Contrary to what some might imply, George Washington was no atheist. Like most of the founders, he was a Deist. Deists believe in God. While he recognized the importance of religion and religious virtues in general, he scrupulously avoided entangling religion with politics, and I wish some of his purported followers would do the same.

Religious intolerance was very much on the minds of the founders, and they wished to avoid it. Benjamin Franklin, in his essay "Toleration," wrote:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

Franklin was pressed by clergymen about the specifics of his beliefs, and gave the following answer:

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."

[Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]

I can handle that. Fundamentalists (and maybe a few atheists) obviously can't.

Why the uproar over whether Washington himself made a simple statement which reflected the position of his admininistration -- and of the United States Constitution? Yelling at Glenn Reynolds (who must go through a ton of material to generate his work product) for a mere techicality strikes me as grounded in a much deeper resentment. Might it be that what the critics really fear is the truth of the statement itself? The issue -- that the United States government made this statement when it was run by its very founders -- is larger than George Washington (or Glenn Reynolds).

On a lighter note, I offer something to cheer everyone up: conclusive proof that George Washington was a Pagan!

Only here at Classical Values will you learn the real truth: that this country was founded as a Pagan nation!

(That last site has some serious quotes from the founders, too!)

Finally, let us not forget the blatantly Pagan Washington Monument:

Because The Washington Monument represents a Christless approach, it is, therefore, a Satanic monument to world government. It is in DEFIANCE of the real kingdom number FIVE, Christ's never ending kingdom. Masonry, the making of hewn stones, is a political expression of the Baal worship conducted by the Babylonians, Egyptians, and pagan Rome. Therefore, political masonry is one half of the pincer attack on world society - the other half being the Roman religion as expressed in the New Age, classical Catholicism, or even Marxism (a religion). Since both Masonry and Catholicism are forms of Baal Worship, all the parties in pursuit of world government are anti-Christian, though there many individuals who are deceived.

Honor our Classical Values!

It must really be back to school time, because every time I turn around, there is a new test! Having to bare the deepest darkest secrets from the innermost reaches of my closet is deeply embarrassing, but the official policy of this blog remains searching, fearless self-disclosure.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the first test comes from a favorite blog, Freespace (Tim Sandefur), who once again outdoes me at my own game by supplying a perfect motto from Horace:

Sapere aude ("dare to know" or "dare to be wise").

*looks at the current world's population* You must have a lot of frustration then.

What pisses you off?

Created by ptocheia

(Test courtesy of Tim Sandefur.)

And I thought I loved stupid people! (I should love them; after all, they give me so much to blog about....)

Next, that iconoclastic genius, Steven Malcolm Anderson, supplied a test which took me where I never thought I'd go. I gasp, blush, shudder, and hesitate to tell you, my gentle readers, what I have discovered about myself: I may be (gulp)

a LESBIAN:

You Are Just Experimenting - For Now...

You are a sex-crazed girl. You love to get off using toys, as well as with men and women.
When you get horny, you go crazy!
You've gone down on both chicks and dicks and have no conclusive response.
You like men who are particularly sensitive and caring. There are some!
You love showing your body off.
The locker rooms, and other places like the swimming pool, are special places to get naughty in public.
Overall, you dig sex, and you love to try new things.
Hence, you are an experimenter!

Are *You* a Lesbian?
More Great Quizzes from Quiz Diva

So what do I do now? I am "just experimenting," right? Does that mean I am not a REAL lesbian?

Will I never be able to live up to anyone's standards of right and wrong?

Why is life so unfair?

I guess I am just being lazy about blogging, but between the long drive and having to readjust to the East Coast, I am not feeling terribly creative.

Which makes me really glad to have found another wonderful test -- this one from the mysterious, multifaceted Ghost of a Flea. It is called "Which Heinlein Book Should You Have Been A Character In?" -- and my research assistant Justin Case damned well better evaluate this test, because he's the scifi freak, and I don't think there's much he hasn't read.

Anyway, here are the results:

You belong in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. You
value freedom above all else. You would fight
and die for your family and your home.

Which Heinlein Book Should You Have Been A Character In?
brought to you by Quizilla

Thanks Ghost! The results look very flattering, and now I'll have to ask Justin what's up!

But why can't I be the cat who walks through walls?

Tim the Michigander (why do you do this to me Tim?) has come up with another blasted test -- this one called "What is your battle cry?"

I never knew that I would have a battle cry, but here is mine:

Hmmmm.... How did the test know that I have indeed been "rampaging along the freeway" -- 7000 miles worth? And that on the trip I did torment my tires until they nearly deflated. And then, when I got home, I made.... toast!

Incredible coincidences all; does this Tim the Michigander character have me under bumperlock surveillance or something?

Here's to Tim!

Anyway, now that my toast is done, I think I'll post. (This is my first Wi-Fi post in the Philly area).

The history of the blog war to end all blog wars is being written right now. Here is Part II. I assure you, in time this classic will rival Thucydides!

Indeed. We. Live. In. Dangerous. Times.

And we don't even know how the war will turn out. But, remember the age-old, tried-and-true maxim that history is written by the victors. While Don may not know exactly what twists and turns this war may take, you can bet he'll be on the winning side. My advice is to read his analyses carefully.

UPDATE: Thinking the matter over carefully, I am drawn once again to George Santayana's warning:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Such opportunities arise very rarely. If we can avoid repeating the past which has not yet occurred, I think we should. I feel so strongly about this that I think it may be time to contact the United Nations' Learned Lessons Unit.

This war is already having international repercussions. Maybe the UN can talk some sense into these people and prevent a repetition of future history....

Peace®

I should not be writing anything right now, because I see road in front of me, and feel goofy from too much driving. Had to take 24 hours off because of truly scorching heat in Nebraska on Tuesday. The car I was driving has no air conditioning or even air vents, and there was no escape from the 100+ degree sun over the endless prairie. It set a record for the area of I don't know how many degrees, but a car is a solar collector and it felt like at least 120. A moving oven. I kept buying bags of ice which I threw on top of the dog (this works like magic), but after a while I started feeling faint -- not a good idea at 75 MPH. The realization of what could happen triggered enough adrenaline to get me through to Des Moines, where I hung out until the weather broke a bit. Drove from Des Moines to South Bend, Indiana last night, then today all the way to Philly. But I am a bit spaced. (I have driven across the country more than a dozen times, but never had this kind of serious trouble with heat before.)

