Quantum leap in artsy pics!

Here are a couple more photos of art. I like art that you can live with, or that makes a statement about its natural or human surroundings -- or provokes thought about both. (Right now I am wondering about band width!)

Still life with heads and fruit:
FruitOffering.jpg

Crab hanging on sun:
CrabSun.jpg

Hey folks, today's the day the year takes a leap. Can't the crab hang on the sun once every four years?

posted by Eric at 09:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)



Quality of life issue

Now that I have had a day or so to mull over the Howard Stern controversy, I realize I didn't fully express my concerns. I previously posted about my fear of what I call "quasi-governmental censorship", and Glenn Reynolds was kind enough to link to it. But right now, that post is so far down on my blog that it wouldn't do to call this an "UPDATE."

But speaking of updates, I note that Jeff Jarvis recently warned that some of the same people who want Howard Stern off the air also want the FCC to have jurisdiction over the Internet, and I still think this is an issue which should be of concern to bloggers.

[ED NOTE (at the risk of redundancy): Especially censored bloggers!]

Now, what follows is more personal.

I still haven't had a chance to talk -- really talk -- about Howard Stern. But I want to give it a stab, because I have been listening to the guy for ten years now, and this blog is as good a place as any to share my personal thoughts, as well as my feelings.

When I first started listening to the Howard Stern Show, I thought the guy was an annoying jerk. I had read and heard condemnation of him by numerous voices on the left and the right, and I thought, "Well, I'll just put up with him for awhile, and maybe I'll gain some sort of insight into what the fuss is all about."

After about a week, I began to realize that this was an intelligent sensitive guy, even a gentleman. (Many a laugh has greeted me when I have used that word to describe Howard Stern, but I mean it from the bottom of my heart.) He is a social critic who makes fun of everything and everyone, but most of all he makes fun of his own audience and listeners -- sparing no one.

Then there's Robin Quivers. When I first heard her, I envisioned a heavyset blonde woman -- a stereotype of one of one of R. Crumb's muscular Amazon girls. I was stunned to learn she was black, and this intrigued me more. I kept listening. I love imitations and irreverence, and I heard both every day.

His show starts at 6:00 am, and I am a late-night person, which made listening a bit inconvenient. To kill two birds with one stone, I thought, "Why not use Howard Stern as an alarm clock?"

My bedroom radio had a built-in timer, which I set to wake me up to Howard Stern each morning when his show started. I soon learned that I was not the only one to do this, because just before starting the program, he'd always play some sort of musical prelude which seemed perfectly appropriate to that sleepy, REM-dream-state I'd be in. Sometimes he'd even play this surreal, dreamy, 1960s sci-fi type, trance music -- the stuff which typified many a movie "flashback" (or "memory regression") segment. This was great -- and it didn't matter whether I slept through it or incorporated it into my dreams.

Eventually, I would wake up, and almost always in a great mood.

A great mood.

Was I alone in this?

Far from it. I hadn't noticed it before, but I started to notice that many of the delivery guys -- you know, ordinary working-class men who had to get up way early in the morning and perform the sort of drudgery which the economy (and the country) needs to function -- would be listening to Howard Stern!

I am a morning runner, and I can't tell you how many times I would hear bits of Howard Stern coming from the Pepsi delivery trucks, the Budweiser delivery trucks, construction sites.

These guys looked as if listening to Howard made their jobs easier! Easier to get to work, and easier to work when you get there! Running with a radio headset on, I'd sometimes hear an "echo" -- and I'd loosen the headphone, and there'd be some worker or group of workers, usually smiling, getting through the hardest part of the day.

Can this be measured in dollars? It might be difficult, and it might require some serious studies by economists, but I have long argued that Howard Stern is a boon to the national economy, and I think I am right.

The more I listened, the more I came to love that show. I found that many white collar guys listened to him too, and then the more I asked around, the more I heard that women also listened to Howard Stern!

Imagine that! Women listening to this misfit misogynist trash talk guy! What continues to amazes me is that the women who like Howard Stern are a cut above; they tend to be smarter, more cynical (the healthy kind), and above all they have enough of a sense of humor to appreciate that Howard is intelligent and poking fun at all human foibles (not the least of which are his own). Even his braggadocio is deliberately ridiculous. His lies about serving in Vietnam, his endless declarations that he is the greatest "KING OF ALL RADIO," the nonsense about his being "half Jewish and half Italian" -- these are the kind of things which the clueless might take literally. And that fact alone -- that the clueless take him seriously -- is a very important part of the humor.

It's tough to explain this to anyone who is not a regular listener. Yet these are the people who most hate him.

An example from (very) personal experience. My mother, who died four years ago, was intuitive enough to quickly grasp Howard surreal ridiculousness after listening to him a couple of times in the car when I drove her around. I remember one time my mom and I listened to "the news" (this is when Robin, a former radio news reporter, reads the news and plays straight man to Howard's embellishments). Robin reported a story of a man-eating tiger in India -- preying upon local villagers while Hindu officials debated what should be done while the carnage went on. (After all, you can't just kill a tiger in India!) They played this totally inappropriate sitar music while Howard waxed philosophically.... and my mom was reduced to hysterics. When she got home, she told her husband (my stuffy stepfather, whose sense of humor definitely did not include Howard Stern) how hilarious she'd found this unfairly vilified man, Howard Stern. My stepfather grunted with a suppressed look of pain, as if having abdominal cramps, and I sensed he was waiting for my mom to leave the room. She did, and then came the ultimatum:

"Eric, I DO NOT WANT YOUR MOTHER LISTENING TO THAT MAN!"

Quite naively, I posited gently that I thought it my mother's business who she listened to, and, well, I merely added another reason for the man to detest me.

Not fair, but that's the way it is with Howard Stern.

I used to become enraged whenever I would hear people tear into Howard, and I would ask them if they ever heard him. The usual reply was that they had not and never would.

Not fair -- and who cares?

I noticed that the leftists hated Howard for being sexist and right wing, while the right wing hated him for being vulgar and left wing (guess they also hated the long hair on a 40 year old), while many of the rest of the clueless just hated him because they were told to.

What upset me the most was hearing moral conservatives repeatedly invoking Howard Stern's name (almost by rote, to be taken for granted) as an example of All That Is Wrong.

He is not.

For me, Howard Stern makes my days just a little bit better. You can argue about the First Amendment all you want, but the bottom line for me is a quality of life issue. I would occasionally tell people that if they didn't like him they could simply turn their radios off -- or twist the dial to another station, but I soon realized this was a silly argument to raise with people who never had listened to him and never would.

Therein lies the problem. They don't want merely the right to turn their dials or turn the radios off; they want ME to be unable to turn the dial to Howard Stern.

Again, not fair.

Without Howard Stern, life in the United States would be grimmer, less pleasant. Meaner. More sour. Guys arriving to work angrier. Less productivity at job sites.

Whose business is this? Freedom -- to listen whatever the hell you want -- should be everybody's business, but instead the system tends to default to whomever is the best organized with the biggest ax to grind.

And many people have been grinding their axes to use against Howard Stern for many years. I couldn't even begin to list the people who've been trying to get him off the air.

Well, since this is a long post, I might as well give it a try.

Here's a partial list:

  • Concerned Women for America

  • American Family Association (see also this CNS report)

  • Traditional Values Coalition

  • Family Research Council

  • WorldNetDaily

  • James Dobson's Focus on the Family

  • National Organization for Women
  • Sheesh! This gets tedious.

    But there are a lot of people out there who don't want me listening to Howard Stern. And I freely admit, they have every right to try to stop me.

    So how come I'm not working my butt off trying to get their programming off the air?

    Because it wouldn't be fair.

    Freedom -- to listen to what you want to hear on the radio -- strikes me as more fair than limiting that freedom.

    UPDATE: James Lileks (a blogger I greatly respect) in my opinion did not fully understand the dynamics involved behind the colloquy he discusses here:

    The driver had Stern on. He was talking to a caller who was born and raised in Nigeria – she spoke impeccable English with that lovely African flavor. She wasn’t pleased about something he said; he let her go on for a while, then cut in and asked her if she’d ever ate a monkey. She was stunned – how do you reply to something like that? He went on to note that a lot of people in Africa ate monkeys, and perhaps that’s where AIDS came from. And so on.
    (Via Glenn Reynolds.)
    I heard that exact same segment and had a completely different reaction. I thought the woman was shrill and crazy (and actually funny enough to have been a possible "phony phone call"). Howard had fun with her, and it was part of his art. The people call in and scream and he screams back. It's art.

    As an example, listen to THIS. The caller sounds angry, but is just plain hamming it up. If you think it's hurtful, all I can say is you are mistaken. It is comedy and it is art.

    Like many of the ostensibly hostile callers, that "Nigerian" woman was on the air more than once. Similarly, religious people call to scream at Howard, and he obliges by putting them on the air. Who is being exploited?

    Is anyone made to call in, get past the screeners and wait to talk to Howard Stern on the air? I know what that show is about and if I called and got through, it would be expected that I'd give my best effort at radio buffoonery. I'd probably do my damnedest to make the most out of the inevitable "insults."

    I am sorry to see comedy taken so deadly seriously.

    (Although in fairness many would think I should be ashamed to have such bad taste.....)

    UPDATE: Doc Searls thinks that the future for people who want to be able to select what they want to hear is the Internet:

    My own take is that the FCC is working, unintentionally but very effectively, with the giant broadcasters to stifle free speech; and this is one more shovel of dirt on the coffin of Broadcasting as Usual, which will be replaced by the Net, one way or another. (Via Jeff Jarvis.)
    I hope so, but it'll take a little getting used to -- especially for the ordinary working guys who listen to Stern on the job.

    posted by Eric at 03:07 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (2)



    De gustibus non est disputandum!

    Why are people always saying that God hates something?

    And why does it always have to be about sex?

    CutShrimp.jpg
    (You can't judge a book by its cover, but because Amazon failed to include a photo, here it is, in the interest of full and complete accuracy.)


    Well, I don't care what God hates; I refuse to toe the line!

    (For this inspirational Sunday idea, I am indebted to Glenn Reynolds.)

    MORE: Excerpts from an interview with the artist, Robert Williams (which may -- repeat may -- shed some light on a cultural three-way between artistic expression, the right, and the left):

    Goblin: Why do you think bohemians are attracted to lower art forms such as graffiti art, tattoo art, poster art, etc. Are they more valid or is it just easier to make money that way.

    Williams: What do you call a bohemian? That's a pretty loose term, it's like Beatnik. There's a lot of different ways of saying it, bohemians are from Bohemia, a bunch of people in the left bank of France. Frederick The Great had one of his top regiments made out of artists who were bohemians who turned centuries later into one of the leading regiments of the Nazi army. You won't hear that anywhere else. "La Boheme " is a classic story of bohemians then and bohemians now. If you're poor and you need romance in your life to justify being a jack-off then you're a bohemian. Then when you get a little money in your life and get a cleaner house then your bohemian life gets behind you.

    ....

    Goblin: That sounds great. But do you think the religious right is the big threat right now to freedom of expression?

    Williams: I think it all exists to the point now that it is a valid resistance. Let me explain that. Jesse Helms did more to support the arts than anybody. He caused so much right wing stink, and he was an old grumpy man griping about pornography. He was an easy target. Here's an old Christian fart saying "that stuff's terrible." But he's a harmless turd.

    Don't get me wrong, you can still get in trouble. If you do an album cover with a dick on it you're still going to have the PMRC get a hold of you and give you a hard time, but by and large those rough days are over. My biggest problem is with people that are politically correct. I am increasingly policing myself not to draw minorities and be careful about the way I represent women. I'm very careful because I know I'm going to get in trouble with these people. The art world is just filled with sensitive leftists.

    Goblin: Do you think they're the new fascists?

    Williams: They certainly are. The Right Wing is funny now, and I'm afraid no one really has a good take on it. It's been beaten down into the form of fanaticism and you're getting glimpses of it through these survivalists. They used to be outspoken and you could see what they're doing but I think they're beaten back. When I moved to LA it had a Nazi fascist police department that made my life miserable. They had a chief of police that was like a dictator -- he died in office! When he died he had such a fascist machine in the police department they had to take the head of every department and move him over one department to break up the power. They used to be the rated fifth biggest army in the world. Now they're so beaten back and wimpy and whiny if they're going down the street and they see something wrong they will not stop unless they are called.

    THE SEWER WIDENS: When artists (which I believe Howard Stern is) are allowed to discuss politics, trouble soon follows. Last year the FCC dared to allow Howard Stern to air an interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger without providing equal time to the "other side." Critics responded by calling for "housecleaning at the FCC":

    “This shows how out of touch the Commission is and how beholden it is to the conglomerates that are serving up garbage on the nation’s airwaves,” said Robert Knight, director of CWA’s Culture and Family Institute.

    “The FCC’s lack of enforcement of broadcast decency laws has allowed our nation’s airwaves to become virtual sewers,” Knight said. “This ruling widens the sewer tap into our already troubled political process. It really is time for a housecleaning at the FCC."

    I'm having trouble following this logic. If Howard sticks with what they call "trash," he's bad. If he talks politics, he's worse?

    UPDATE: A big welcome to all visitors from InstaPundit! And my deepest thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking to this post (which I thought was about shrimp, but which grew larger and larger until I almost thought it was about, um, taste, or ART, or even Culture, or maybe even POLITICS.)

    But I will say this: just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt drew the line when they attacked his dog Fala, I will defend my right to eat shrimp -- whenever, wherever, however!

    (Tongue in cheek, of course.....)

    posted by Eric at 01:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)




    All hail the film review I never wrote (about a film I haven't seen)!

    Bloggers I greatly respect have offered differing opinions about "The Passion."

    Donald Sensing, more of an expert on Christianity than anyone I can think of in the Blogosphere, after noting numerous inaccuracies in the film, finally concludes with this:

    I was filled with a deep sadness - indeed, shame - at the profound deficiency of my own discipleship. Gibson has said that the movie's answer to the question, "Who killed Jesus?" is, "We all did." That is not what I felt at the end. Instead, I felt a deep sense of having betrayed the great trust given me by Christ, a enormous awareness of my own sin and sinfulness and my total reliance on God's gracious mercy.

    Here's Andrew Sullivan:

    Gibson does nothing to mitigate the dangerous anti-Semitic elements of the story and goes some way toward exaggerating and highlighting them. To my mind, that is categorically unforgivable. Anti-Semitism is the original sin of Christianity. Far from expiating it, this movie clearly enjoys taunting those Catholics as well as Jews who are determined to confront that legacy. In that sense alone, it is a deeply immoral work of art.

    Here's Roger L. Simon:

    Beneath Mr. Gibson’s insouciant exterior beats a heart all right, but it’s not a brave one. It’s the heart of a ruthless, unforgiving man. He has made one of the most violent exercises in sadism ever put on a movie screen and, unconsciously, the greatest advertisement for atheism I have ever seen. If “The Passion of The Christ” is about religion… any religion… I want no part of it. And I don’t think anybody should. Instead of adapting one of the magnificent spiritual works of world literature, the Gospels, Mr. Gibson has tossed them aside and made two hours of virtually unremitting gore, taking the “Son of Man,” ripping him, shredding him, flaying him, smashing him, bashing him, beating him, mauling him, hammering nails in him, and then starting all over again. And again. And then again. No known human being—of divine origin or not—would have survived even a fiftieth of this. It’s the theatrical equivalent of ten years of root canal work.

    ....was it anti-Semitic? Of course, but what do you expect from a film that treats the whole subject so brainlessly? I think it’s anti-human as well.

    Roger Simon's comments are closed.

    Believe me, I understand why, and I think I understand Roger's feelings about the film (at least I hope I do).