Here's a tune which helped keep me going on the road. Good driving music, and while I have a collection of around 750 doowops, this one kept mysteriously replaying itself (too often for "random play") and just followed me across the country. I have one of those MP3 hard drive deals (Creative Nomad Jukebox) and it has a mind of its own. Of course, I like the song, and could have been imagining it. The windows were open and I was broadcasting the CNJ unit through the car's old FM radio, so I often couldn't make out exactly what was playing....

The last time I put a song up on my blog (a favorite by The Students) Chaz at Dustbury.com knew something more about the group; maybe someone will do the same this time. The song is "I Only Love You," by The Passions, a Bronx-based white Doowop group, from 1960. The pizzicato (my blog seemed overdue for a Classical reference) is magnificent, as is the mixing. A thoroughly haunting song, which made me feel that the ghosts were along for the ride.

You can stream it here.

UPDATE: Reading this made me realize that I nearly went the way of the 10,000 dead French! (C'est la morte!)

Another favorite blogger, Objectivist Craig Ceely (I always like Objectivists, even though I'm a poor excuse for one myself) was kind enough to link to me yesterday regarding my proposal to solve the spamming problem by using a Classical method:

CRUCIFIXION.

The problem is that when I wrote that I was on Blogspot, so if any of you are here to read it, here is the link.

Thanks for coming, and please crucify a spammer today!

ADDITIONAL NOTE:It is estimated that around 200 spammers account for 90% of the spam. This makes crucifixion not only a modest proposal, but an eco-friendly one. Unlike the Romans, we wouldn't need to denude entire forests to fuel the cross market. (If need be, we could always use entirely recycled materials from outmoded computers which might otherwise pollute landfills.) Unlike taxation of the Internet (or other federal schemes which have been proposed), this would do no harm to anyone except a very small, malevolent minority. Talk about Utilitarian Utopia!

Isn't multiculturalism wonderful?

Most people know about the Eskimo custom of putting grandma out in the snow when her teeth become too worn down to continue to soften seal skins.

But for some reason, the French method -- locking grandma up in the attic and going on vacation -- seems to be less well known. Leading Americans are still having trouble accepting it.

When I was a kid, I thought the Eskimo custom was, well, cold.

Little did I know....

Anyway, I am reporting in from Cheyenne, Wyoming, after a grueling day-and-a-half drive. This motel (The Cheyenne Motel, located right on Business 80, phone 307-632-6802) I would highly recommend, although if you have a pet I recommend my Patented Dog Con Game Routine, because there is a big sign saying "NO PETS."

Here is the best way to get your pet into a NO PET motel:

First, NEVER ask whether they take pets. Go in, ask for a room, and start filling out the card. Fill it out slowly, allowing them plenty of time to count the money they are going to get from you. Then, glance around, and suddenly stop writing, and with an abject look, exclaim, "Oh! I'm sorry! I see that you don't take pets!" This will generally begin a process of negotiation, and for five bucks more, I can usually wangle a deal. That way, you don't have to sneak the dog in wrapped up squealing in a sleeping bag.

However, the place last night in Winnemucca, Nevada I definitely do NOT recommend. Twenty bucks and no sign, no question about dogs, told me I could stop filling out the form as soon as I put my name. I should have smelled something....

But once I did it was too late! The room was a tiny, filthy hovel, with a bed that made me nervous to look at, as the sheets did not look clean, the bed was barely made, and the carpet was a disgusting mess of brown shag, shiny in places. My standards are pretty low and I once lived in a bathhouse while I built the place, and I can sleep on anyone's floor if I have to (except that one)... so what the hell.

As I started unpacking my stuff I noticed my dog licking, slurping and tugging on the rug just in front of the bathroom door. I yelled at him, but then when I peered closely down I saw a two inch diameter smear of -- OH GOD! PLEASE! NOT THAT!

Yes that! Someone (probably an infant) hadn't quite made it to the bathroom, and then someone else had made a pathetic stab of cleaning it up, leaving plenty smeared around. Gross! Of course, I hadn't cleared the dog, so I didn't want to complain, so I took yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle section featuring a look at Warren Zevon looking at death, threw it on the toxic zone, then placed the trashcan on top.

A shame really. Because I had really wanted to read that Zevon piece more thoroughly. One of his last observations, "Enjoy every sandwich," struck me as an especially good metaphor for life, which I wasn't doing a very good job of savoring right then.

Plus, it really didn't look like a sandwich. I guess if I really have to force Warren Zevon's sandwich-as-life metaphor (God this is morbid!) I could say it most resembled a small Eskimo Pie. But I still didn't enjoy it. I know, I know, when life offers lemons, make Lemonade. But you can't make an enjoyable sandwich out of everything. At least, not an edible one.

Enough pie-in-the-sky thinking! And enough arguing with the dead. (Not an alien subject for me....) Time to hit the road!

More multiculturalism: why is it that Regular gasoline costs $1.55 a gallon in Wyoming (yes that was at a Pilot station yesterday) and $2.15 in California? That is a HUGE difference. I don't think state taxes are the only reason. Might the Saudis and their buddies be playing games?

And why should some states be allowed to prohibit (allowed to prohibit?) gambling, while others allowed to allow it? Is the prohibition not religious morality? Shouldn't the country have a single standard? Just being the Devil's Advocate here, although I think it's part of America's charm to see a border town like Wendover, Nevada draw fun-loving Mormons in a mad weekend dash to throw away their money....

No, really!

Read this gem from Don Watkins; it's utterly brilliant.

When I saw this picture at Frank J's Peace Gallery, a warm, peaceful, sentimental, feeling came over me. After all, when I was a wee lad, still in the student phase of my life, I helped out in the campaign to recall Mayor Feinstein for imposing unconstitutional gun control laws on San Francisco. An unheard of coalition was formed, including libertarians of all stripes, right wing NRA members, the wildly Communist White Panther Party, and assorted gay gun nuts. While the recall failed, I will never forget what happened, and while I don't know how to verify this, it could very well have been the opening salvo in the war against politically correct tyranny.

Even today, political analysts are citing Feinstein's "trauma" as a reason for Feinstein's opposition to the recall:

Diane Feinstein opposes the Davis recall effort in part because she also faced a recall years ago initiated by gun control opponents.

...Twenty years ago, a fringe group of gun control opponents succeeded in forcing Feinstein to face a recall.

Anyway, here's the picture I've been promising you:

She's still at it, folks. She really means it, and she hasn't learned her lesson. (Schwarzenegger really ought to have the NRA mail this out....)

Kim du Toit, where are you when we need you?

Why can't you move to California instead of Texas?

We need someone to to start another recall!

Here's a view of San Francisco at sunset, from wharfside at the decommissioned Alameda Naval Air Station.

It's pretty close to the end of my trip West, and the beginning of the trip East. For a variety of reasons, it is difficult to be bicoastal, and being away from one's principal residence for more than a month can lead to problems. So, soon, I'll be hitting the road.

San Francisco is a beautiful city, and while I like to make fun of the politically correct tyrants around here, the crazies on the other side who give them fuel also drive me to fits of despair. (San Francisco, of course, has long been denounced as "Sodom," as it still is.)

[Note: be sure to check out the main page on that last link. And "Viva Aztlan," baby!]

Is it "middle of the road" to be sickened by the fact that an intelligent and cultured, free people are increasingly forced to choose between fundamentalism and Marxism? These two obnoxious "sides" of the culture war share a mutual interest in presenting each other as a "choice" facing the country. The major media and the Democratic Party tend to line up on one side, while shrill ideologues (claiming to be the "Republican base") do all they can to make people think the only "other" choice is their "side." "Liberals" and "conservatives" avail themselves of phony and divisive cultural definitions and cheap ad hominem attacks to bully people into belief systems which are logically tortured, and, I believe, un-American in the truest sense of that misused word.

Ordinary people -- the new libertarian majority -- fear speaking up. Yet a new literary movement is emerging. Reading something like this makes me cry:

Those on one side see individuals as rafts on that river of culture, swept along inexorably downstream, perhaps capable of a weak paddling, displacing our paths a few feet from side to side. I on the other hand, and others like me, see human potential as a powerboat, a nuclear-powered hydrofoil, one capable of cruising side to side at will, as easily able to race against the current as with it. I don’t believe people are rafts adrift in the destiny of their culture. I think all people have propellers, whether they use them or not, and rudders too. And rather than commiserating with people about the rapids that they endure and the battering that is their lot in life, we should be teaching them how to start those engines, take the wheel of their own futures, and steer themselves wherever they damn well please.

This issue of free will has been debated since we’ve had language. It’s not going to be resolved on the pages of this humble weblog. But perhaps we can agree on this:

So which view to adhere to: individual responsibility, or the predominance of culture? I say there are vast sets of evidence to prove that both are correct. So here’s what I believe. I agree with the left on this: I do think we are indeed the products of the doctrines that have been fed us since birth. How else to explain the wild differences in human culture from a single species with no detectable biological propensities for intelligence, cunning, hard work or success? The fact that some cultures are free, fair, open, safe, creative and prosperous, while others are cruel, corrupt, repressive and poor – all while using the same raw human materials – means clearly culture plays a predominant role.

Which is why we must all fight, fight tooth and nail, fight to the death if need be, to defend this freakish idea that we are individuals responsible for our own actions. Because when we do, we have taught ourselves how to break those chains of history and birth, energized our own destiny, and inoculated ourselves culturally against the dictates of culture.

We are the first group of peasants to transcend the idea of peasantry. Here in America, in the words of the often-despicable Huey Long, Every Man a King. We are, as a direct consequence of this philosophy -- the belief that the common man can be trusted to wield great responsibility -- the most successful, creative, powerful, wealthy and free individuals who have ever lived. We are, indeed, in the words of a man who understood more about human freedom and its costs and responsibilities than any of us, “the last, best hope of earth.”

I'll probably be out of commission for a few days, but I am glad the sun never sets on the blogosphere.

It's soul-baring test time again. When it comes to disclosing my deep dark truths to you, my loyal readers, there are no lengths to which I won't go, no depths to which I will not sink.

I am disgusted by the first test, because I thought I was a much nicer person than I apparently am. To take this test, you simply supply your blog's URL, and a bot will analyze and then rate your blog in percentages of good and evil.

Here's my rating:

Above link thanks to Bigwig.

As if that wasn't bad enough, I took another test which revealed my deepest secret:

YOU ARE MARRIED TO A WoODCHUCK!!!


what's YOUR deepest secret?
brought to you by Quizilla

Above link via The Michigander.

How the hell did they know about my marriage to a Marmot?

Well, now that my secret is out, would anyone care to dance with my bride?

What, exactly, is a "coding error?" That's what Professor John Lott (author, More Guns, Less Crime) is accused of in this 120 page atrocity.

Does anybody have time to read this shit? I don't. And I am not putting down the authors (described by Glenn Reynolds as "honest"; but be sure to check out Lott's web site), or attacking the quality of their statistical analysis. I don't know enough about shit like coding and sampling errors, and frankly I don't want to know. For starters, I don't have time.

I mean, if someone is making stuff up, like Michael Bellesiles, who invented imaginary people and imaginary statistics and then cited them, well, that's simple dishonesty, which rendered Bellesiles's work a fiction (and not worth reading unless you enjoy Pravda-like lying historical revision).

But coding errors? That sounds like something only super nerds could understand.

As for me, I hate statistics anyway. You'll never get me to step into that hopelessly labyrinthine crap about sampling rates, and skewed extrapolations. I mean, sheesh!

The last time I saw a cat fight like this crap was when the right wing anti-homosexual crowd decided to go after the Kinsey statistics. They maligned Kinsey as a child molesting, Satanic cultist, and claimed his statistics about the prevalence of homosexual conduct were the product of a perverted mind with a grand scheme of world rule by perverts or something. In their view, Kinsey had said there were too many homos, and thus his statistics had to be discredited.