    Politically (and this stuff has become political as hell!), Gibson would do well to tell the world he is not an anti-Semite, and not just in a general sense; I think he'd be well advised to state clearly whether or not he wants the Catholic Church to return to its pre-Vatican II policy of anti-Semitism, and whether he agrees with the disgraceful positions taken by his father.

    Gibson would also do well to remember that anti-Catholic sentiment can take on a life of its own just as much as anti-Jewish or anti-homosexual sentiment. Here's an anti-Catholic Protestant fundamentalist site which believes "The Passion" violates the Second Commandment ("a two-hour stream of images graven in celluloid at the rate of 24 frames per second"...." thousands of graven images and likenesses of God's Son") and concludes it is the work of the devil:

    The Jesus of the movie is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the movie is not the Jesus of God. You are going to the devil to get a view of Jesus, and you will not undo the damage easily. The Jesus you see is that which Satan wants you to see. He does not want you to see the Jesus before Whom he trembled, and by Whom he will soon be cast into hell.

    You will put your trust in another Jesus, another gospel, and another spirit, all of which are false (II Cor 11:1-4,13-15). You will think you know Jesus, when you do not. You will think you know how He thinks of you, but you will not. You will be deceived into confidence of your relationship with Him, without a true basis for that confidence. One day soon you will be very surprised!

    Graven images are the work of the devil? Does that mean crucifixes are bad? What about Andres Serrano? Did he do a bad thing? What about early Protestants and their smashing and burning of crucifixes in places like the Netherlands and England? (More.)

    Or am I once again engaged in moral relativism?

    If I am slouching towards moral relativism, I might as well pose another morally relativistic question. Much has been made of whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, whether he is homophobic, whether his father is anti-Semitic, etc.

    I think it is important to judge the film for what it is, as opposed to who made it, who paid for it, who promotes it, and what their motivations might be.

    My question is, would it make any difference had this film been produced and directed by a known, unabashed anti-Semite? If so, then why?

    Would it have made any difference had the film been made in Syria or Lebanon, by a Jew-hating Muslim director?

    I don't know, but it is becoming more and more of a struggle to separate the messenger from the message.

    Speaking of "messengers," there was a film I very much enjoyed called "The Lion in the Desert," -- a biography of Libyan guerilla leader Omar Mukhtar, who fought the Italian fascist occupation forces in the 1920s. I was told that the film was "propaganda" because of the background of the director (Syrian-born Mustapha Akkad) and its funding:

    Akkad again faced a somewhat hostile American public because the movie had been funded by Libyan leader Mu’ammar al-Quaddafi, who like Khomeini, was viewed with scrutiny in the West. The movie stared Anthony Quinn as Mukhtar, Oliver Reed as General Gratsiani, the officer in charge of crushing the Libyan revolution, and Rod Steiger as Benito Mussolini.
    The problem is, "The Lion in the Desert" is a damned good film!

    I am going to watch "The Passion" tonight (at least I think I will, if I can find anyone who'll see it with me...), and I am wondering whether I have any moral right to see it and judge it as a work of art or not.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I enjoyed Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" -- which of course was made as the purest form of Nazi propaganda.

    It never made me a Nazi!


    MORE ON RIEFENSTAHL: Ah, old memories! Years ago I saw Triumph of the Will in a theater in San Francisco, where two clueless American guys were seated with their dates in the row in front of me. The film didn't even have subtitles, which in some respects made it boring. To the guys -- but NOT to their dates! The latter consisted of two cute German girls, who'd obviously never seen the film before, and were in a state of what can only be called shock and awe. Their dates (obviously interested more in scoring with the girls than seeing long speeches by Hitler, Himmler, Streicher, et al.) were trying to drag them away, but the girls were imploring, begging, eyes-wide-open at the screen, to let them stay and watch. I have never seen any two people pay such rapt attention to any film as those girls.

    This was around 1980. At the time, it occurred to me that the film had been censored, and in Germany they would not have been allowed to see it.

    Not a good thing. Even propaganda is part of history.

    So is art.

    ADDITIONAL NOTE RE PONTIUS PILATE: The available historical record regarding Pontius Pilate is sketchy and contradictory. Depending on which sources one chooses to believe, a case can just as easily be made for a ruthless and tryannical Pilate as for a waffling politician who wanted to avoid trouble. It is interesting to note that as the early church grew, Pilate's image seems have been cleaned up to the point that he was actually canonized by the Coptic and Ethiopian churches!

    It may well be impossible to ever know the actual historical facts.

    My thanks to Sandefur's Freespace for linking to this excellent discussion (which provided the link above). Superb work -- especially for a film considered "better seen than reviewed."

    Of course, I was too late to make it to the film tonight, so I can do neither!

    posted by Eric at 01:28 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (1)



    $100,000 penalty! (Well, at least it beats the gulags....)

    Here's a real treat for people who enjoy contemplating hypocrisy in its various dimensions.

    A champion of Berkeley rent control was ordered last week to pay his former tenants more than $100,000 in restitution by the very rent board he campaigned to create.
    By a unanimous vote, the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board found that Michael Berkowitz, a paid aide to Councilmember Maudelle Shirek, had willfully misrepresented his residency status at his 2820 Derby St. property to skirt rent control. Berkowitz also works in a second position as chief of information services and neighborhood planning for the City of San Francisco.

    The award reflects the total amount Berkowitz overcharged his tenants each month since 1992.

    Asked to comment at a city council meeting several days after the Rent Stabilization Board’s decision, Shirek said she had not heard about the case against her aide.

    Berkowitz says he made no intentional attempt to avoid rent control.

    “I made a mistake. I thought I was covered, but it was not willful or malicious or anything like that,” he told the rent board. He added in an interview Wednesday he was unsure if he would appeal the decision to the Alameda County Superior Court.

    Berkowitz and Shirek, for those uninitiated in Berkeley city politics, are at the far left end of Berkeley's left-wing ruling class's political spectrum. This crowd is known for doing things like visiting Fidel, propaganda junkets to visit the PLO, and (one of my personal favorites) a visit to celebrate the anniversary of the Berlin Wall, when it was still there, and on the EASTERN side!

    Berkowitz dinged by the Rent Board? It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

    Welcome to the club, Mike!


    NOTE: It is unusual for the far left (which runs the Rent Board) to treat one of their own this way, and an informant tells me that Berkowitz must have committed some sort of unknown crime. As my friend observed:

    Berkowitz must have been on "the outs" with the rads for reasons unknown to me. That happens. Sometimes, they turn on their own. They are all paranoid and are always on the lookout for enemy agents within, like FBI moles in the Communist Party back in the 1950s.
    I have known some old Reds who got ostracized, and never found out why.
    I answered that sometimes the reason can be as simple as making friends with the wrong person.

    Might Maudelle be thinking about getting a new aide?

    posted by Eric at 12:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)




    Chaos Rules!

    Friday is always Online Test Day at Classical Values, and I try not to disappoint. Not sure how to characterize today's theme, but the omens seem to be along the lines of cartoons....

    and RULES.....


    ___________________________________

    The first test I found via Glenn Reynolds, who linked to something he called "frightening." The link indeed led to what is a truly frightening picture of Ralph Nader, directly followed by a link to "What lesser-known Simpsons character are you?" revealing at last for all the world that I am Krusty the Clown!



    What lesser-known Simpsons character are you?
    Brought to you by the good folks at sacwriters.com
    .

    Naturally, I couldn't stop there. I don't know much about Krusty, but I did discover the following quote:

    "A joke, ah...oh....ok! A man walks into a bar with a small piano, and a twelve inch pianist.....whooaaa hooaaa...I can't tell that one!!...huh huh huh huh huh!" (when Marge asked Krusty to tell a joke at Selma and SSB's wedding)
    I can't tell it either!


    ___________________________________

    Next, Ordinary Galoot kindly supplemented these results with another test -- "Which Peanuts Character are You?" -- and my results were pleasing:

    Pig Pen
    You are Pig Pen!


    Which Peanuts Character are You?
    brought to you by Quizilla

    I don't mind being Pig Pen at all.

    Actually, there was also a real-life rock star named Pig Pen I always admired. Considered by many to be the original founder of the Grateful Dead (called the Warlocks in their first incarnation), Pig Pen was the band's lead vocalist in the band back in the days when I first became a Deadhead. The guy had a truly remarkable personality, and I think it is no understatement to call him the most cosmic drunk who ever lived. In those days, the band and the audience tended to be on LSD, but Pig Pen only took acid a few times and didn't especially like the stuff; instead he indulged in the drug of choice of that gravity-defying god, Bacchus. Either because of or in spite of his juicing, Pig Pen was every bit as in touch with that indescribable extraterrestrial energy which seemed to possess everyone. If anything he seemed more versed in it -- even the anchor of it. I really couldn't call him a "leader" because the whole thing was total anarchy in those days. No security, no clear delineation between audience and stage, anyone could go anywhere and wander about. Just pure, spontaneous, magic. Pig Pen was highly intuitive, self-effacing, utterly charming, exuding what Jerry Garcia called a "pixyish sense of humor." His down-to-earth aura served as an anchor between a bottom-line reality and the incredible chaos of infinity upon which everyone -- band members and audience -- reflected in awe. Without judging or owning or controlling. I was in my mid teens, and I'll never forget those experiences.

    So, for today, Pig Pen lives!

    (At least he does for the purposes of this post. I'm delighted to have any excuse to breathe some life into this truly remarkable personality. And for a limited time only, you can stream a good Pig Pen song, here.)

    I suppose I could also say "Pig Pen rules!"

    _____________________________________

    Which leads me to my last test.

    RULES!

    Dave Tepper offered what has to be the oddest test I have yet found in the Blogosphere, "Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?

    My results?


    YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!

    You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your
    forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a
    stickler for details and particularity, you
    have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and
    easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a
    plaintiff provide a short and plain statement
    of a claim on which a court can grant relief.
    While there is much to be lauded in your
    approach, your good nature sometimes gets you
    in trouble, and you often have to rely on your
    good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.


    Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?
    brought to you by Quizilla

    Wish they had a picture, but what the heck.

    Will this do?

    Rules.jpg

    posted by Eric at 03:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)




    Politicized sexuality means sex is political!

    More on free speech.

    In numerous essays, I have argued that sex has become political, as has religion, which is increasingly a highly political voice against sex.

    What this means is that sex and pornography can no longer been seen solely as "appealing to prurient interests." Sex, pornography, and obscenity are now in the realm of political acts. In this new era, censorship of sex and pornography increasingly touch on the essence of free speech -- which, traditionally, is the right to discuss politics.

    If sexual issues are now politics, then they are also protected free speech!

    Howard Stern was not censored for being pornographic, but for talking about inflammatory subjects. Watermelons, sex, and and the n-word. These are clearly political topics involving popular culture, and sexual and racial stereotypes.

    What is inflammatory? Anything someone doesn't like? Does anyone know anymore? Things have gotten to the point where satire -- discussion of the topics themselves -- is censorable. But the right to talk about these things is free speech.

    I don't think people realize that what I warned about with blog censorship is part and parcel of a movement which uses sex as a foot-in-the-door. First it's sex, then it's talking about sex, then it's having opinions which might be deemed "offensive."

    Read what Rush Limbaugh, of all people, had to say today:

    'I'VE NEVER HEARD HOWARD STERN. BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN THIS, I GET A LITTLE FRIGHTENED.

    'IF WE ARE GOING TO SIT BY AND LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO 'CENSOR' WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT AND WRONG... WHAT HAPPENS IF A WHOLE BUNCH OF JOHN KERRYS, OR TERRY MCAULIFFES START RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. AND DECIDE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE LEADING TO VIOLENCE?

    'I AM IN THE FREE SPEECH BUSINESS. ITS ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT. ITS ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.'

    I'm really ticked off about this whole thing, and I'll try to write more about it when I calm down.

    Bottom line: when Rush Limbaugh goes to bat for Howard Stern, you know something is very, very wrong.

    UPDATE: While I see Glenn Reynolds' point about hypocrisy (free speech is the same for Stern, Schlessinger, or Savage), satire is not the same thing as actual bigotry. If Michael Savage uses the word "fag" the word has a very different meaning than when Stern uses it. I can't stand Savage, but I would not support FCC censorship of him.

    There is a big difference between Howard Stern joking about killing Jews, and Ernst Zundel doing the same thing. The former might be considered in bad taste -- and maybe hurtful to certain people's feelings -- but the latter is true hate speech. Not that the government has any business regulating either, but there's still a distinction.

    There is also such a thing as quasi-governmental censorship. I've seen it at work for years.....

    MORE: A case for complete deregulation of broadcasting? I have long felt that federal regulation of the airwaves was unconstitutional anyway. What bothers the hell out of me is to have other people tell me what I can and cannot hear, and what web pages I can and cannot visit. I would like to make up my own mind without having these choices made for me by corporate cowards intimidated by government agencies. In the case of Howard Stern, the recent decision by Clear Channel came right on the heels of angry testimony before Congress and ominous threats by guys like Michael Powell at the FCC. True, the government did not take him off the air, so there's no "state action." But without the FCC and the Congressional hearings, I seriously doubt the company would have taken the same action. Organized letter writing campaigns by angry listeners, threats to boycott the show -- that's one thing. If advertisers pull their spots, and local stations decide to cancel, that is not state-sponsored censorship. But when Congressional and FCC bullying is followed by an abrupt turnaround in corporate policy, well, that's close enough to "state action" for me to sound off in return.

    I think this corporate decision sucks, and I think government pressure was behind it. I think it was about as "voluntary" as the kind of "voluntary compliance" people give the IRS.

    Precisely what I mean by "quasi-governmental censorship."

    (Perhaps I should have said "incidents of censorship.")

    IN THE INTEREST OF FULL DISCLOSURE: It is only fair for me to point out that I have been a daily listener to Howard Stern (and G. Gordon Liddy) since 1994, and, much as I try to be logical, I may be influenced by my bias. I first saw the heavy hand of government influence radio companies in 1995 when Bill Clinton singled out Liddy by name as having been somehow responsible for the Oklahoma City blast (a connection never explained). Following this a number of stations dropped his show. Now, Bill Clinton did not order him off the air, so there was technically no "state action." Cass Sunstein thought that taking Liddy off the air after the Clinton remarks was "not a threat to free speech but an exercise of civic duties." I disagree vehemently. Like Virginia Postrel and Dave Kopel, I dislike seeing the government and its officials behave this way, and I will always condemn it when I see it.

    AND HERE'S MORE:

    It was the second time in two weeks that the House Energy and Commerce telecommunications subcommittee queried broadcasters about indecency. The first hearing came on the heels of the notorious Super Bowl halftime show that ended with singer Justin Timberlake exposing Janet Jackson's right breast to 90 million viewers

    "Networks are being proactive in the efforts to clean up the airwaves," said subcommittee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., who has sponsored legislation to increase the maximum fine for indecency from $27,500 to $275,000.

    Several broadcasters endorsed the higher fines. John Hogan, president Clear Channel Radio, said the move would "serve as a 'shot across the bow' of the industry, putting us all on notice that Congress and the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) are serious about cleaning up the airwaves." (Vid Drudge.)

    Might not meet the legal standard for state action, but it sure looks like government involvement to me.

    THANK YOU GLENN REYNOLDS: And a warm WELCOME to all readers who came here from InstaPundit!! (Who is more correct in his legal analysis than I am -- and who is absolutely right in saying that Jeff Jarvis rules!)

    AND EVEN MORE: Glenn Reynolds links to this report by Howard Kurtz, and asks a good question:

    Why is this different from what happened to The Greaseman, which didn't produce any clucking about censorship? Er, except that Stern hasn't lost his job. Oh, and there's a Republican in the White House now.
    As a matter of fact, I used to listen to Doug Tracht, (aka "The Greaseman") from time to time (although he wasn't on the air much in most of the cities I lived), and I liked him.