Of course, if you assume the anti-gay crowd's statistics are right, and homosexuals are only three percent of the population instead of ten, what does this mean? That it's OK to imprison or kill them?

Kinsey was an evil pervert, so that means open war on homos?

(Or, Lott had a "coding issue" so we lose our guns?)

I guess that makes me very cynical about people who believe that statistical battles are the key to deciding important principles or ultimate truths.

Statistics are inherently misleading, and distract people – even very good people – from focusing on real truth. At best, even when a given statistic can be agreed upon by both sides, it only supplies a utilitarian argument. A million people saying that a horse is a dog, for example, does not make a horse a dog.

Mark Twain was not kidding when he complained about "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I don't care what the statistics show. I can tell you from my own experience that having a firearm prevents even the craziest of people from attacking you. On more than one occasion, I used a gun to protect myself, and it worked or I wouldn't be here. People who tell me that having a gun means I'll be more likely to have it used against me are just anti-gun, and anti-Second Amendment, and they will bludgeon me with statistics in the hope of wearing me out. This is a common tactic, and it is a major reason why people detest bureaucrats, politicians, and lawyers.

You get into a debate with those types, and they'll wear you out with statistics, much the same way a large law firm will try to wear you down with a sea of litigious paper.

The problem is, people win arguments that way, and they shouldn't. Exhausting an opponent is a dishonest tactic. And right now, I feel that they're trying to do it to Second Amendment supporters -- by throwing huge piles of statistics at me in the hope that I will be cowed.

Well, I have been around too long to pay any attention to these tactics. I will not play their game. I refuse to read the Stanford Law Review article. People who make their living billing their clients by the hour can get into it if they want, but I consider it like a tar baby. You touch it and you're stuck in sticky goo and there is no end to it.

I am not aguing against truth, mind you, for I am not a deconstructionist. I recognize the value of taking the time to plod through something like that law review article, and even attempting to refute it point by point. But I can assure you that even if it turned out to be false, the gun control advocates would come out with another one, and another one. And another one. They do not stop. They crank out statistics like shit through a goose.

If I let them, they'll even refute my own life experiences through statistics. I do not doubt that someone could cite statistics to prove I do not exist, just as they proved the bumblebee cannot fly.

My blogfather busts his ass to compile the weekly Yahoo gun bias statistics. I would be willing to bet that if Sarah Brady's grab-the-guns think tank commissioned a professional (read highly paid hired whore) statistical analysis, they'd manage to find problems with his work. I don't know whether they'd call it a "coding error" or whether they'd use words I don't understand, but it would not faze me in the least, because I know what their bottom line is: they want to take away my guns, and they see statistics as a weapon to do that.

The only statistic that should legitimately concern anyone who cares about freedom is how many rounds you can get into the target when you're shooting.

Coding and sampling errors are one thing, but if they wanna take away my guns, well, maybe I can't hit the target every time, but are they feeling lucky?

For many years I have wanted to know where it is written in granite that if you are a homosexual (or let's just say you have engaged in homosexual acts), you have to be a socialist. Or, to put it bluntly, if you are a male and you happen to have had oral sex with another male, why must you now love Barbara Streisand?

A University of Michigan professor named David M. Halperin may just have the answer. He teaches a course called "How to be gay." (From the Corner via a link from Instapundit.)

Here's a glimpse into the mind of that tenured academician:

"Let there be no mistake about it: lesbian and gay studies, as it is currently practiced in the U.S., expresses an uncompromising political militancy."

For starters, Halperin wants to make that founding purveyor of deconstructionist gobbledygook, Michel Foucault, a saint.

What I cannot understand is how Halperin, who concedes that homosexuality is a recent cultural invention, is so hell-bent on perpetuating an ongoing fraud.

I guess that's his job. Lest anyone misunderstand, Halperin claims he is being misunderstood:

"It does not teach students to be homosexual," Halperin told The Washington Times. "Rather, it examines critically the odd notion that there are right and wrong ways to be gay, that homosexuality is not just a sexual practice or desire but a set of specific tastes in music, movies and other cultural forms — a notion which is shared by straight and gay people alike."

No one can tell me. I guess I should return to school to find out.

But frankly, I think I would fall asleep. Here is what Halperin has to say about an allegedly "gay" postage stamp:

As if by magic, each person who views the stamp -- no matter what his or her social location -- instantly and unreflectively reconfigures the image, constructing the pair of lovebirds not only as male and female but as a heterosexual and, presumably, monogamous couple (the stamp is not taken to depict a one-night stand). The viewer may also perform a number of other, subsidiary operations on this visual text, such as installing the "male" bird on the right-hand side of the field and even magnifying "his" size in relation to that of "his" mate, so as to motivate as well as to justify a heterosexist reading. But nothing in the text itself . . . provides the slightest impetus for such collective hallucinations. Rather, the apparently universal and unconquerable urge to read off gendered, heterosexualized meanings from the innocent surface of this unoffending text springs -- as the text's source in the figural repertory of European-American folk art implies -- from the traditional codes or conventions for "representing" love in European-American culture. These codes, which also govern the culture's visual rhetoric, restrict the use of erotic symbols, such as the valentine-shaped heart, to heterosexual contexts and employ exemplary animals, such as lovebirds, to typify and thereby to naturalize contemporary human social and sexual arrangements, such as monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Common to all those rhetorical practices is a discursive strategy whose effect is to (re)produce "love" as an exclusively heterosexual institution and to convert, under the sign of "love," all pairs of ungendered, identically figured bodies into heterosexual couples. . . .

WAIT A MINUTE!

Just when I thought I had exhausted myself silly with this nonsensical tedium, Brian Stephens (a very articulate Michigan student blogger) came to my rescue, by supplying a description of Halperin's course:

Here is the original course guide description of Prof. David Haleprin's "How to be Gay" class. He sanitized last year, but i guess a lot of these stereotypes were still there.

I don't think he could have packed any more post-modernist bull shit and stereotypes into the paragraph. One question, what exactly are the sentimental, affective, and aesthetic dimensions of gay identity?

Just because you happen to be a gay man doesn't mean that you don't have to learn how to become one. Gay men do some of that learning on their own, but often we learn how to be gay from others, either because we look to them for instruction or because they simply tell us what they think we need to know, whether we ask for their advice or not. This course will examine the general topic of the role that initiation plays in the formation of gay identity. We will approach it from three angles: (1) as a sub-cultural practice – subtle, complex, and difficult to theorize – which a small but significant body of work in queer studies has begun to explore; (2) as a theme in gay male writing; (3) as a class project, since the course itself will constitute an experiment in the very process of initiation that it hopes to understand. In particular, we'll examine a number of cultural artefacts and activities that seem to play a prominent role in learning how to be gay: Hollywood movies, grand opera, Broadway musicals, and other works of classical and popular music, as well as camp, diva-worship, drag, muscle culture, style, fashion, and interior design. Are there a number of classically "gay" works such that, despite changing tastes and generations, ALL gay men, of whatever class, race, or ethnicity, need to know them, in order to be gay? What roles do such works play in learning how to be gay? What is there about these works that makes them essential parts of a gay male curriculum? Conversely, what is there about gay identity that explains the gay appropriation of these works? One aim of exploring these questions is to approach gay identity from the perspective of social practices and cultural identifications rather than from the perspective of gay sexuality itself. What can such an approach tell us about the sentimental, affective, or aesthetic dimensions of gay identity, including gay sexuality, that an exclusive focus on gay sexuality cannot? At the core of gay experience there is not only identification but disidentification. Almost as soon as I learn how to be gay, or perhaps even before, I also learn how not to be gay. I say to myself, "Well, I may be gay, but at least I'm not like THAT!" Rather than attempting to promote one version of gay identity at the expense of others, this course will investigate the stakes in gay identifications and disidentifications, seeking ultimately to create the basis for a wider acceptance of the plurality of ways in which people determine how to be gay. Work for the class will include short essays, projects, and a mandatory weekly three-hour screening (or other cultural workshop) on Thursday evenings.

Of course, when I was a kid, I took a class called "Sex and Crime" (offered appropriately by UC Berkeley's Department of Criminology) -- taught by the distinguished Dr. Joel Fort. I performed independent field research into male prostitution, and I learned a lot. Without getting into too much detail, I'm pleased to report that I got an "A+" in the course.

So, I try to keep an open mind, and I recognize that many issues can be academic.

But brainwashing and fraud are not.

The first principle is not to fool yourself -- and you are the easiest to fool. -- Richard Feynman

Link to Fertile Grounds courtesy of beastblog (deriving from its pig Latin, "East Bay").

Better post this while I can, for I may be fooling myself.

See that really cool new psychedelic image over there on the left? That is my blogfather's new logo. He has redesigned his whole blog, and while I am not a person who likes change (and I was quite fond of the black, outer-space look he had before), this really works, it is growing on me, and I think it is easier on the eyes.

Jeff does his own web design, thinks his own thoughts, and codes everything by hand. Like Jeff himself, his blog is completely self-made, and an American Original through and through. I wish I had his talent. No matter how you look at it, Alphecca is a far-thinking, far-out dude.

There is no one in the blogosphere who does more to encourage new bloggers than Jeff. Had he not sponsored me, and encouraged me in that critical early stage of blogging when I was sick of baring my soul and wondered whether it was all "worth it," I would probably not have continued blogging.

But, as I am a mere modern mortal, my words are insufficient as praise, so in keeping with the Classical Values theme, I think it is appropriate to quote from the ancients on the influence of Alphecca:

According to Ptolemy it is of the nature of Venus and Mercury, but Alvidas considers it to be like Mars and Mercury. It gives honor, dignity and poetical and artistic ability.

Well, from what I've been reading, Uganda's former cannibal-in-chief is still dead. This time, apparently "he's not only really dead, he's really most sincerely dead."

But anyone who thinks monstrous, Idi Amin-style tyranny died with Amin should read this.

Why does the West systematically ignore African butchery? Fear of being seen as racist? (I am not being facetious; this film was called racist when it was made!)

If such a double standard isn't racist, then what is?

UPDATE:

Why was there never any extradition and trial?

Glenn Reynolds links to this story, which speculates that the Saudis may find it unacceptable to "let an African Muslim potentate be toppled, tried and convicted by a predominantly Christian African state."

Yeah, I guess Muslim hegemony and Western guilt allowed Amin to live out his life in serenity and tranquility.

But what about this guy (Eichmann's right hand man, Alois Brunner)? He's no Muslim, but the most vicious Nazi war criminal alive. (At least I think he's still alive.) For the life of me, I don't understand. Again, why no extradition and trial?

Let's follow Austin Bay's Idi Amin speculation, with a twist:

The Saudis Our Mideastern allies simply will not let an African Muslim potentate a leading Nazi Holocaust engineer be toppled, tried and convicted by a predominantly Christian African Jewish state.

Sounds logical to me. But at least the Saudi spin machine tried to put the best face on Amin. Brunner, on the other hand, made this statement to the Chicago Sun Times:

"The Jews deserved to die. I have no regrets. If I had the chance I would do it again..."

Do it again? Maybe Brunner is also getting a pass for being "anti-colonialist."

For such an old man, I think his survival strategy is very hip. We all know that colonialists should be nuked.

Reacting against bigotry may be a fun form of entertainment, but can it be carried too far?

When I was in high school in the late 60s and early 70s, racism was ugly, raw, and a real national disease. The word "nigger" -- while it was starting to be used only in hushed tones in the (white) upper classes, was in wide use among working class whites, who lived in fear that "they" might move in and then "there goes the neighborhood." After the assassination of Martin Luther King I heard many people say that King had been asking for it and had gotten what was coming to him. Feeling very angry, emotionally enraged by the stupidity of racism, and ever more radical as a result, I became a Marxist Leninist, supported the Black Panther Party, and was a very outspoken 15-year-old. This occurred during adolescence, at a time when I simultaneously saw the tyrannical use of the term "faggot" on a regular basis -- to mindlessly instill conformity to sexual role models which I saw as preposterous on their face.