    Never a stranger to controversy, Tracht was fired in 1999:

    ....[I]n February of 1999, while working at WARW-FM, he made a racially insensitive comment relating the music of hip-hop artist Lauren Hill to the dragging death of Dennis Byrd, the top news story of the day. After a listener called in to the show and complained on the air, word quickly spread of what Grease had said. He was suspended later that day, and then fired the next day. Grease went on numerous TV & radio talk shows to apologize for the incident in hopes of regaining his good reputation, with the help of boxing promoter Rock Newman at his side in support of his long-time friend. Among the TV shows Grease appeared on are ABC Nightline with Ted Koppel, BET Tonight with Tavis Smiley and MSNBC Equal Time with Ollie North. On the latter show, Ollie displayed results of an Internet poll asking "Do you accept the Greaseman's apology?" which showed that 63% of those surveyed answered "Yes".
    What Tracht did wasn't different from what Howard Stern did. I think the company got away with firing him because his ratings were not as high as Howard Stern (and because his views tended more towards the right than the left).

    I did not like seeing what happened to the Greaseman, but I wasn't blogging.

    For what it's worth I condemn what happened to him, just as I condemn Stern's treatment.

    Doug Tracht is still on the air. On his flagship Washington DC station listeners can hear him on the Internet, and here are some more:

  • WGOP-AM 700 - Washington, DC (Flagship Station)

  • WWGE-AM 1400 "The Edge" - Ebensburg/Altoona, PA

  • WQZK-FM 94.1 "netRock94" - Keyser, WV (3-7pm)

  • WKMZ-FM 95.9 - Martinsburg, WV

  • WGRX-FM 104.5 "Thunder 104.5" - Fredericksburg, VA (4:30pm "A Piece Of Grease")


  • His style may not be for everybody (especially those concerned with "insensitivity"), but some of us are less "sensitive" than others, and might want to hear a like-minded soul. I notice Tracht has a following with the military, and I am glad to see he's still on the air.

    posted by Eric at 02:46 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (1)



    OUTRAGE OF THE DAY!

    In the wake of national hysteria induced by the glimpse of a mammary organ at the Superbowl, a pontificating and sanctimonious company called "Clear Channel Communications" has taken Howard Stern off the air in a number of cities. Fortunately not Philadelphia or San Francisco. Jeff Jarvis offers some thoughts on what this means, and what you can do about it.

    : The more I think about this, the more enraged I get. One tit flopped out and the government -- the Bush administration -- can't wait to play to its far-right fringe and censor speech and intimidate speech and chill speech. How dare they? This is not the role we expect of our government. We don't need a nanny.
    Let's hear a little liberartarian outrage at government meddling in our lives and our speech.
    Let's hear a little conservative outrage at government growing beyond its bounds.
    Let's hear a little liberal outrage at goverment stiffling free spech.
    I don't give a damn whether you like or despise Howard Stern; that's beside the point. If you're American, you cherish free speech and you should be appalled at what is happening to it. This is not coming from media consolidation. This is coming from government intimidation.
    F Michael Powell. F the FCC. F Clear Channel.
    Defend Howard Stern. Or lose your own rights to say what you want where and when you want to say it.

    : I know that many constituencies want to tell Clear Channel to f off. Here's where and how.

    The company, by the way, claimed it was "protecting our listeners from indecent content."

    If I want to be "protected" I'll turn my dial. But how do I protect myself from this?

    In case anyone failed to notice, there's already one company working hard to protect Internet users from blogs.....

    posted by Eric at 09:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)




    What Would Jesus Wear?

    These days, the politically organized religious right and gay activists don't seem to get along that well. Not only is it all but impossible for friendships to develop between these two groups, but even dialogue is impossible.

    Each one of these groups tends to believe that the others are:

  • a threat to their families/lifestyles
  • persecuting them
  • evil!
  • Is humor possible, or are things too far gone?

    When I was in college, there was a lot of good natured banter between religious fundamentalists and gay activists (if anyone is interested, I used to harass the evangelists, who would harangue in return!), and I was thinking that maybe the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" program could find a young, single, male, anti-homosexual activist from the religious right who otherwise fills their bill and possibly do a total makeover!

    Surely, somewhere out there, some lonely young member of the antigay religious right finds himself in need of a date but has the usual problems: terrible wardrobe, bad haircut, grooming problems, tacky living space -- you know -- the whole host of problems that the show specializes in "treating."

    In return for consenting to be a guest on the show, the evangelist would be allowed by the Queer Eye folks a full segment in which he could try to convert them, yell at them, attempt to cure them -- whatever it might take to save them from the sin of homosexuality.

    Depending on how this went, the episode might be high camp, and it could also serve as a reminder that we are all human.

    Even if the guy told the Queer Eye people that they were all a bunch of miserable sinners destined for Hell, he could nonetheless thank them for helping him out, and, well, I don't see why any of it would be inconsistent with Christianity. Or free speech for that matter....

    I mean, Jesus hung out with bad people like tax collectors, prostitutes and lepers, didn't he?

    It would generate big ratings, and might even spawn a new series.

    Too Christian?

    Too un-Christian?

    The audience could vote and decide!

    NOTE: At least one Christian blogger (in Australia; fancy that, mates!) has been thinking along similar lines:

    I've heard a lot of people here complaining about the show on talk back radio. Some are Christians ringing up to share their moral views, others are average Joe conservative Aussies who don't want their kids to see it and others just think its dumb.

    I don't think its the most amazing show on TV at the moment - I find the stars of the show mildly amusing - I'm a bit over all the sexual innuendo already (I can't imagine how they will keep finding suggestive gay jokes for a whole season) - it is all a bit superficial at times - but I will admit I've learnt one or two things about what's lacking in my wardrobe!

    But the thing that caught my attention the most was a statement made in the first week by one of the stars. To paraphrase him he said:

    'We just want to help this guy reach his potential.... to be the man he has the potential to be.'

    It strikes me that although he went about it very differently, Jesus actually spoke of something very similar when he said 'I've come that they may have life'. (Jn 10:10) As I look at his ministry this is what he did - he drew people into life itself. Sometimes he does it in a very quick yet tangible way as he touches someone who has been lame for life and other times he lives with them for years, challenging attitudes, teaching and encouraging them to grow.

    Jesus was on about helping people to reach their potential. His make over was generally a lot more comprehensive than the fab 5, but he was in the life giving business and as his Body so should we be.

    Hey if they do the show I demand my pound of flesh!

    (Original inspiration from Citizen Smash, via Glenn Reynolds.)

    posted by Eric at 09:08 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (1)



    Carnival!

    The 75th Carnival of the Vanities is up at Da Goddess's incredible blog! The posts are all enveloped in a collection of lingerie, and I was tickled pink to see mine billed as "straight thoughts for the queer guy."

    The posts are all great, but I was appalled and fixated by one post about an odious plan to tax owners of more than one car in Berkeley, my home for 30 plus years. A perfect example of what I love about the Blogosphere!

    Read them all!

    posted by Eric at 11:55 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)



    Bonfire!

    Be sure to read this week's Bonfire of the Vanities, hosted by The Argus (a great blog, which, by the way, is run by a latent lesbian). Among other things, dramaqueen links to free psychological testing (which I am afraid to take), and Ghost of a flea offers a picture that should tantalize men, women, and wannabes of either sex.... And in a post with great national portent, The Smarter Cop analyzes John Kerry's hand signals.

    They're all great; be sure to read them!


    posted by Eric at 11:17 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)




    Zzzzzzzzzzzz.........

    Long trip to New Jersey in the snow!

    Puff says it's time to crash:

    Zzzzzzzzzz.jpg

    posted by Eric at 11:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)



    Flush this post!

    I am on the road in New Jersey, and thus cannot with ease create links. But here I am sitting in a parking lot, so I thought I -- oh screw it!

    ..........

    I'm home now, sitting on the toilet! What could be more personal, more intimate, than that? How invasive blogging has become in my life!

    I mean, really!

    But I will say this: moblogging from the toilet beats moblogging from a New Jersey parking lot, all things considered.....

    Hope that's not moral relativism!

    posted by Eric at 07:37 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)



    Outbreak of incidents of communitarian thinking

    In my last post, I only touched on communitarian thinking because in the context of the FMA, it gets complicated.

    The debate over same-sex marriage is hopelessly fraught with communitarian reasoning, which, to my mind, is based on unsupported premises on both sides.

    First of all, marriage in the purest sense is not an individual right. It involves the surrender of an individual right in favor of a union between two people. Once married, the two people no longer have the full individual rights they once enjoyed. (There's a lot of law, religion, and philosophy behind this, but even if readers want to stick to the practical, just ask anyone who's married if you doubt me!)

    Now, while I would tend to see the union as that of two individuals, who should not have to answer to anyone save themselves, many people would disagree, arguing that married people are part of some sort of "community" which is formed by an "institution" of married couples. With the advent of the FMA, this has heated up. Communitarians on the heterosexual, opposite-sex side of the debate tend to argue that the institution of marriage is the backbone of society, while gay communitarians and their supporters often seem to agree with this point, only arguing that same-sex couples must be included within this "institution."

    Identity politics often substitutes for reason, and gay politicians often speak of a "gay community" as some sort of definable, if not monolithic, entity.

    I have often asked people to define "gay community" and I have never heard an answer which makes sense. When I am with my friends, I don't think of them as gay or straight, but as friends. I don't divide them up into groups that way, and it wouldn't make sense if I did. Where is this "gay community" I keep reading about in the press? Is it the people who drink in gay bars and maybe hang out, maybe look for someone to take home? I don't drink in bars, and so I really can't see that as any sort of community to which I belong. I used to work in the gay bath business (I managed two of them -- starting one of them up), and while it offered what many would call a community service, that community consisted largely of people who wanted to have sex and leave. So, for the purposes of drinking, maybe hanging out while drinking, or having sex, baths and bars are communities.

    There are also "gay neighborhoods" in various cities, and people of similar tastes do live in them. This could be called a "gay community" -- but it could also be called a gay ghetto. I never felt any particular need to live in San Francisco's Castro district, but I would go there occasionally. It never felt like "my" community. Frankly, I always felt more at home in Berkeley or in the Haight Ashbury, because people didn't seem as worried about who wanted to do what with their dick. Just more live and let live, but with zero intolerance. I don't see anything wrong with that. While I have run into more than my share of intolerant types (including people really bothered by homosexuality) I have to say that in the gay neighborhoods, people seemed more concerned with my sexuality than in the live-and-let-live, bohemian-style neighborhoods.

    While it is true that with a group of other people I tried to create a community of mostly gay friends, we were not the "gay community" but rather a gay community which shared a similar (mostly anarchistic) outlook. If anything, most of my friends found the Castro scene a tad annoying. Too many fresh-from-Nebraska, newly "out" conformist types trying to define themselves by fitting into someone's idea of what gay identity politics should be. I have no objection to anyone doing that, either. What I dislike is when they tell me what I should do.

    In short, I am extremely distrustful of all communitarian thinking.

    And I think the FMA is a massive, central-government-sponsored attempt to induce comformity to communitarian thinking. I said before that I think the president is making a big mistake in supporting it, and I sincerely hope it fails.

    That the Constitution -- once created to protect people from the tyranny of the federal government -- could contain language making "incidents of marriage" a new suspect category (that's what it does, folks!), is to me a quantum leap in communitarian thinking.

    Not marriage! Incidents of marriage!

    Not just gays. Not just members of the same sex. All people who don't marry will see their private relationships placed in a suspect category by the Constitution.

    Fortunately, the fact that the Amendment's scope dwarfs a mere ban on same-sex marriages will help ensure its defeat. However, the scope of the Amendment is still not widely known, as the drafters are engaged in a massive deception calculated to reassure the general public that the text does not say what it says.

    To my mind, the deception is even worse than the language itself. (Not a new topic at all; interested readers can read my previous posts here, here, and here.)

    I hope Americans are not so stupid as to fall for what strikes me, simply, as (attempted) communitarian tyranny.

    Incidentally, my "incidents" are my own business.

    I wouldn't want to have an incident at my own blog!


    UPDATE: Might the ostensible purpose of stopping "same sex marriage" be a semi "false flag operation"? Might the following scenario be the real enemy?

    Devero and More, who have never been married, are part of a growing number of people who are living together out of wedlock, either as an alternative or precursor to marriage.

    Whether you call it shacking up, living in sin or cohabitation, being an unmarried couple has become a societal norm.

    "Codes are being broken," said Chris Ponticelli, assistant professor of sociology at the University of South Florida. "It's not taboo anymore."

    Researchers attribute much of the increase to the consequences of a liberated society.

    There's a wider acceptance of cohabitation. Women no longer rely on men and marriage for financial security. And many couples fear divorce and view living together as a better, safer option.

    "The concept of that piece of paper keeping couples together, they don't believe it anymore," Ponticelli said. "We all know someone who has been divorced. It's a sticky thing to go through."

    Nationally, new U.S. census figures show the number of unmarried couples increased 72 percent from 3.1-million households in 1990 to 5.5-million in 2000. In Florida, the number of unmarried households increased 77 percent in the last decade.

    In Hillsborough County, the number of unmarried families increased 73 percent to 26,314, making it the fourth largest population of cohabiting couples in the state, with Monroe County taking the lead.

    Unmarried households, including same-sex partnerships, represented 6.7 percent of all households in the county, up from 4.6 percent in 1990. The largest grouping in Hillsborough was married families, at 47.7 percent, followed by singles, at 26.9 percent.

    Some conservatives equate the boom in cohabitation to serious societal ills.

    "Marriage is the foundation of the family," said Bridget Maher, marriage and family policy analyst at the conservative Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. "If we have strong and healthy marriages, we'll have a stronger society."

    Kevin Miller, a minister at Idlewild Baptist Church, said few people seem willing to stand up and do what's right, putting their spiritual lives at risk.

    Typical American unmarried couples like the above would find themselves looking down the barrel of a pretty big gun once that "incidents of marriage" language is inserted into the Constitution. No longer will they be subject merely to unwanted sermons; instead an organized clergy could launch a gigantic movement to push employers, banks, landlords, insurance companies, etc. into using the courts to stop people from "living in sin" (aka "incidents of marriage").

    Social engineering is abhorrent enough. But the deliberate use of the Constitution for such Orwellian purposes as forcing people to marry each other is far worse. Considering the original purpose of the Constitution as a bastion against tyranny, I think the Amendment borders on being unconscionable.

    (The Machiavellian in me does not blame them for trying to conceal their goals, of course....)


    UPDATE: Unlike this morning, there is quite a fuss now about whether the president in fact supports the Musgrave "incidents" language.

    White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush believes that amendment legislation submitted by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., meets his principles in protecting the "sanctity of marriage" between men and women. But Bush did not specifically embrace any particular legislation.
    "I'm now thoroughly confused," says Glenn Reynolds.

    I am too. It's tough to write long arguments based on constantly-changing "facts" -- and I have seen and heard the Musgrave language all day.

    (My arguments against the Musgrave language remain the same, though.)

    MORE: The New York Times is finally discussing the "ambiguities" of the Musgrave language!

    posted by Eric at 04:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (2)



    Apples, oranges, and other fruits of licensing

    Here's a story which isn't going to go away, nor should it.

    The right to arms is constitutionally guaranteed. The right to keep and bear your homosexual marriage is not. Of course, I wonder what the opinions of gay gun nuts are on the issue?
    Say Uncle refers, of course, to this letter (which touches on an issue near and dear to my heart):
    I am a gun owner and I live a gun owner life style.