When I announced my homosexuality (which I called bisexuality at the time -- although I was told later that I can't call myself that lest I be accused of being "in the closet"), no one dared criticize me for it. I remember announcing it in the school lunchroom while my classmates froze and stared at their food. I guess it is fair to say that my "coming out" was in large part a reaction against the hypocritical stigmatization of something I had seen going on all over the place -- a thing which turned me on but which meant nothing to me on a guilt level. (I used to see myself as an ancient trapped in a horrible modern world.) True, I played around with both sexes, but the truth of the matter was I wasn't all that sexual of a person. Intrigued by androgyny, many of my LSD trips convinced me that the differences between the sexes were indeed often blurry, but that the ape-like desire to conform induced massive insecurity in people who reacted with anger and bigotry almost out of a need to protect their image vis-a-vis the herd. Well, to me that was a game, and two could play at such a game. Fuck 'em!

I still feel much the same way. I do not understand society's neurotic obsession with putting people into categories and judging them by things like skin color or something even more personal: the content of their orgasms.

This is a major reason I started Classical Values. I think it is high time for people to stop reacting. Homosexuals are a Victorian creation. So are heterosexuals. How long must this con game go on? I mean, I can play it as long as people want to, but I am getting a bit tired and a bit old.

The only person who has any right to know or care about where I put my dick is someone interested in it! To the extent other people want to get into my life, if they are not interested in sex, why, I suppose curiosity is OK, but if they are doing the whole gay-versus-straight, let's-assign-a-category deal, well I have no duty of honesty. I will always be proud to say that I am gay to anyone who wants to make an issue of it, because I consider it a form of bigotry to classify people that way. It is a bit like asking about someone's race; what the hell is the relevance?

The gay movement, however, wants to perpetuate this reaction business, and I think they have reached a point (degenerated to a point, I should say) where they are not about freedom, but about perpetuating society's tyranny. I think it is high time for the tyranny to go. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are arbitrary, bigoted categories. So is bisexuality. Who did this, and why? Krafft-Ebing has been credited with coining the term "homo-sexual" in the 19th century. Before that men were accused of engaging in sodomy -- something I tried to demonstrate (twice) to be primarily a "heterosexual" phenomenon (more properly, something practiced between men and women).

I do not know what it will take to convince people that they are victims of Victorian fraud, but that is what I think.

The gay movement is a reaction against bigotry, and has about as much credibility as the race-based, affirmative action movement or any other identity politics. In some ways it is even more bogus, as the identity is simply based on a reaction against bigotry imposed against a class of people defined and created Houdini-style, on the whims of Victorian shrinks.

[Parenthetical note: This Victorian fraud may well have been grounded in compassion for the plight of accused "sodomites" who were had been imprisoned, or far worse, over the centuries because of medieval interpretations of religious texts. But compassion does not make something logical which is not. Nor is it logical to substitute irrational medical quackery for medieval misapplications of religious texts.]

In ancient times, there was no such category as homosexual. People did sexually what they wanted to do without having labels applied to them for it.

Does such a simple concept have to be a radical idea in a free, modern country?

The last thing in the world I am advocating is intolerance. But tolerance implies that there is something to tolerate, as if to forbear. Why should anyone care where some guy sticks his dick or shoots his wad? I have never been able to understand why. All I know is that they do, and they act like a bunch of sexual control freaks (whose real motivation may be suppressed or misplaced apelike dominance urges). What I saw in adolescence was wrong then and it is wrong now. I don't care whether it is propped up by weak male egos seeking to be leaders or followers, by interpretations of religious texts, or by gay rights activists whose weak egos require them to do the same thing.

How might gay marriage factor into this? People may hate what I am about to say, and I may be accused of giving ammo to the other side, but I assure you I am not. Gay marriage strikes me as a continuation of the gay movement: an insecure, artificial aping of something which is not there -- or at least has no logical need to be there. It is grounded in a movement which arose out of (and is still driven by) anti-homosexual prejudice. Reactions like this, like racial insecurities brought on by racism, should not have been there in the first place, because reactions do not solve reactions.

My argument is not so much against gay marriage as it is for self respect.

I had three long term male lovers. All died. I never needed a government institution to tell me I was OK, and I don't need that now. What is stopping people from living together or doing whatever it is they want to do? Private contracts and adoptions can take into account almost any circumstance I can think of. If I decided to marry a woman, well, I could do that legally regardless of whether we were both gay, straight, bi, or defined ourselves as auto-erotic strangulationists. (And no; the latter not my shtick, OK?) So what? There are a lot of reasons the law protects opposite-sex spouses -- not the least of which is the traditional role of women as the "weaker sex," as the child-rearers who need money because they give up careers, the coming together of the two male/female yin/yang as one, etc. The fact that marriage is changing -- even that it is falling apart as an institution -- does not alter its history, nor does it supply any reason why two members of the same sex should feel forced to imitate an institution intended to use official state glue to cement into place an otherwise consensual contract between men and women.

Why this need for a piece of paper from the government? So that someone can say "I'm just as good as you are?" That is a logical fallacy, because if you need a piece of paper to say you are as good as someone else, you must have doubts. No paper will prove you are just as good. You are in fact just as good and entitled to your life. Needing that paper is insecurity. There is nothing which it gives you which cannot be obtained by other means.

Especially respect. Anyone who requires a government issued piece of paper for self respect in my opinion will not get it from that piece of paper.

Analogizing to a drivers license sheds some light on the problem. Other than a law requiring a license, there is nothing about a drivers license which enables someone to drive. Likewise, a man in his natural state may live with and have sex with any other person, male or female, for whatever length of time the two (or more) may deem fit.

What we are arguing about here is not a living arrangement, but a definition. Unlike a drivers license (without which I may not drive) I can live with anyone I want for as long as I want, share whatever portions of my life, property, inheritance rights I want, without needing any piece of paper from the government to prove it.

If I live with another person without that piece of paper, what are the real, day-to-day consequences? The only one I can think of is that someone might say that I am not married.

Oooohhhh, that is sooo scary! Someone might say I am not married! What trauma! I might not be able to sleep at night if the neighbors didn't think I was married.

Or, suppose I told my neighbors that I consider myself married, or in a common-law situation analogous to marriage. If I didn't have the right piece of paper to wave in his face, he could, I suppose, say, "You're not married and I am!"

"Nyah nyah!"