    I don't know if I was born with a tendency to be this way, or if it was an acquired disposition. All I know is, I don't see why I should be forced to change. Truth be known, I like owning guns, and am happy with who I am. I hope I suffer no repercussions by "coming out of the safe," but I just can't hide the truth any longer.

    We gun owners have been living and working among you. Our kids go to school with yours. We may be your doctor, or minister, or your child's teacher. We may even work in city administration, or the courts, or on the police force. And we are sick of being abused for simply being who we are, all because of hoplophobic prejudice and fear. We don't see any reason why we should have to put up with it any more.

    Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you.

    You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.

    For sending that letter, the author has been subjected to police harrassment, has been told to kill himself, and, most recently, has had the FBI sicced on him. (From Publicola via Glenn Reynolds.)

    Once again, guns and gays.

    To me, this is not "apples and oranges." It's a fundamental issue of freedom, of privacy, of a right to live your life as you see fit.

    If there is no right to self defense, then I submit the right to privacy is meaningless.

    As I said in July, "No matter what you're allowed do inside your home, it ain't much of a castle if you can't defend it!"

    Some of this may have to do with the managerial class mentality (via Glenn Reynolds):

    since managing a society is conceived as an intricate undertaking, naturally it is seen as requiring specialized training. That means the willing hands will be in school for awhile. The managerial class is large. It includes not just elected and appointed officialdom, but the class of civil servants and, around them, the advocacy groups and journals of opinion. The longer anyone spends in post-secondary education, particularly in the departments dedicated to training "the leaders of tomorrow" - political science, administration, education and the other humanities departments that even Chad Orzel's letter concedes skew left politically - the more likely they are to know, like and identify with the trainees. Shared circumstance becomes shared values - that would seem to be the very meaning of class consciousness.
    The managerial class tends naturally to hate guns, and tends toward communitarian thinking. Thus, they see gay rights and gun rights as distinctly different. Libertarians, on the other hand, see individual autonomy as including both. Thus, whether the issues are "apples and oranges" depend on whether one adheres to a control mindset or a freedom mindset.

    I am as against gun control as I am penis control, and I see no contradiction at all, but let me take a stab at analyzing two comments, by the same source: this one

    I do feel compelled to point out that it would awfully difficult for somebody to kill me with their homosexuality, so it's not exactly a valid comparison...
    and this one:
    Constitutionality and current law aside, it's very difficult to argue that homosexuality poses anywhere near the sort of public safety risk that guns potentially could. And whether or not they do a good job of it, protecting public safety is a valid function of government. That, to me, is where the comparison falls flat.
    The problem with Tom's "public safety" argument is precisely that it is a communitarian, not libertarian one. The moral conservatives use the very same argument in favor of laws restricting homosexuals that the liberal gun-grabbers against guns. Here's a more extreme one:
    The homosexual life is a violent one. Many common homosexual acts themselves do violence to the body. Beyond that, sado-masochism, the intentional infliction of pain for perverse sexual gratification, is very popular in the homosexual community. And even the homosexuals have begun to admit that there is a disproportionate amount of “domestic violence” in their communities, violence directed inward.

    Unfortunately, the homosexual community also projects violence outward, as any dispassionate study of history and current events reveals. For instance, considering the small percentage of the world’s population which claims to be homosexual at any given time, the incidence of members of that community committing rape culminating in murder is shocking!

    Of course, the most famous historical example of such sodomite violence is the Genesis account of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The “gay” inhabitants of Sodom were determined to break down Lot’s door, rape his angelic guests, and apparently kill Lot. “. . . Now will we deal worse with thee, than with them . . .” (Genesis 19:9). Divine intervention saved the day in that case. We in New Sodom must also pray for God’s assistance as the sodomites in our culture break down one institutional and legal door after another.

    In Judges, Chapter 19, we see the sodomite Benjaminites take out their rage on a female concubine, abusing her to death, after they are denied an opportunity to sodomize a man sojourning in their land.

    The ruthless and brutal Spartan Army was a sodomite army. The Spanish explorer Cortez wrote that the blood-encrusted Aztec priests who spent their days brutally murdering human sacrifices to the Aztec gods were sodomites who found time to engage in a few other pursuits such as cannibalism.

    Authors Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, sourcing a vast number of historical documents and eye witness accounts, have documented what William Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, earlier confirmed--that homosexuals were at the center of Hitler’s rise to power and in many cases even served as sadistic death camp guards. By the way, one of the most well-known leaders of the American Nazi Party, Frank Collin, was a homosexual who preferred teenage boys.

    Now let us further consider the connection between homosexuality and murder. I am speaking here, not of murderous heads of state and their deputies, but of individuals who personally murdered victims with their own hands. The examples given also delete the class of baby-killers known as abortionists, a disproportionate number of which are also homosexual or bisexual.

    And here is a more mainstream "public health" argument:
    If you accept the usual liberal public health arguments (such as applied to guns), these are all legitimate public health arguments for regulating homosexual anal sex--even if the law is overbroad, affecting the relatively small percentage of gay men who are in permanent, mutually monogamous relationships. After all, liberals don't mind that many gun control laws are even more overbroad, impacting the vast majority of gun owners who will never misuse a gun.
    As I told the above blogger when he left a comment to one of my numerous posts about homosexuality and guns,
    I don't care what liberals or conservatives mind, nor do I care how many foolish people die because of stupidity; I oppose such restrictions on personal autonomy as a threat to human freedom.
    For more detail on the public health arguments against homosexuality, visit Nathan's site and click on his numerous links. One can invoke public health or public policy arguments from now till doomsday, but if you believe in personal freedom, they should be considered no more than advice.

    To those possessed of the regulatory mindset, though, they are an argument for repressive laws. The argument that "homosexuality kills" is about as logical and persuasive as the argument that "guns kill."

    Which is to say, NOT AT ALL!

    posted by Eric at 12:39 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (2)




    Tenet of Arafat?

    Initially, I was quite puzzled by this report about the deportation of Palestinian democracy activist Issam Abu Issa. I like to think that our government would support freedom-loving Arabs, especially those in dialogue with such figures as Natan Sharansky. A few choice excerpts:

    Mr. Abu Issa’s experience is par for the course when it comes to the way America treats profreedom, Western-oriented Arabs.

    Whenever these rare leaders happen upon the scene America bends over backward to throw sticks in their wheels. And with Mr. Abu Issa, America has again turned its back on a friend and inexplicably refused to support a courageous supporter of liberty.

    ....What does a banking dispute between Messrs. Arafat and Abu Issa have to do with his admissibility to America? And why would America want to side with Mr. Arafat anyway?

    I first met Mr. Abu Issa at this time last year, when he came to Washington, D.C., to address the Hudson Institute on democratizing the Palestinian Authority.

    I interviewed him beforehand for a profile in this newspaper, and came away quite impressed with his intelligence and political acumen.

    At the Hudson Institute, Mr. Abu Issa gave a passionate speech to a roomful of curious onlookers on the need for a Palestinian state based on democracy, freedom, and human rights. Many jaws dropped when he began quoting verbatim from Natan Sharansky.

    What other Palestinian leader would mention Mr. Sharansky’s name in a public address, let alone quote him?

    .....Iran’s mullahs and assorted defenders of the old Arab order are funneling resources to bolster their preferred dogs in the fight — and rest assured, they are not secular democrats, nor are they friends of America.

    Two conclusions can be drawn from these cases.

    First, if you’re an Arab who believes in democracy, you had better think twice about a career in banking.

    Second, and certainly more sadly, America won’t be there standing by your side in times of need.

    (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

    Why would American authorities behave in such a manner and side with a murderous tyrant like Arafat?

    Because Arafat is seen as "our guy," that's why.

    Just as the CIA failed to forestall fatal terrorist attacks on US embassies in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam in 1998, it failed again to prevent the bombing of American guided missile destroyer USS Cole in Aden harbor last month.

    In the two intervening years between those two strikes, the mechanism Tenet fashioned to coordinate Israeli-Palestinian security efforts to prevent terror outbreaks, missed more often than it hit the mark

    A key to its success was the US spymaster’s bond of trust with Yasser Arafat. Tenet often spoke highly to officials in Washington about his warm relations with Palestinian leader, saying in effect: Just leave him to me, if you have any problems. Not only Clinton, but Netanyahu and Barak did exactly that, gambling their own policies on this friendship.

    In actual fact, the Palestinian leader double-crossed his American friend, using that trust and the sham operation of Tenet’s anti-terrorist mechanism to conceal his preparations for the “Al Aksa Intifada”, a violent firestorm that finally burnt that mechanism to a cinder.

    Arafat not only duped George Tenet, the man, but also his proud organization, the CIA, inflicting untold damage to America’s standing in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

    Hey, that was written before Bush was president. Read the whole thing, as they say. And if you're not ready to weep, because the DEBKA story is too old, or if you think DEBKA is unreliable, consider the remarkable continuity in United States policy:
    Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erakat welcomed Cheney's remarks and said he hoped a deal could be struck soon to implement the Tenet plan.

    "We don't have to reinvent anything. Tenet is Tenet. It's very well specified. What's needed now is the timeline and the mechanisms to implement and the periods," said Erakat. "And I hope that we can conclude this as soon as possible."

    The Tenet plan, proposed last year, calls for negotiating a cease-fire and urges Israeli and Palestinian security organizations to reaffirm commitments to agreements contained in the Mitchell report.

    Blah blah blah.

    That was in 2002 (after September 11), when CNN characterized the Arafat-Tenet alliance as "encouraging."

    Hey, there's also the Saudi plan!

    "We" need "stability." "We" need to back our "allies."

    Even when they're undermining Iraq?

    We (meaning Tenet) even appear to be giving Arafat regular intelligence briefings.

    So he can help "fight terrorism."

    Jim Hoagland offers a similar insight:

    The Bush administration now faces an acute dilemma in unraveling the confusion and complexities created by U.S. intelligence taking on responsibilities that are deeply operational and political. Operating under an intelligence "finding" signed by President Clinton, the CIA has helped train and equip Yasser Arafat's security forces.

    HipperCritical links to a tantalizing article in The New Republic which may shed light -- although I'm too cheap to pay for it. Plus, I suspect it would only confirm what none of us want to know about. But here's a sneaky excerpt, quoted by the very leftie Nation:

    "the Agency's reluctance to confront Saddam dates back to the aftermath of the Gulf war, when the CIA grew opposed to assisting the Kurdish and Shia rebellions against the dictator."
    I can't say the CIA is entirely Bush's fault, because I don't think he has the power to do anything about it. (Perhaps nobody does.)

    Besides, presidents who dare to cross the CIA tend historically to have a bad time of things.

    So, while I agree with Glenn Reynolds that pro-democracy Arabs deserve better treatment by the U.S., it doesn't appear likely that they're going to get it.

    And it doesn't matter who is elected in the Fall. Tenet isn't going anywhere.

    posted by Eric at 10:41 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)



    Possession is nine-tenths of the law a gram!

    Here's a good argument against criminalizing simple possession of things:

    SOUTH HAVEN — An assistant high school principal is being investigated after police say he admitted to planting marijuana in a student’s locker.

    Police say Pat Conroy told them earlier this month that he placed the marijuana in the male student’s locker at South Haven High School last year because he suspected the student was a drug dealer. Conroy told police he was trying to get the boy expelled.

    But the plan failed because a police drug dog didn’t find the contraband during a school search, according to The Herald-Palladium of St. Joseph.

    The Van Buren County prosecutor’s office is reviewing the case to see if the assistant principal could be charged with possession of marijuana.

    Conroy said he had “lost his perspective” and had done something “stupid, arrogant and unethical,” according to a police report. But he stressed to police that he planted evidence only once.

    (Via Drudge)

    Only once? Does that mean he'll promise not to do it again?

    The problem with laws criminalizing possession of things is that there is no practical way to defend oneself against possession. Possession is the crime. Anyone can break into anyone's home, and plant drugs, kiddie porn, or anything else, then phone in an anonymous tip.

    For that matter, anyone can put things on your hard drive....

    The legal system has reached the point that, in the words of at least one law professor, "Criminal law professors traditionally open their classes by announcing to their students that every one of them is a felon."

    That's a hell of a way to get people to respect the law who in theory are supposed to be doing that.

    But, I guess, these days, students learn disrespect for law long before they get to law school.....

    posted by Eric at 04:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)




    Ask what you can do for your enemy!

    Has anti-Bush hatred become mainstream?

    Here's a local (Philadelphia) man -- with an anything-but-local message:

    Mark Aronchick, a prominent Philadelphia lawyer and Democratic fund-raiser, shares the intensity. Talking about Bush, he could barely sit still:

    "I haven't seen this kind of anger and disdain directed at a president since the worst days of Richard Nixon. Bush is playing to base fears. He has a contemptible pseudosincerity. Our anger is that fundamental. It is primal. These are evil forces we're up against. I'm 54 years old, a mature person, and I mean what I'm saying - there's a heart of darkness. And they're getting away with it."

    Regardless of whether anyone (except maybe that battler of evil, Michael Marcavage) agrees with this guy, something is clearly going on. Expressions like "evil" and "heart of darkness" -- while they might not sound as extreme as that recent comment to this post which attracted attention -- evince what can only be called hatred. I think the fact that they are made by an otherwise-reasonable adult (and taken seriously by the area's leading newspaper) gives them a far more ominous significance than an outburst of temper by a commenter.

    Remaining calm and logical is becoming more and more of a challenge.

    Still, I want to return to Kerry and the revisitation of Vietnam, because I think that by focusing on the details of wartime service alone, people miss asking a more relevant question Kerry seems hell-bent to avoid: who did the most for the enemy?

    What I see evolving is an election year chickenhawk campaign theme.

    'How dare you question me. I was in Vietnam!'

    ...."I don't know what it is about what these Republicans who didn't serve in any war have against those of us who are Democrats who did."

    Because it is quite clear that Kerry thinks his service in Vietnam gives him the moral authority to make 2004 the Year of the Chickenhawk, I think examining the logic of the central premise is in order.

    Let's take, um, Gus Hall and George Lincoln Rockwell. The former headed the Communist Party, USA, while the latter headed the American Nazi Party. Both served in World War II; Hall in the Navy, and Rockwell too (the latter distinguishing himself as a fighter pilot).

    Clearly, Hall and Rockwell would be more entitled to serve in the government, or to comment on foreign policy, than any of the "chickenhawks" Kerry complains of.

    Hey let's do a chickenhawk count!

    In the United States Senate, 19 Republicans are veterans, while only 17 Democrats are.

    In the House, there are 57 Republican veterans to 43 Democrats.

    Simple math. If you disallow all non-veterans from voting, then the Republicans would have an even bigger margin of control than they do now.

    So why are Kerry and the Democrats pushing this chickenhawk nonsense anyway? I think it's a loser, and it's another reason I'd prefer Edwards to Kerry.

    At least then I wouldn't have to hear a warmed-over "Ich bin ein Hanoier" speech.

    UPDATE: More Hanoiances from Kerry here in that bastion of right-wing extremism, The Village Voice:

    ....[Kerry] wanted to clear a path to normalization of relations with Hanoi. In any other context, that would have been an honorable goal. But getting at the truth of the unaccounted for P.O.W.'s and M.I.A.'s (Missing In Action) was the main obstacle to normalization—and therefore in conflict with his real intent and plan of action.

    Kerry denied back then that he disguised his real goal, contending that he supported normalization only as a way to learn more about the missing men. But almost nothing has emerged about these prisoners since diplomatic and economic relations were restored in 1995, and thus it would appear—as most realists expected—that Kerry's explanation was hollow.

    Ugh! (via Glenn Reynolds.)


    ANOTHER TELLING OBSERVATION:

    What I think the Bushies are doing now is hitting Kerry with a low level of negatives. My crystal ball tells me that they have something on him, and are waiting to spring it until after the conventions, when it really makes a difference. Once the Democrats lock into Kerry [if they do], then the Bushies hit, and hit hard. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)
    I don't admire this strategy, because if anti-Bush sentiment carries the day and the Democrats win, we'll be stuck with Kerry. Better to have the best man run -- win or lose.

    posted by Eric at 11:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (2)



    Another White House Intern scandal!!

    Now it's my turn to stick up for a White House intern whose local-boy-makes-good story is being largely ignored!

    And right here in his hometown at that!

    Take a close look at this photograph (it's from the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer, February 21, 2004):

    Marc0221b.jpg


    The second guy from the left is Michael Marcavage, a man whose talent I spotted myself, and recognized in this very blog (when no one else cared)!

    If you don't believe me, just read about him (and how he made Steven Malcolm Anderson almost sympathetic to Bush) here -- and if you want to verify he's the guy in the picture, just click on the links. (Here's a really cool photo I missed!)

    I had to lovingly scan it myself, because even though it was on the front page of yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer, it appeared nowhere on line. Not only that, but the story caption is deceptive in the extreme. Marcavage's name is not given (although his organization "Repent America" is), and the "story" which readers are referred to as being on page A4 makes no mention of Marcavage whatsoever.

    That really sucks, especially because the guy's a national celebrity now. Why, in addition to numerous other anti-homo-related arrests, his rap sheet has now managed to log a very prestigious arrest in San Francisco itself -- the sodomite capitol of the world!

    Oughta be very proud. Certainly, there is no shortage of stories reporting the arrest. Why, the press in Kansas City is talking about him! (If you don't wanna subscribe, here's the Google cache version....)

    Even the WorldNetDaily picked up the story.

    Not bad for a Clinton White House intern!

    Why is the lad being ignored in his hometown?

    I don't know, but I have tried to do my job!

    I also want to why they're ignoring (well, not everybody; at least Alan Colmes knows talent when he sees it) a man who additionally devotes himself to attacking President Bush for "promoting evil and openly supporting wickedness" -- and whose website is:

    dedicated to providing up-to-date factual news information tracking the president's anti-Christian and ungodly behavior"

    I thought "Bush is evil" was the whole theme meme!


    ADDITIONAL NOTE: According to the WorldNetDaily story above, the sinister San Francisco sodomites even refused Marcavage his constitutionally protected right to be arrested on "TV"! (For the sake of decency, I have to assume that WorldNetDaily meant "television." Otherwise, their "TV request" should never have found its way into print!)

    posted by Eric at 07:56 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (1)




    Where were you in '72?

    At the risk of repeating what I said earlier, I was 318. (Still can't verify that number because I cannot find the damned 1954 birth year lottery -- the one which assigned Sharpton number 103 -- so it's from memory!)

    But I am relieved to know that Chris Satullo, the editorial page editor of my local newspaper, was 177:

    Mine was 177.

    That served - so I didn't have to.

    In 1972, that fact made me both glad and guilty.

    Still does today.

    I speak of my number in the Selective Service lottery. If you lived through that momentous spin of the drum, as I did at the age of 18, you never forget the number that chance assigned you.

    By that stage of the Vietnam War, the number 177 was high enough to spare me a summons from my nation.

    If I were to claim that I know what I would have done had my number left me vulnerable, that would be a lie.

    I guess it must be a fad, everybody suddenly talking about their Vietnam War lottery numbers. Fair enough as a topic -- especially now that Kerry and his supporters are hell-bent on turning this election into a sanctimonious referendum on the morality of a sanctimonious group of people still smarting over their fractured sense of manhood.

    As was I in my essay, my local editor is quite self-effacing about his non-role:

    Heck, while he was playing weekend pilot, I was sitting in a college dorm, watching other people smoke dope. Who am I to judge?

    What's more, I twice marked my presidential ballot for a guy who did markedly less to serve than Bush, and was just as evasive in explaining his actions: Bill Clinton. On the spectrum of duty, Bush falls somewhere between his predecessor and the man he'll likely face this fall, John Kerry.

    In using his family's pull to get into the National Guard, Bush only did what thousands of others did - or would have done if they could.

    In gliding through his Guard duty, showing up some times and not others, he only did what that era's fundamentally classist system allowed hundreds like him to do.

    Gotta disagree there. Satullo is implicitly setting up a false dichotomy. He wants readers to imagine an America divided between RICH people who used their POWER and INFLUENCE to get their kids into the Guard and the rest of us ordinary folks who....

    Ordinary folks who what? Instead of facts, we get another implied dichotomy. In discussing his own number and the lottery system, Satullo makes no mention of the fact that the lottery system was only instituted very late in the war, replacing the previous system of prolonged deferments with one of certainty and predictability. (In my view, it was one of the smartest things Nixon ever did.)

    The reason I don't think this omission was inadvertent is because it was the old deferment system that dominated the Vietnam War. Not only that, but it was the ability to get the precious deferment (NOT service in the National Guard) that marked the real class division in America. To get a deferment, you had to be able to afford a college education. That was the real cultural division. Why is it being downplayed?

    Thus, while it is comfortable for Satullo to say that Bush "did what thousands of others did - or would have done if they could" ("what that era's fundamentally classist system allowed hundreds like him to do"), he very conveniently forgets that in the case of the college deferment system, we're not talking about hundreds. We're not even talking about thousands, or many, many thousands.

    It's millions!

    Putting aside for the moment whether service in the National Guard is less honorable than a college deferment (although in logic how could it be?), let's look at some real numbers.

    First, here's the overall scope of Vietnam War service:

    Between 1964 & 1972, 2.2 million American males, out of the 26.8 million that reached age 18 during that period, were drafted into the armed services for two years of military service. Of the remainder, 8.7 million volunteered, leaving 15.9 million who escaped the draft entirely. 209,517 men were officially listed as draft dodgers, making no effort at all to avoid the draft using college deferments, ill health, citing family commitments or listing themselves as conscientious objectors.
    Deferments, of course, were overwhelmingly a middle-class privilege:
    Selective Service regulations offered deferments for college attendance and a variety of essential civilian occupations that favored middle- and upper- class whites. The vast majority of draftees were poor, undereducated, and urban—blue-collar workers or unemployed.
    Here's a more detailed breakdown:
    Of the 27 million men eligible for conscription during the Vietnam era, 8,720,000 enlisted, often to beat the draft; 2,215,000 were drafted; and almost 16 million never served. Of that 16 million, 15,410,000 were deferred, exempted, or disqualified, and an estimated 570,000 were draft offenders. Of that number, over 209,517 were accused of draft violations, 8,750 were convicted, and 3,250 were imprisoned.
    According to the numbers I have seen, the typical young American male during that period was more likely to have not served than served, and if he served more likely never to have been in Vietnam. Thus, it can reasonably be argued that Bush and Cheney more typify their generation than Clinton or Gore (and maybe even Kerry).
    Statistics maintained by the Selective Service System and the Department of Veterans Affairs suggest that Bush and Cheney are more typical of the Vietnam-era generation than, say, Gore and Kerry. And very few voters under age 45 have served in the military at all.

    Between July 1, 1964 and June 30, 1973, just before Bush won an early release from the National Guard to attend Harvard Business School, 18.3 million men registered with Selective Service. Just 8.8 million of them, including 1.7 million draftees, served on active duty. And of those who served on active duty, just 2.6 million served in Vietnam.

    As of mid-1966, when Cheney's daughter was born, there were more draft-age fathers deferred from service, 3.5 million, than the total number of men and women who served in Vietnam throughout the war.

    I am worried that John Kerry is shooting for a role as the Ronald Reagan of a guilt-ridden Vietnam War deferment crowd whose opposition to the war was based on dissembled self-interest. Does he legitimize them and makes them feel proud and powerful? Unlike Bill Clinton, he fought in that war, and came back to oppose it. Might this validate their non-service as the honorable thing to have done? If so, it will be a powerful motivating force, and it may explain the Kerry euphoria I'm starting to see.

    After all, who doesn't want to feel honorable?

    Certainly not those who opposed peace with honor.

    Is it, as this commentator asks, time to let it go?

    We have a choice this election between a guy who can be accused of using National Guard service to avoid going to Vietnam and a guy who went and then used his exemplary service to savage his fellow veterans.

    I submit for your consideration that it is time to let Vietnam go. The decisions we made were individual, and the decisions we made have had consequences we have all had to live with for the rest of our lives. It was a confusing and crazy time. What we did or did not do during the Vietnam era doesn't matter any more.

    Let it be.

    Easy enough for me to do, personally. It wasn't my fault that I drew a high number, and never had a deferment. I can certainly forget about the draft, the deferments, the Guard.

    What I do not want is be lectured once again about the immorality of the war by people who did everything they could to make the United States (and South Vietnam) lose it. It wasn't enough that Nixon ended the draft, and ended the war. They wanted North Vietnam to win, and they got their way.

    I'll never forget the image of the last American helicopters leaving.

    Betrayal? Or Watergate fallout?

    I do have one nagging question, completely unrelated to the draft. Did Kerry want South Vietnam to lose?

    posted by Eric at 11:43 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (2)




    Covering up appearances with comical sincerity!

    It's Online Test Day at Classical Values, and it isn't a pretty picture. Life consists of unfair choices, where right choices are wrong, and wrong choices are right, where appearances are everything -- even though they're never what they seem -- and where coverups rule! (Appearances beget coverups, which beget appearances!)


    The first test promised to find my place in the Marvel multiverse!

    Here I am, and don't I know my place!

    From Ghost of a flea -- who was Dr. Strange. That's OK. I can live with being the Silver Surfer.

    ________________________________________________

    The next test purports to tell me how straight acting I am. What a thing to test for! I scored quite well, but the problem is, I have no respect whatsoever for appearances. If I had any respect for 'em, I wouldn't be any good at 'em! (Truly, I must be psychotic, and it worries me.....)

    How Do You Rate?

    Via Skiplog (who also offers graphic evidence that life is sometimes a classic double bind!)


    __________________________________________________

    FINAL EXAM: FAIL! FAIL! FAIL!


    It's true confession time, folks.

    The final test for today -- "the Book Quiz" -- yielded such an embarrassing result that I decided to cheat!

    Yes, cheat! This is the second time I've cheated on an online test, and you'd think I'd learn.

    But I deserved better than what I got, and my self-esteem will not allow me to reveal my results. I decided to look over Nicholas's shoulder, and copy his. (Besides, his book was better anyway!)






    You're The Guns of August!

    by Barbara Tuchman


    Though you're interested in war, what you really want to know is what causes war. You're out to expose imperialism, militarism, and nationalism for what they really are. Nevertheless, you're always living in the past and have a hard time dealing with what's going on today. You're also far more focused on Europe than anywhere else in the world. A fitting motto for you might be "Guns do kill, but so can diplomats.




    Take the Book Quiz at the Blue Pyramid.


    Forgive me Nicholas, for my covering up my depravity with this tawdry and juvenile exercise of civil disobedience!

    posted by Eric at 08:34 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)



    IS YOUR BLOG ON THIS LIST????

    I experienced a bit of a shock yesterday when I was away from home and was forced to use an institutional computer -- which had its Internet content "filtered" by "SonicWALL Integrated Content Filtering." Their stated goal is to help organizations:

    ....increase productivity and reduce legal and privacy risks by automatically enforcing acceptable use policies while minimizing administration overhead.
    More from their site:
    Category Blocking. SonicWALL CFS employs an innovative rating architecture that utilizes a dynamic database of millions of URLs, IP addresses and domains to block up to 50+ categories of objectionable and inappropriate Web content such as porn, hate, violence and others, providing network administrators with greater control to transparently enforce acceptable use policies.
    You thought your local library only censored pornography?
    "We selected SonicWALL based on the product's ease-of-installation and maintenance, high performance, and low cost -- about half as much as other comparable alternatives. Another boon to the Library is that SonicWALL comes with additional features such as firewalling -- which we never even budgeted for, but is included in the cost of the unit."

    Susan Fuller
    Santa Clara County Librarian

    Here's what's being censored (note that mere discussion is enough, because the software obviously can't distinguish between discussion and advocacy):
    Filtering Categories

    Violence/Profanity (graphics or text)
    Pictures or text exposing extreme cruelty, or physical or emotional acts against any animal or person which are primarily intended to hurt or inflict pain. Obscene words, phrases, and profanity is defined as text that uses, but is not limited to, George Carlin's 7 censored words more often than once every 50 messages (Newsgroups) or once a page (Websites).

    Partial Nudity
    Pictures exposing the female breast or full exposure of either male or female buttocks except when exposing genitalia. (Excludes all swimsuits, including thongs.)

    Full Nudity
    Pictures exposing any or all portions of the human genitalia. Excluded from the Partial Nudity and Full Nudity categories are sites containing nudity or partial nudity of a wholesome nature. For example: Websites containing publications such as National Geographic or Smithsonian Magazine. Or sites hosted by museums such as the Guggenheim, the Louvre, or the Museum of Modern Art.

    Sexual Acts (graphics or text)
    Pictures or text exposing anyone or anything involved in explicit sexual acts and or lewd and lascivious behavior, including masturbation, copulation, pedophilia, and intimacy involving nude or partially nude people in heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian or homosexual encounters. Also includes phone sex ads, dating services, and adult personals, CD-ROM's, and videos.

    Gross Depictions (graphics or text)
    Pictures or descriptive text of anyone or anything which are crudely vulgar or grossly deficient in civility or behavior, or which show scatological impropriety. Includes such depictions as maiming, bloody figures, or indecent depiction of bodily functions.

    Intolerance (graphics or text)
    Pictures or text advocating prejudice or discrimination against any race, color, national origin, religion, disability or handicap, gender, or sexual orientation. Any picture or text that elevates one group over another. Also includes intolerant jokes or slurs.

    Satanic/Cult (graphics or text)
    Pictures or text advocating devil worship, an affinity for evil or wickedness, or the advocacy to join a cult. A cult is defined as: A closed society that is headed by a single individual where loyalty is demanded and leaving is punishable.

    Drugs/Drug Culture (graphics or text)
    Pictures or text advocating the illegal use of drugs for entertainment. Includes substances used for other than their primary purpose to alter the individual's state of mind, such as glue sniffing. This would exclude currently illegal drugs legally prescribed for medicinal purposes (e.g., drugs used to treat glaucoma or cancer).

    Militant/Extremist (graphics or text)
    Pictures or text advocating extremely aggressive and combative behaviors, or advocacy of unlawful political measures. Topics include groups that advocate violence as a means to achieve their goals. Includes "how to" information on weapons making, ammunition making, or the making or use of pyrotechnics materials. Also includes the use of weapons for unlawful reasons.

    Sex Education (graphics or text)
    Pictures or text advocating the proper use of contraceptives. This topic would include condom use, the correct way to wear a condom and how to put a condom in place. Also included are sites relating to discussion about the use of the Pill, IUD's, and other types of contraceptives. In addition to the above, this category will include discussion sites on discussing diseases with a partner, pregnancy, and respecting boundaries. Excluded from this category are commercial sites wishing to sell sexual paraphernalia.

    Questionable/Illegal Gambling (graphics or text)
    Pictures or text advocating materials or activities of a dubious nature which may be illegal in any or all jurisdictions, such as illegal business schemes, chain letters, copyright infringement, computer hacking, phreaking (using someone's phone lines without permission), and software piracy. Also includes text advocating gambling relating to lotteries, casinos, betting, numbers games, on-line sports, or financial betting, including non-monetary dares.