But if I had the piece of paper, I could wave it is in face and return the nyah nyah?

Is that what this is about?

The right to say "nyah nyah?"

Isn't that like saying "Mommy and daddy said it was OK!"?

Northern California is considerably cooler than the East Coast in summer -- and MUCH warmer in winter. When I left the East Coast in late July (and on the drive all the way across the country) it was swelteringly hot. The Bay Area weather, on the other hand, is beautiful, 70-ish, and just gives you that feeling of not needing to have a care in the world. (Not, that is, until neurotic uptight East Coast types like me come charging in with gratuitous observations....)

And then I read about New Yorkers hating Southern Californians, and Northern Californians hating Southern Californians.

Might I have a word on this subject? I lived on both coasts for many years, and I consider LA to be a sort of home away from home. Thanks to two very dear friends in LA, I have two places where I can crash whenever I make the 5.5 hour drive from here to there. I have spent a lot of time in LA on business over the years, and not only do I not resent the place, I would move there in a heartbeat, and needless to say prefer it infinitely to the East Coast.

New Yorkers may not like hearing this, but the East Coast consists of more than New York. Philadelphia, where I failed to grow up, hates New York with the a bitterness which reminds me of the French. That's because Philadelphia is America's Founding City, has old, prestigious money, and is tormented by a mindset which seems perversely proud of its provincialism (which of course can never be called that). This hatred spills over into New Jersey, part of which "leans" towards Philadelphia, and part towards New York. Yet Philadelphians and New Yorkers each feel far superior to New Jerseyites.

But both Philadelphia and New York (and their NJ satellites) unite in hatred of California. The "hatred" between Northern and Southern California is a joke compared to the attitude of the East Coast towards California.

Do you think California could care less? Sure, there are political differences, but the only fault line in California which strikes me as genuinely bitter also exists all over the country -- and that is the vexing, worsening tension between urban and rural peoples. There is a an ill-defined yet fundamental incompatibility which gets worse and worse. City people want laws and restrictions and taxes, then they flee to more pastoral areas upon which they then inflict more laws and restrictions and taxes. Libertarianism with a small "l" is becoming the only option -- for California and for the nation. Very, very dangerous thinking; Jesse Ventura was getting close; is Arnold smart enough to pull it off? Am I allowed to speculate about these things?

Sorry folks; I just smelled the beginnings of a rant. And this is Sunday, so I really ought to stick with nice, safe things.

Like the weather, perhaps?

(Yeah! Weather -- or not.)

Here in California (especially in the Bay Area) there are really only minimal seasons; it is mostly the same year round. In fact, I was last here in December, and it was not much colder than it is now. Not that that is a representative sampling of these times of year; it just shows how meaningless are the "seasons" around here, and how genuinely random are the weather patterns. I have long believed that people are affected by the weather. When you live in a culture that thinks along seasonal lines yet you live in a season-less area, you become different. I have known people from the East Coast who hated it here precisely because of the absence of seasons, and the ubiquitous rain and fog. Those who love that tend to have a live-and-let-live view of the world. This is slightly different from the "I've earned it!" retirement mentality of Floridians and Arizonans. But I think it goes a long way to explain why it is that Bay Area residents are as eccentric as they are. It also helps explain some of the difference between Northern and Southern Californians. Mystical fog versus fun-in-the-sun...

But the East Coast! Man, they are as mean as scalded cats over the weather, because they have to stay indoors in the summer, and indoors in the winter, and spend Spring and Fall getting ready for (or catching up on maintenance caused by) severe hot or severe cold. Year after year of snow-shoveling, ice-salting, suffering in the heat, and fighting hordes of summer insects, well, these things just don't warm them to California's Northern mystical-fog or Southern fun-in-the-sun mindsets. Nor are they happy about the fact that Californians just don't suffer from power outages the way they do on the East Coast. They secretly think Californians need a good wallop on the behind -- another earthquake, a Tsunami, at least a good stiff drought!

If weather can influence such cultural phenomena, then what about genuine environmental stresses? My philosophical comrade Justin Case is completely sold on the idea that many events in human history can be explained by comet and meteor impacts. I have seen enough of the evidence to conclude that it is at least plausible, if not certain. Long ago I learned that a big one had done in the dinosaurs. But what I had not realized was the frequency of much smaller (but substantial) impacts. Some of them left craters which are only now being revealed, while often times other meteors and comets explode into blasts of gravel-sized, dispersed debris. Large surfaces of ground are scorched, rock is melted like glass, lakes and oceans boil, fire and brimstone literally rain down, and gigantic tidal waves are caused when the damned things crash into the sea. Several books have been written on the subject which I have not read (one by a guy named Bill Napier stands out); apparently it has escaped the attention of historians that there are common denominators in the simultaneous demises of multiple cultures and civilizations during the same time periods.

I know very little about this subject but I can readily see why it won't receive much attention in the major media. Right now the big money is on global warming, which finds strong emotional appeal among the egocentric guilt-mongers who enjoy blaming progress and technology for everything, and see us as dooming the planet. Anything which demonstrates our ultimate insignificance, and instead shows the real power of nature, is to be shunned, silenced, even censored. Besides, the solution (yes, there is one) is even more threatening to the liberal/green point of view. Many of the scientists who have studied this phenomenon agree that we stand a damned good chance of being able to deflect future impacts by standing ready with large thermonuclear devices, which could divert the meteors from their course long before they pose a threat. Existing technology could be further developed which could spot not only the bigger rocks, but the smaller ones which currently escape attention. (Which is bad, for if a smaller one hit Manhattan, it would be a big-time disaster.) Liberals, of course, would object to the development of any technology that might also be used to defend us against missiles. Why?

Is defenselessness a state of grace?

Frankly, I would not expect to see much interest in this emerging topic from conservatives either -- and certainly not from moral conservatives. Too many of their favorite Biblical stories could be explained by meteoric impacts. And if these things in fact hit earth randomly, then religious people are hard-pressed to explain why God would "do" such a terrible thing. And if he would, why would he "strike" a Siberian forest in 1907? (Duh! Obviously because of the bi polar bears.)