    Alcohol & Tobacco (graphics or text)
    Pictures or text advocating the sale, consumption, or production of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.

    OK, now I don't mean to be alarmist, and I don't like to overreact. The first thing I noticed (and, what prompted me to do this research) was that my own blog was blocked. I could not read it, post to it, anything. I simply got a black page with a block in the middle which read "SONIC WALL CONTENT BLOCKED."

    "Well, that's just my web page!", I thought. They probably hate homos or something. And I talk about all kinds of controversial topics. "Let's try some others."

    Not being able to open my blog, I was unable to just click on favorite links (which kills me, because I know I have missed many of you), so I did the next best thing: I went to InstaPundit, and, starting at the bottom, clicked on his links and wrote down which ones were blocked by SonicWALL. Here, then, is the list, along with a few more I was able to find by clicking around from other blogs.

    Across the Atlantic
    Justene Adamec
    Adragna & Vehrs
    The Agitator
    Charles Austin
    Howard Bashman
    Big Arm Woman
    Bigwig
    BitchGirls
    Blogs of War
    Edward Boyd
    Capt. Scott's
    Cato the Youngest
    ChicagoBoyz
    John Cole
    Crooked Timber
    Deinonychus
    Kim du Toit
    Electrolite
    The Fat Guy
    Dr. Frank
    Fraters Libertas
    Geek Press
    Gut Rumbles
    Gweilo Diaries
    Andrea Harris
    Jim Henley
    IMAO
    Iberian Notes
    Kate
    Kathy Kinsley
    Alex Knapp
    MadPony
    Mudville Gazette
    Dawn Olsen
    Suman Palit
    David Pinto
    Right Wing News
    Silent Running
    Laurence Simon
    Roger L. Simon
    Skippy
    Soundbitten
    Spoons
    Jim Treacher
    Howard Veit
    The Volokh Conspiracy
    War Liberal
    Oliver Willis
    Winds of Change
    Matthew Yglesias
    Pejman Yousefzadeh
    Zogby Blog
    Eschaton
    AgendaBender
    Discount Blogger
    Croooow Blog
    Damnum Absque Injuria
    Kin's Kouch
    Jennifer's History and Stuff
    Wizbang
    Robert Prather
    Rocket Jones
    Snooze Button Dreams
    Kausfiles
    Publius
    On the Third Hand
    Ghost of a flea

    If your blog is NOT LISTED above and you are linked by Glenn Reynolds, that means that as of last night, SonicWALL was not blocking you.

    I am sure this changes from day to day, depending on what you have posted about. The problem is, dumb software like this does not distinguish between discussion of something and advocacy of it. So, if you merely talk about cults, guns, nudity, racism, gambling, pornography, weapons, or drugs, your blog will be censored.

    Isn't it nice to know that in the future, there will be no more controversies?

    That's what I call a Utopia!

    For more on this creeping fascism (forgive the hyperbole, folks; I do know there's a difference between the Storm Troopers and content filtering!) watch the company's reassuring film about How It All Works.

    Meanwhile, if you want people to be able to access your blog, steer away from any discussion of controversial topics.

    A word to the wise.....


    UPDATE: It occurred to me that even posting the above descriptive language about prohibited topics -- which I lifted directly from SonicWALL's web site -- might be enough to get your blog blocked. Wish I had a couple of days to experiment with their device. Does anyone out there have access to SonicWall?

    MORE: SonicWALL's website links to this article -- billed as "SonicWall's CEO shares his view on The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace."

    Surely the government isn't inadvertently pushing blog censorship?

    INADVERTENT MISSING LINK: I noticed belatedly that the above link to Frank J. goes to a page other than Frank J.'s own blog. That page is blocked, but so is Frank J.'s (I remember checking it independently.) So don't worry! Frank J.'s missing link really isn't missing!

    UPDATE (12/12/04): I just learned that Glenn Reynolds has linked to this post. Thanks Glenn, and welcome everyone.

    If you are coming here for information about SonicWALL -- please read my more recent post on the subject, which has valuable information on how to get unblocked. I followed a commenter's advice, and the last time I checked, my blog was no longer blocked.

    But yechh! What a nuisance!

    MORE: Anomalously, (as Glenn Reynolds points out) content like this is not being censored by SonicWALL. (Obviously, it takes discipline and quality control... and so forth.) Censorship, like pain, is all part of the Hedonistic Imperative; "an issue of social policy and ethical choice." If that's not socially redeeming, what is?

    posted by Eric at 12:53 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (3)




    No behind left behind!

    I was appalled this morning to see that the "Breathalyzer in every car" bill has passed the New Mexico House of Representatives. Every car will have to be equipped with this Orwellian technology. Blow before you start in our new national kindergarten.

    What do these control freaks think they are doing? Presiding over a nation of children?

    What's next? Toilets that won't flush until the camera verifies you've wiped your ass clean?

    I know, I know, "If we could save just one asshole....."

    posted by Eric at 04:18 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)



    Disgusted by hate....

    The hate debate goes on! (As you can see in the comments to my Instalanched post, I have taken some flak for Steven Malcolm Anderson's comment.)

    According to Mike S. Adams (also linked by Glenn Reynolds) a student was recently raked over the coals and basically censored for having stated that he found homosexuality to be "disgusting."

    There is no question that the student's remarks are protected by the First Amendment. In censoring him, his teachers did something far worse than had they simply insulted him in return. Sometimes, in robust debate, people say things which others deem offensive. If free speech means anything, it must mean allowing people to say what they think -- and allowing others to comment in return.

    Let us suppose though, that the teacher had simply allowed a group discussion of the issue.

    "Is homosexuality disgusting?"

    Or, possibly,

    "Is it hateful to describe other people's sexual practices as disgusting?"

    Whether or not it is hateful seems about as relevant as the question whether it is hateful to describe black people's habits as disgusting, or Jewish or Christian practices. Hateful or not, "disgusting" is certainly not a word I would hurl at people and not expect repercussions.

    But censorship should not be one of them.

    Does it matter whether calling someone's practices disgusting is based on someone's interpretation of the Bible? In the context of the First Amendment I don't think so -- any more than it would matter if it came from the Koran, Mein Kampf, or any other book. The religious views of the student are entitled to just as much respect as the religious or non-religious views of any other student.

    Should religious views be accorded more weight than non-religious views? In logic they should not. I know this stuff is not always treated logically, but let us suppose an atheist were to state that he agreed with Leviticus that lying with a man as a woman is an abomination. Would his view be less protected than the same view uttered by someone who believed that the same words were God's law? It strikes me that saying that religious speech is more protected than non-religious speech grants a special privilege to anyone claiming his views are supported by God. And, once we start down that path, then what's to stop someone else from claiming that his religious views should be accorded even more weight, and so on?

    All views are entitled to equal respect. (And by "respect" I do not mean agreement, nor approval; only an equal right to be heard!) But as a practical matter, if you tell people that the way they make love is disgusting, you can expect that they will respond in kind.

    That's not moral relativism; it's life.

    I have long maintained that sexual practices are about as relevant to me as tastes in food. I find hard-boiled eggs disgusting, and I love cream-filled doughnuts.

    I don't mean to insult hard-boiled egg lovers either.

    Would it matter if I said that I hate hard-boiled eggs?


    ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE: Notwithstanding my deliberate facetiousness, civility and respect for other people are important. I think we need to practice civility, but also develop thicker skins.

    posted by Eric at 04:00 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)




    The Carnival and the Bonfire

    The 74th Carnival of the Vanities is up at Four Right Wing Wackos. Excellent posts, all -- but I feel obligated to point out that I too "battle the tides of falsehood and deception in THE CULTURE WARS!" Unfortunately however, the post I submitted seems to have escaped the attention of this week's hosts. But I am a loyal sort, so I am linking to the Carnival anyway. Maybe I'll have better luck next time. The Smarter Cop has a good post on Kerry, "the candidate who claims he will boot special interests out the door" -- and so do other bloggers.

    Read them, and all the rest!


    ________________________________________________

    Also be sure to read the Bonfire of the Vanities, which was kind enough to link to my post on Misandry. The one and only Ghost of a flea has demonstrated once again that Canada is cool! Don't miss Kevin Aylward's designer engineering either! Read 'em all!

    posted by Eric at 11:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)



    My blogfather returns! (as Kerry trembles....)

    My blogfather is back!

    And he's mad as hell at John Kerry!

    If John Kerry becomes president, it is the end of the Second Amendment and probably most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. Heck, he's been endorsed by the Brady Bunch and the Million Mom March!

    I gotta' tell you this also, if human-sewage Kerry becomes president, expect Jacque Chirac to be appointed Secretary of Defense and Chancellor Schroder to fill in as National Security Advisor.

    Kerry has been completely ineffectual as a senator, getting almost no bills of his passed in all the years in Congress. He's flip-flopped on almost every issue and here's the thing, this slime has presented NOTHING in the way of ideas on almost any issue. It's as if he's simply saying, "Vote for me because I'm not Bush and I served in Viet Nam." What a piece of crap Kerry is. What a phony hypocrite. What a waste of flesh.

    Waste of flesh! I like that. Old Botox John is injecting toxins into his flesh anyway, so I guess he's wasting his own flesh. In any case, I just can't bring myself to vote for him either.

    Were I working for the Bush campaign, though, I'd be scared shitless of Edwards after yesterday's performance in Wisconsin. No wonder Kerry is pulling out all stops to silence the Malvern girl. I think that if we see too much silence from the Republicans on Kerry, Edwards will be the reason why. But I am prone to conspiracies....

    Prone to conspiracies?

    (I guess that means I lie down and take them.)

    UPDATE: DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHERS SOUGHT!

    The news media, particularly the foreign media, is showing increasing attention to the Kerry Interngate story. The media seems to now be encamped outside of the home of Alexis Polier's parents -- Terrence and Donna Polier -- on Madeline Drive inMalvern, PA.

    But so far, I have seen no photographs online of Alexandra Polier's apartment at 3147 Broadway, New York NY 10027 or her hideaway in Belmont, Massachusetts, at 6 Springfield Street.

    CAN SOMEONE LIVING NEARBY GET A GOOD DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPH OF EACH RESIDENTIAL LOCATION AND FORWARD IT TO SOME OF THE NEWS OUTLETS IN WISCONSIN?? WHEN THE LOCATIONS ARE IDENTIFIED, NEIGHBORS WILL PROBABLY START TURNING UP WITH THEIR OWN STORIES ABOUT KERRY'S COMINGS AND GOINGS!

    Amazing that what you can't find in the local newspapers, you can find at an official campaign website!

    Oh, here's the cached version, in case the above "disappears."

    (Idea progression inspired by TCS's finest.)


    UPDATE: Wow! My remark about the Edwards website was just linked by Glenn Reynolds, so, a warm welcome to all newcomers so graciously referred by InstaPundit!

    While I'm at it, I should address Glenn's (and others') criticism of Steven's Bush-hating comment below. The remark was over the top, and I love Steven anyway. He's a big-hearted guy, and he's definitely capable of speaking for himself. (That's about all I can say right now.)

    MORE (IN DEFENSE OF A LOYAL, LONGTIME READER): I'll say one more thing about Steven: He's no typical Bush hater. Who knows? He may feel personally betrayed. According to one comment he left, when he took a political quiz, Bush topped his list of eligible candidates for president!

    ADDITIONAL NOTE: I want to second Glenn Reynolds' recommendation of this article. (If you didn't click on it at InstaPundit, please read it now.) Here's an excerpt which I'm taking to heart:

    It is easy to be tolerant of unimportant differences. But all of us tend to think the worst of people who disagree with us on really important things. We tend to assume that our opponents followed the same chain of reasoning we did, so that if they reject our conclusion, they must also reject our most fundamental premise. If they believe that-fill in any belief that really upsets you-then they must also believe even worse things, and if they believe such bad things, they are likely to act on them. We have all thought in this way, and sometimes spoken or written in this way. I do not exempt myself.
    Thanks again, Glenn Reynolds!

    MORE: I am not alone in my speculations about what Republican strategists may be thinking. Andrew Sullivan shared this email today (02-20-04):

    "As an independent, Republican-leaning Edwards supporter. I guess I'm a swing voter - I voted for Clinton in '92, Dole in '96 and Bush in 2000. If Edwards is the nominee, I will vote for him. If Kerry is the nominee - feckless, say-anything, "Do you know who I am?" John Kerry - I will vote for Bush. It's that simple. And I imagine that a big reason Karl Rove is keeping his powder dry on Kerry right now, who's incredibly vulnerable to attack based on his record, is that the White House would much prefer to run against Kerry than Edwards."
    I think the writer is correct -- and the polls show that right now (despite Edwards's status as a lesser-known long shot), Edwards and Kerry are virtually tied in their chances of defeating Bush.

    posted by Eric at 04:17 PM | Comments (95) | TrackBacks (1)



    Temporary relief?

    Arthur Silber linked to this brief filed by the City of San Francisco in opposition to a conservative organization's request for a Temporary Restraining Order. For reader convenience (I know everyone hates pdf files!) here's a text "translation" of the pertinent language:

    The availability of preliminary injunctive relief depends on two interrelated factors. First, "[ t]o qualify for preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiffs must show irreparable injury, either existing or threatened." (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 447, 453.) Even if the plaintiffs satisfy this threshold burden, a court must balance that injury against the injury defendants and the public will suffer if injunctive relief is issued. (Socialist Workers etc. Comm. v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal. App. 3d 879, 888-889.) Second, a party may not obtain preliminary injunctive relief unless it establishes a reasonable probability that it will prevail on the merits. (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal. 3d 277, 286.) These requirements apply to a request either for TRO or preliminary injunction. (Code Civ. Proc. §527; First National Bank of Oakland v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1966) 240 Cal. App. 2d 109, 110.)

    The showing of irreparable harm required is even greater where government action is involved. In such cases, "courts should not intervene unless the need for equitable relief is clear, not remote or speculative" (City of Vernon v. Central Basin Municipal Water Dist. (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 508, 517), and the plaintiff "must make a significant showing of irreparable injury." (Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn. v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 1459, 1473.)

    Petitioners do not seriously attempt to show that they will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief. They simply argue they are entitled to such relief because Code Civ. Proc. § 526a authorizes them to maintain an action based on the alleged illegal expenditure and waste of public funds. But Section 526a merely grants taxpayers standing to maintain an action and bring it to judgment permanently enjoining unlawful expenditures. (White v. Davis(2003) 30 Cal. 4th 528, 555, citing Blair v. Pitchess (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 258, 267-70.) Section 526a does not excuse taxpayers from complying with the traditional requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. See White v. Davis, 30 Cal. 4 th at 555-57 (affirming line of decisions holding taxpayers' interest in preventing unlawful expenditures cannot "' substitute for the high degree of existing or threatened injury required for [] prejudgment injunctive relief . . .'"; citing Cohen v. Board of Sups. (1986) 178 Cal. App. 3d 447, 454; Loder v. City of Glendale (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3th 777; and Leach v. City of San Marcos(1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 648.) Accordingly, petitioners must demonstrate that they will suffer harm beyond the allegedly unlawful expenditure of public funds.

    Finally, and at a very minimum, Petitioners are in no way entitled in this proceeding to a declaration passing upon the validity of the hundreds of marriages that already have taken place, regardless of whether an injunction might issue to restrain the continued issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A declaration of that sort would be inconsistent with the due process rights of every single married couple not before this Court. Equally fundamental, however, it would not be an appropriate exercise of this court's mandamus powers. "Mandamus will not as a general rule issue, where the rights of third persons not parties would be injuriously affected. Where questions of grave importance concerning rights of persons who have had no opportunity to be heard are involved in mandamus proceedings, the court, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, may refuse the writ, although it is an appropriate remedy." Cooper v. Gibson, County Treasurer, 133 Cal. App. 532, 959-60 (1933) (declining to order county treasurer to distribute surplus funds from delinquency sale of real property to holders of public bonds, when intervenor-seller contested delinquency sale's validity and purchaser was not a party to mandamus proceeding). See also Board of Educ. v. San Diego, 128 Cal. 369, 371 (1900) ("Mandamus will not lie were its effect would be inequitable or unjust as to third persons or will introduce confusion or will not promote substantial justice"). In the days ahead, there no doubt will be other proceedings in which one or more same-sex married couples who are not presently before this Court might litigate the legal validity of their marriage. In their absence, however, this is not the proper forum to determine their individual rights.

    B. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown They Will Be Irreparably Harmed By The City's Grant Of Marriage Licenses To Third Parties.

    The only other harm Petitioners cite is that "the Clerk is likely to issue thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, who will in turn use those marriage licenses to initiate litigation . . . [which will] multiply the workload of already overburdened courts." (Pets. ' MPA at 11: 18-24.) This "harm" however is sheer speculation, on which this Court may not issue the requested relief. Volpicelli v. Jared Sydney Torrance Memorial Hosp. (1980) 109 Cal. App. 3d 242, 267. Petitioners make no effort to explain why a host of duplicative cases would be filed, much less how such litigation would harm them other than as taxpayers. Absent a showing that Petitioners will suffer real, tangible, imminent and irreparable harm, this Court must deny their request for preliminary relief, whether couched as a "stay," TRO or injunction.

    I took Remedies in law school, and from what I can remember, I think the City's position is largely correct on the TRO issue. In order to get a TRO, you must demonstrate that without it, there will be an immediate and irreparable injury.

    A classic example is that of a neighbor in a property dispute who is about to cut down a row of stately old trees based on his belief they are his. Regardless of who owns the trees, if it turns out he doesn't own them, irreparable harm will have been done, and so the TRO will generally issue.

    What interests me here is the nature of the irreparable harm. What is it? The key objection to same sex marriage is that it would "destroy" the institution of marriage. While I have previously voiced my concerns about same sex marriage (because it would tend to weaken my right to total autonomy by allowing family court jursidiction over my private life), the idea that they would "destroy" the marriages of other people strikes me as utterly absurd. The only people who can destroy a marriage are the people in it, and perhaps third party intermeddlers who directly interfere with the relationship. But strangers somewhere? How does that threaten marriages of others?

    The argument is also made that it would "cheapen" the "institution" because making homosexual marriages legal would "send a message" or "create a climate" conducive to the belief that same sex marriage is "just as good" or "the moral equivalent" of opposite sex marriage. Sorry, folks, but that argument strikes me as a closed loop. To say that a thing is bad because the existence of the thing makes it appear good conceals (at least fails to address) the underlying assumption (that same sex couples are inherently "bad"), and is therefore as rhetorically dishonest as it is illogical. The argument relies on the premise that same sex coupling is bad; otherwise it makes no sense at all.

    And even if the idea is to stop "bad" people from marrying (lest their marriage contaminate the marriage pool), then why stop with same sex couples? Plenty of other bad people are allowed to marry. Robbers, rapists, swindlers, even convicted serial killers on death row -- all of these and more are allowed, quite freely, to marry.

    So, while I prefer the privacy loophole of not having the government's foot in my bedroom door via the legal fascism which would accompany same sex marriage, I am deeply distrustful of the rhetoric used by its opponents.

    I find myself utterly alone in my thinking, too. (Sometimes I wish there was a movement I could join....)

    But let me play the Devil's Advocate here. Suppose -- just suppose -- that same sex marriage will "destroy the institution" of marriage. How many marriages does it take for said destruction to be complete?

    What if it's already a done deal?

    posted by Eric at 03:44 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)




    Silence is as dead as the closet!

    A post and a news item I saw today reminded me of my previous post in which I asked why it is that some people consider open discussion of homosexuality to be worse than homosexuality itself. Why haven't I heard that or similar arguments expressed in the context of the priest scandal facing the Catholic Church? Shouldn't all discussion of homosexuality be silenced?

    The number of priests accused of molesting young males continues to grow:

    Over 4,450 Catholic priests can be documented to have been accused of committing sexual assault on minors over the past 52 years, according to a report commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and written by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. To put this number in perspective - there are only 44,000 priests currently serving in the United States; and even though the report entirely discards incidents involving a further 3,300 priests who had died, and only deals with incidents in which a victim of abuse has come forward, the number still represents over 4 percent of all priests who served in that period.
    (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

    (Dan Rather is talking about the report right now on the CBS Evening News.)

    This may sound counterintuitive, but I have grown a little tired of hearing that the "gay movement" is somehow to blame for the hemmorhaging of reported cases. While it may seem self-apparent to some, it can be argued equally plausibly that the reason so many cases have been reported in recent years is precisely because "the love that dare not speak its name" now can.

    When he was a child in the early 1960s, a very effeminate friend was raped and beaten by bullies, and he managed to find his way to the nearest police station, where, in his bloody and beaten state, the police laughed at him, and called his mortified father, who ran down to the police station and proceeded to beat his son again in front of the still-laughing officers.

    Tough love? Acceptable parental behavior? Not by today's standards.

    What was once unmentionable, if not unthinkable, is now something that can be reported -- to your mom, to your dad, to the cops.

    So, for the sake of this argument, if the vast majority of priest sexual assault allegations involve older male teens (and are thus homosexual in nature as opposed to strictly pedophilia), isn't it fair to at least ask whether or not the recent increase in reporting is a result of the ability of people to talk about it? I mean, hell, if there's a national debate about gay marriage, it's downright laughable to expect anyone to remain silent about a priest's behavior!

    I have long seen the scandal as resulting more from abuse of privilege than anything else. If I decided to run around and prey on teenagers at the nearest high school, I would not expect to get away with it for long.

    Priests, on the other hand, have been able to hide for years behind their status and power, and they no longer can.

    The whole issue is literally out of the closet -- and I think the kneejerk attempt to blame the gay movement fails to address what may be a reason why more and more people are daring to speak up.

    Articles like this carry on at great length about homosexuality being the problem, but I have not seen one acknowledge that were it not for the relatively new freedom to discuss homosexuality openly, there would never have been such a debate.

    (But for the death of the closet, perhaps?)

    Back in 1962 -- long before the "gay movement" -- the Catholic Church had an official policy of silence and denial.

    That silence is obviously dead. At least, it's no longer working.

    Is it too much to ask what killed it? I admit that I have no statistics to back my suspicions. But I do have my common sense. And I know that this behavior by priests is not new. The reporting and the public attention are.

    On the other hand, might there be an emerging new "closet" based on political correctness? (Along the lines of "the less said the better"?)

    I hope not!


    UPDATE: As Glenn Reynolds further notes, this post takes issue with the numbers given in the above study, and notes that accusations do not represent confirmed incidents. Even if the numbers are overstated, my point remains the same. Sexual abuse by priests is nothing new, but the ability to talk about it freely is a modern phenomenon.

    posted by Eric at 06:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)




    More Moore? (Reflections on the "President's Day Massacre.")

    Roy Moore and Gavin Newsom as two peas in a pod?

    As goes the goose, so goes the gander?

    Glenn Reynolds observes:

    It's not civil disobedience when it's done by someone who controls the machinery of government -- it's usurpation, even when it's in a cause I agree with.
    While I tend to agree, it is only human to sympathize with government officials who flout laws with which they disagree. Numerous city governments, for example, have refused to comply with the Patriot Act, justifying their actions as "civil disobedience":
    "I think this is in effect an act of civil disobedience. What we are saying as a city and what I'm saying in particular is that we live in a time of emergency; we live in a time when the federal government is assuming powers which it has no right to assume under our laws and under our constitution."
    Other city governments have passed "sanctuary laws" preventing law enforcement from acting against illegal aliens. Such conduct is unlawful -- but is it civil disobedience?

    I sympathized with the sheriffs who refused to comply with the Brady Act. I admire the attitude shown by Sheriff Jay Printz, of Ravalli County, Montana:

    "I just run my Brady background check forms from my fax machine to my shredder. I don't do them," Printz said.
    I do not know whether such admirable defiance constituted civil disobedience, though.

    In a previous post, I mentioned possible "civil disobedience" by heterosexuals (and opined that San Francisco politicians had "beaten them to the punch") without taking much time to think this through, and now that I am attempting to do that, I find myself more pissed than ever at the deliberate widening of the Culture War by all sides.

    When I was a college student, no one called Richard Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" (in which he defied Congress by sacking the Special Prosecutor, the Attorney General, and the Deputy Attorney General) an act of civil disobedience either. (Nor, interestingly, do I remember anyone claiming Nixon's underlings were engaged in civil disobedience....)

    In those days, the term civil disobedience was applied to citizens like Rosa Parks who defied laws they considered immoral.

    But did civil disobedience start with a government official? What about British Lord Chancellor Thomas More? Was he the "father of civil disobedience"?

    It is a sign of our distemper that Thomas More is today so often regarded as a hero of civil disobedience, a man who refused to obey law with which he was in profound moral disagreement. That is a considerable distortion of the truth, and it was not More’s understanding of his motives. For him, in a very real sense, law was morality. It is equally true that for More morality was superior to law and was the standard by which law must be judged.
    Here's more Bork on More:
    More saw Luther’s advocacy of lawless law to be at the heart of their culture war. Luther spoke for the individual conscience and so necessarily attacked the authority of precedent and tradition in the law. More’s view of law and the duty of judges was quite different. R. W. Chambers quotes him as saying: "If the parties will at my hands call for justice, then, all were it my father stood on the one side, and the devil on the other, his cause being good, the devil should have right." Luther and many modern jurists would reinterpret the law to do the devil down, and the moderns, at least, would reserve to themselves authority to decide which is the father and which the devil.

    ....

    [More's] refusal to take the oath should not, of course, be viewed as disobedience at all. There was a law higher than Henry’s and Parliament’s, and More knew that the oath violated that law. There were few other occasions on which that could be said with certainty. More, an exemplary courtier, servant, and confidante of the king, did not suppose that God’s will was clear enough to require refusal to serve the king even when his purposes seemed to More unjust; he even assisted the king in temporal struggles against the Pope, as, given his understanding of his respective duties, he should have. God’s law is not often clear to the tangled mind of man, but there was a central fact about which More could have no doubt: Christ did not leave behind a book but a Church, and that Church must not be divided. As to this ultimate thing, he, at last, knew where God was and what He wanted. More was caught between two authorities and the question for him, the commands of both being clear, was which authority was superior. At this extremity, God was no longer too subtle for him, and More obeyed God’s law and went to his death. This was not disobedience but obedience, a thought he expressed in his last words as he placed his head on the block: "I die the king’s good servant, but God’s first."

    II

    Individualism in the law, as in matters of faith, produces the substitution of private morality for public law and duty. This is precisely what More thought Luther was encouraging in his own day, and it is even more prominent in ours. That may be seen in the growth of legal nullification, the refusal to be bound by external rules, that is not only widespread among the American people but, more ominously, in the basic institutions of the law. More applied his injunction as much to the judge on the bench as to rioters in the street. We all recognize rioters as civil disobedients but we are less likely to recognize that the judge who ignores law or who creates constitutional law out of his own conscience is equally civilly disobedient. In 1975 Alexander Bickel, in The Morality of Consent, recounted the then recent American experience with disrupters in the streets, but added: "The assault upon the legal order by moral imperatives was not only or perhaps even most effectively an assault from the outside." It came as well from a Court that cut through law to do what it considered "right" and "good." Our law schools now construct theoretical justifications for that particularly corrosive form of civil disobedience, explaining that judges should create, and enforce as constitutional law, individual rights that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

    Cicero observed that in times of war laws are silent. Is the Culture War in fact a "war"? Or is it pure politics?

    I think it is politics. That does not alter the definition of civil disobedience. (In any case, a religious motivation should not give a law-breaker any special rights over and above Lockean "natural law" or simple conscience.)

    If More, then Moore. If More and Moore, then, yes, Newsom! I agree with Glenn Reynolds that the same standard should apply.

    The Culture War still sucks, though. It appeals to the worst in just about everyone. What good will come of the FMA? The lining up of people in eight-block queues to obtain legally meaningless licenses? More Culture War fodder? More politicization of how we live? More sanctimonious claptrap and moralistic poses from all sides?

    The so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment" is off to a great start.

    More to come, I am sure....


    MORE (no More puns, I promise): I am delighted to see that I am not alone in making gun analogies! (via Glenn Reynolds.)

    A FACT YOU NEED TO KNOW: President's Day (aka "Presidents' Day") was created by Richard Nixon in 1971 in what has been described as a non-binding proclamation. This web site makes the Nixon proclamation sound almost sinister,

    [T]he holiday has become popularly known as President's Day because of an elusive, and unconfirmed, proclamation by President Nixon that declared the third Monday in February to be a holiday to honor all presidents.
    Did Nixon have any right to change our holiday, secretly and unilaterally?

    Maybe I should reread the title of this post!

    posted by Eric at 09:49 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)



    Today's new word!

    As the tired-but-true expression goes, "You learn something every day." Today, perusing the comments to a post by Jeff Jarvis, (linked twice by Glenn Reynolds) I learned about a new word:"Misandry."

    Sinister Sisterhood

    After years of brain-wash girls become only too eager to believe in female oppression and assume their mission of countering alleged injustices inflicted on their helpless sister victims. There is no shortage of organisations for them to get involved with, education, media, law, politics and many dedicated institutions. These have a vested interest in maintaining the pretence of discrimination to justify their very existence. Thus the cycle perpetuating the misandrist attitude is completed.

    The destructive effect is best illustrated by example: In recognition of a person's right to the bare necessities of life, there is a minimal earning that is exempt from taxation and once upon a time, this level was higher for a married man on the assumption that he would have his wife and children to support. Feminism changed this to a married person's allowance under which, married Dual Income No Kids Yet couples will get twice the allowance of a single income family, while unmarried parents pay even more in taxes... Quite the opposite of what was intended, but without a special interest lobby crying "foul" there is apparently little incentive to put it right.

    On a more individual level, we find so called Positive discrimination at work. The principle of this is to redress an imbalance by making the individual's merits subordinate to bias that is contrary to prevailing stereotype. On a number of occasions I have worked for companies who, on this basis, only considered female applicants for some senior vacancies. Male staff in these companies might find themselves in a dead-end career, while the shortage of female applicants could have a less than optimal appointment as it's outcome. The defect in a positive discrimination doctrine is the assumption that gender imbalance would be due to anti-female prejudice and that two wrongs will make a right. It is in today's society more plausible that the job simply does not appeal to women, in the same way that there are roles to which men are less likely to aspire.

    When it comes to children, however, it is taken for granted that mother knows best. Most notorious for anti-male injustice are the divorce courts and associated authorities, but regardless of even what they might have ordered, the head teacher at my son's school, for instance, will not allow him to use a school computer to read e-mail from his dad because his mother witholds her permission. Any communication from the father to the school is immediately brought to the mother's attention. Should I, as a dad ask what discussions and decisions affecting my son have taken place, then this same head teacher refuses to disclose anything. The result is that a father has absolutely no say what-so-ever in any aspect of how his child is raised, educated or disciplined, yet must submit his involvement to the mother's often hypocritical and unreasonable control and censorship. It may seem incredible, that intelligent people fail to recognise their own double standards, but in our 21st century egalitarian society, women are simply more equal.