Why, if God had any sense, he'd hit the evil San Francisco with a Big One! (And if God strikes some other place, that's only because the people there were too tolerant of places like San Francisco...)

I was quite surprised to read the statistical analysis of the relative danger posed by these things. We have a 1 in 10,000 chance of being killed by a meteor! That is substantially greater than the odds of being struck by lightning, bitten by a snake, dying in a plane crash, eaten by a shark, or even killed in floods, or tornadoes. Yet we are far more concerned about these other dangers. Why? Because, not only don't we know about the meteor risk, but we do not have any control over them, or so we imagine.

These things are called NEOs. (Near Earth Objects.) Only the big ones attract much attention, but people forget about what can happen if even a small one hits the right area. Even without it doing any direct damage, the indirect damage can last for many years. Just look at that silly Kaaba stone, which continues to stir up millions of militant Muslims in Mecca!

Did a meteor over central Italy in AD 312 change the course of Roman and Christian history? Read this and decide. Was a Bronze Age society wiped out in Estonia in the Eighth Century B.C.?

The late Stephen J. Gould, while accepting the evidence for NEO impacts, thought it was distressing to the human psyche for people to consider that outer space might be responsible for major events in earth history. Liberals and conservatives alike cling tenaciously to the idea that man is responsible for his problems, and that the solution therefore must lie in getting power and making men behave properly. Even our beloved Thomas Jefferson stated (when told that a meteorite had crashed into an area of New England):

I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven.

Is this stuff more important than hegemonic differences between Philadelphia versus New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, or East versus West Coasts? Common sense would suggest that there is an awful lot of stuff out there which might easily crash into our planet. An asteroid (1994 XM) recently whizzed past within 104,000 kilometers of earth! My cars have more mileage on them than that, so we aren't talking light years here; we are talking driving distance.

Justin Case dragged me up into the Berkeley hills for a star-gazing venture. University employees had set up high power reflecting telescopes for the public to use, and I looked at a number of planets. Most fascinating was the moon, which was so bright that it hurt my eyes. What did I see? A bunch of craters. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate from this visible data.

You don't even need to be a rocket scientist.

Still, people are not likely to get terribly excited about any of this, because they are much busier hating each other over things like the weather. If you think about it, though, it makes a lot of sense to hate people who don't have to experience your own misery. Thus, we hate people who have nice weather while we suffer, who pay no taxes while we shell out huge portions of our income and live in fear of an IRS audit, or who vacation in Bali with a "significant other" while we struggle to buy clothes for the kids.

When collective misery intervenes, people are temporarily distracted from blaming each other, until a scapegoat can be found. Cataclysmic events -- even if naturally occurring -- traditionally invite scapegoating. Things must be made someone's fault, whether directly (global warming, pollution, stupidity, failure to take action, or simple greed) or indirectly (man pissed off God and was punished).

The former explanation can be found in conventional media. The latter is in most of the religious texts. Both explanations fill a similar need. Not a natural human need, so much as a need (by the purveyors of the explanations) to control.

That's too bad, because there are a lot of people who might enjoy knowing that some things are beyond anyone's control.

And not anyone's fault.

Here's some useful news of bizarre sexual rituals, incolving necrophilia, cannibalism, and the actual use of corpses of suitors as a sort of weird chastity belt.

Sexual suicide and "dinner date" anyone?

Instapundit agrees with Tacitus that fascist hatemongering by Cruz Bustamante is not a good idea.

You kinda hafta watch your language too.

Indeed.

UPDATE AND APOLOGY: I don't mean to be unfair to Bustamante by highlighting this inconsequential gaffe. Trivialities such as Freudian slips are never held against people, are they?

Let me start with an apology for an excited utterance I made in an earlier post. "Uneasy" and "opposed" are not synonyms, and I should know better. (And opposition to uneasiness does not equal uneasiness about opposition, either.)

This is all the fault of that blasted Leon Kass, who opposes the public eating of ice cream! He has gotten me into trouble again!

I stand accused (by a commenter named Wild Bill with no blogsite) of starting a "lynch mob" because when I linked to a Glenn Reynolds piece which says Kass is "uneasy" about organ transplantation, I characterized such uneasiness as "opposition" to organ transplantation.

Mea culpa! My apologies to all concerned -- particularly to Stephen Green, who was nice enough to link to me only to get slammed for it by some anally retentive, apparently blogless Kass Klone. Now, I am going to attempt to straighten out this mess (which means I will probably make it worse).

Here, in the interest of fairness, is a full quote of Dr. Kass's apparent position on organ transplantation:

Leon Kass: ....[S]tep-by-step, we walk down a path to whose final destination we may not wish to go.

Ben Wattenberg: I just made up a list here of things that interfere with, or structurally change, the nature of humanity: antibiotics and vaccines and insulin, organ transplants. If somebody said to you thirty years ago, “We’re going to take the heart valve of a pig and put it in a human being,,” would you not have said “oh my God, yuck. I couldn’t believe the idea that you’d really put a pig’s valve in a human heart.” And yet, here we are, and people walk around with it.

Leon Kass: Well, look, repugnances are interesting things. They don’t settle any moral question but they are at least a sign that we may be crossing a kind of boundary about which crossing we should think before we do it. I think that organ transplantation was a kind of boundary. Medicine didn’t ever cut into one person’s body for the sake of some other person’s body.

Ben Wattenberg: Do you oppose that?

Leon Kass: I don’t oppose that. Of course I don’t oppose that. On the whole, this is a great blessing. But to say that it’s a great blessing doesn’t mean that it doesn’t come with some kind of cost and that we’re better off if we’re at least aware of the cost so that we might be able to forestall certain other kinds of things where the cost really outweighs the benefits. The prophetic novel for this whole field, written in 1932, seventy years ago…

Ben Wattenberg: Is Brave New World.

Leon Kass: ...is [Aldous] Huxley’s novel Brave New World. And in this novel, Huxley has foreseen a society that takes all of our humanitarian goals and pushes them to their ultimate realization. Conquest of poverty, of disease, of psychic distress, the elimination of war, the creation of a harmonious society. It’s accomplished by cloning, genetic engineering, scientific education through sleep…sleep education and all kinds of artificial amusements, of a rathe