    "Misandry" is definitely the word of the day. The comments to Jeff Jarvis's post are quite interesting; one commenter pointed out that Andrew Sullivan used it to characterize (as "pure misandry") the following letter he received:
    "From 1983-1987 I was a graduate student in European History at the Univ. of Mass. I was, very nearly, the lone 'conservative' and witnessed then and afterwards dozens of instances of left wing bias both in teaching and in the hiring of teachers for the Academy. The one that stands out, I suppose for humorous reasons, is the following: I had a good friend who was taking a class in the Women's History department on advertising and women. I sat in quietly during one of the classes and noticed that it was a fairly well-attended class of around 25 women and one man (not including me.) It was about 2/3rds of the way through the semester and they were thick in the process of presenting to the class their research projects for the semester. The teacher was scheduling these for the next few sessions and she would call on each student by name and schedule their day to present. Eventually, she got to the lone male in the class at which point she asked ... 'What is your name again?'"
    Is this crap really helpful to anyone? I mean, I complain all the time about the ridiculous and artificial distinction between "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals."

    If we are all people, is it too much to ask that our common humanity not be infected by endless distinctions that reduce individuals to group stereotypes via mean-spirited identity politics?

    Or am I a hopeless liberal?


    UPDATE: I am embarrassed to admit that the word "misandry" is not new at all.

    misandry: Dislike or disesteem of man by woman; -- opposed to misogyny. Webster's New International (Second Ed., 1958)
    Well, if the word is so "settled," then why don't we hear it more often?

    Hmmmm......

    This website uses the word in quotes in such a way as to imply that such a thing as misandry really does not exist.

    Maybe the word "misandry" is sexist?

    Here's someone who complains that her inability to find the term indicates (gulp!) male bias!

    I am looking for the term, comparable to misogynist, for women who hate men. The dictionary was of no use, as women obviously are not expected to hate men.
    What the hell is wrong with my dictionary?

    How did the word get in there? In 1958?

    posted by Eric at 02:35 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)




    Twelve year old stalker?

    I am having a fascinating time with calls from what sounds like a twelve or thirteen year old boy who calls my cell phone from untraceable numbers. He leaves angry messages of a sexual nature, and just the other day asked me whether I prefer bananas or apples. (I told him that the answer is complicated, because while a banana must be peeled, an apple must be cored. After heavy breathing, he said, "You amaze me!" and tried to steer the conversation into sex. I asked him for his phone number and he gave me an incorrect number. Doubtless I'll hear from him again. But I don't feel like playing online sex games with him, and the fact that his sex talk consists of skillful hinting just shy of the real thing makes me think he's working for professional people. Um, maybe people who think they're professional.)

    No one except close friends have my cell number, and because of the nature of the calls, I am assuming that the "boy" (who sounds quite bright) is working for someone who does not like me, but who is too cowardly to identify himself, herself, or theirselves.

    Did you ever wonder how strangers can obtain your cell phone number?

    It's simple.

    M-O-N-E-Y

    At this online investigative service anyone can pay $190.00 to obtain anyone's cell phone number.

    This wouldn't be the first time someone has tried to rattle my cage in this manner, and while I think this is fun, because I think it may relate to my blog, I decided to write about it here.

    I have noticed that when people do not like you, they will rarely tell you. If they have a disagreement, often they won't state it. They play anonymous games. They'll do shit like leave dead animals on your front doorstep (it's happened to me several times), and in general make you think that someone doesn't like you and you'd better be careful.

    Careful about what? Like watch what you say? Stop speaking your mind? The hell with that! I'll say whatever I damn well want, whenever I want.

    This is my blog, and if people don't like what I think, they can go pound sand.

    I suppose if I really wanted to get paranoid, I could worry about being killed, but cowards like this aren't likely to kill. Besides, nothing I say is original enough, important enough, or widely read enough for someone to want to kill me for it.

    For now, it's just fun and games!

    Maybe I should suggest the kid's sponsors read this. (It discusses the war against opinions which are considered offensive.)

    Once again, opinions -- no matter how offensive people might find them -- are not conduct.

    For example, my opinion is that sex with minors by an adult is child abuse. The lower the age of the child, the more heinous it is. But the line between childhood and adulthood is not engraved in granite. In ancient Rome, children were allowed to marry at age fourteen. (I think that's too young -- but again, what difference does it make what I think?) If someone doesn't like my discussing it, well too bad!

    If I were to say that wife-beating and child-beating are moral equivalents, would that be considered offensive? If, echoing some of recent posts at other blogs, I opined that physical violence can be more damaging than sexual intercourse (as well as more traumatic), would that be offensive speech?

    Why? It's just an opinion -- either right or wrong. I am not trying to dictate morality to other people, nor am I threatening them. I would no more beat a child than I would have sex with a child. I guess that in itself could be considered offensive.

    Ain't it a strange world?

    posted by Eric at 05:45 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)




    Excellent email from a reader

    I don't usually put email from readers in my blog, but this was such a good one it seemed appropriate. The writer (who wants to remain anonymous) sent me this in response to an email exchange I had with a commenter named "Chuck" at Bill Quick's excellent blog, Daily Pundit. Here's the entire reply:

    Chuck,

    Accusing Eric of not having read the wording of the FMA is absurd. No less a personage as E. Volokh has read the same wording and come to the same conclusions as Sullivan. That you assign some sort of hidden agenda to Sullivan is indicative of your thinking, nothing more.

    Sullivan has been writing about ss Marriage for 10+ years. His agenda has been out there in the open for that long. It took many years for the gay community to accept his (and others, notably Jonathan Rauch) arguments and dedicate resources toward that end. Most left-leaning gay activists resisted the arguments, echoing the radical feminists view of marriage as a stifling, paternalistic anachronism that subjugated women.

    What Sullivan must constantly repeat (because it is almost always ignored, or dismissed), is that he comes from the starting point of, "Gays are not going away. We're here. Society needs to recognize that, and offer a way for gay people to become fully functioning members of society."

    Civil Marriage offers a way to do that, and to do it in the most conservative of ways, asking gay people, encouraging them, to participate in one of society's most stabilizing institutions. His is not an agenda to change the institution; it is an agenda to use the institution to respond to the question - what do we as a society do with gay people.

    So far, the Stanley Kurtz's of this world have said, "Not that" to any proposal to address the basic question, and have refused to offer an alternative. The FMA seeks to make sure that at least one alternative (and arguably, civil unions as well), Civil Marriage, is denied as a potential solution. All the rhetoric supporting it as the only response to a an activist judiciary seeking to impose its will on an unwilling populace is belied because an alternative, one laid out by William Buckley himself, is available:

    "The necessary amendment need go no further, nor should go any further, than to limit the application of the full-faith-and-credit clause to exclude any requirement to abide by laws or judicial findings authorizing same-sex marriage. If individual states wish to authorize civil unions between members of the same sex, they would be free to do so, but not free to plead immunities particular to their own state as extending to all 50 states."

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/wfbuckley/wfb20030807.shtml

    That the current wording of the FMA goes well beyond that suggestion, and adds words that are ambiguous at best, makes the accusation that Sullivan has a "hidden agenda" a rather good example of projection. Dale Carpenter noted recently in response to Stanley Kurtz:

    "It is the opposition to gay marriage that has led to the proliferation of alternatives to marriage itself. These alternatives serve to knock marriage off its pedestal as the gold standard for relationships, something feminist and libertarian critics of marriage might applaud, but traditionalist defenders of marriage should abhor."

    http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/carpenter/carpenter40.html

    Should, but, for the most part, don't. Playing into the hands of those that want to change the institution. Not very conservative, in my eyes.
    As for the question of animus toward gay people. I ask myself why FMA supporters haven't also proposed wording for a constitutional amendment regarding abortion that activist judges have imposed on them. Nor a constitutional amendment clarifying affirmative action, as allowed by activist judges, nor any of a number of issues, where the standard conservative response is the political process of either electing judges that agree with their principles, or executive branch politicians able to appoint such judges. In those cases, there have been judicial decisions that have forced a uniform, nationwide basis for action. No such action at the federal level has yet taken place.

    The charge of seeking to preclude debate on the subject can easily be leveled at FMA supporters. They keep trying to change the subject from "What should we do about gay people" to "judicial activism is destroying our way of life."

    Let's get back to the basic question, and respond accordingly.

    My posts on the Federal Marriage Initiative (which I think should be renamed the "Federal Incidents of Marriage Initiative") can be read here and here.

    posted by Eric at 03:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)




    If you don't think it's a sin, you're worse than the sinners!

    This letter sent by a Christian fundamentalist to Andrew Sullivan raises an issue which has plagued me for years.

    I really enjoyed listening to you on Boston's NPR tonight. After listening to the Christian Coalition spokesman tonight, I write in what I suppose is a defense of Evangelicals -- we're not all like that. I'm 20 years old, a senior at a large (liberal) public university, straight, female, an evangelical christian, a conservative, and a vehement supporter of civil gay marriage. I've been involved in theatre and the arts for most of my life, and have known and loved a number of gays, and seen the war waged on them by the religious right, which is what brings me to this fight anyway...
    I was once walking across campus and found myself trying to navigate between a group of LGBT folks and the Fred Phelps psychos, and I thought "If I have to pick sides here, whose side do I stand on?" and it was without question with the LGBT folks. I'm willing to cede gay marriage because it's practical, and because I dream of the day that gay people don't automatically assume that Christians are out to get them. What Jesus has to offer is for everyone, not just heteros, and in any case, he never sought to change the laws of his culture, he set out to change people. And he hung out with the beautiful people that made the Pharisees uncomfortable. I still have issues with gay marriage in the church (if I thought I could rationalize it with the Bible, I'd support it in a heartbeat, but as much as it kills me, I can't) but as far as I'm concerned, if you want to marry the man you love at the courthouse (or wherever, really), that's fine by me. The amazing thing is that most of my conservative Christian friends agree with me on civil marriage for various reasons. We're not all the Christian Coalition.
    Often I don't know whether people are more upset about the immorality of homosexual conduct, or over the definition of immorality itself (i.e., whether homosexuality is immoral).

    This question is easy enough to pose, but it causes great confusion. If people think that opinions about conduct are worse than the conduct itself, little wonder these arguments go in circles.

    This sounds crazy, and it may even sound frivolous, but I think it goes to the heart of the debate over gay marriage.

    Father John McNeill is a good starting point. A Catholic (Jesuit) priest, he stated publicly that his sexual practices would be homosexual were he to violate his vows. Because he obeyed his vow of celibacy, he was doing nothing wrong except stating an opinion. Yet that opinion brought the man far more trouble than he would have had if he had simply engaged in homosexual acts. Finally, the Vatican ordered him to be silent, and he obeyed, thus ending the problem for the time being. (Eventually, he quit the priesthood.)

    Let us assume for the sake of this discussion that homosexual acts are morally wrong. Even if you believe that to be the case, in logic, how does that make the discussion of whether they are immoral more immoral than the commission of the acts?

    It should not, but in the minds of many of the moralists, it does. In their minds, whether individual homosexuals are celibate is largely irrelevant to the debate. What matters most is whether they believe that homosexuality is immoral. Following out this logic, a heterosexual (or celibate homosexual) who believes that homosexuality is not immoral is morally worse than a practicing homosexual who believes that his homosexuality is immoral.

    The illogic of this can be demonstrated by substituting for homosexuality, something most people can agree is immoral.

    Murder, for instance.

    A non-murderer who believes that murder is not immoral is morally worse than a practicing murderer who believes that murder is immoral.

    Is the churchgoing thug who confesses his murders and feels awful about them really a better person than the law-abiding guy who nonetheless thinks there's nothing wrong with murder?

    Of course not! The murderer is far worse. Society must lock him up or execute him, lest he kill again and again! The murder-tolerant citizen is merely someone holding an opinion with which we disagree. I don't know anyone who would imprison people for the belief that murder is OK.

    If both murder and homosexuality are immoral, then why this difference? Can anyone explain it to me?

    Let's try the same sentence with booze:

    A teetotaler who believes that drinking is not immoral is morally worse than a drinker (let us assume he is not an alcoholic) who believes that drinking is immoral.

    Here we get a mixed result. And why? Because it is not self apparent that the drinker is doing anything wrong. Some people think drinking is immoral, and some don't. But I would be willing to bet that even those who do believe alcohol is immoral would not spend much time worrying about such distinctions. Why? Because drinking is seen as not threatening "society" and certainly opinions about whether it is moral or immoral are not cause for any particular concern.

    With drugs, on the other hand, I am sure there are people who believe that advocates of legalization are worse than drug addicts who want to quit.

    Similar thinking may explain the particular hatred of the recreational drug user -- who is believed to be more immoral than the addict. Again, their logic fails me completely, but I think it has to do with the view that "worse is better" from a (negative) PR perspective. Public opinion is thus more important than individual sin or vice.

    If my theory is correct, then the people who think that opinion is worse than conduct would prefer that homosexuals live "evil" (non-monogamous) lifestyles rather than join the ranks of the boring middle class. (Something promoted by gay marriage as well as civil unions.)

    Thus, in an amazing twist, "niceness" has become worse than "evil"!

    Yet, even if we assume that homosexuality is as evil as murder (er, some people think it's worse) isn't a mass murderer worse than a serial killer? And isn't a serial killer worse than a single-victim murderer?

    To me, it is self apparent in logic that opinion about conduct can never be worse than the conduct itself. (Unless, of course, you're prepared to say that American Communist Party members were worse than Stalin himself, or that members of A.N.S.W.E.R. are worse than Saddam Hussein!)

    But then, I guess I am a hopeless moral relativist!

    MORE: (on opinions versus conduct)

    It occurred to me since I wrote this post that some helpful insight might be gained with reference to the phrase, "the love that dare not spek its name." Oscar Wilde himself denied that the phrase meant homosexuality, but then, he was on trial at the time. Plus, I think his denying the meaning of the phrase might have been a form of irony.

    The point is, no one uses language of unspeakability to describe murder, robbery or rape. In the past, people were convicted and sentenced for the serious felony using ill-defined phrases like "crime against nature." Not that there might not be such a thing as a crime against nature. But pouring mercury into a pristine river would still require a specific statute spelling out the elements of the offense for such conduct to be indictable.

    Might that be why "sodomy" was kept out of the Ten Commandments?

    I am still trying to fathom how it is that opinion can matter more to some people than conduct.

    This post expresses similar sentiments.

    MORE: Eugene Volokh quotes Irving Kristol for the remarkable proposition that mere advocacy (opinion in favor of homosexuality) is not protected by the First Amendment.

    Anyone wishing to read more about homosexuality and the "natural law" (something I touched upon earlier) should read Eugene Volokh's post here, and the opposing position here.

    There seem to be two completely irreconcilable schools of thought, unable even to agree on terminology.

    posted by Eric at 09:13 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)



    Aim true in love!

    Today is not quite Valentine's Day, but it's Friday the Thirteenth (and Online Test Day at Classical Values) I'm, well,

    FEELING LUCKY!

    This first test -- "What Gun Are You? -- gave me a result I can more than live with, a good kick! (Guns and Valentine's Day are an old tradition, of course....)


    Shoy Gun
    What Gun Are You?

    brought to you by Quizilla


    Via Marie at Ordinary Galoot



    Cupid used a bow and arrow, but only because that was the state of the art weaponry in ancient times. Considering that tomorrow is Valentine's Day, if I am Cupid, then Cupid is well armed!

    For Valentine's Day, the next test promises to tell you what love means to you!


    Your a very warm person who wants to be loved for who you are. Love means the world to you but you want it to be right. You have a vision of perfection when it comes to true love.
    Your a very warm person who wants to be loved for
    who you are. Love means the world to you but
    you want it to be right. You have a vision of
    perfection when it comes to true love. Just
    remember, love is always perfect, but people
    never are. You gotta be willing to take the
    good with the bad, just as you want people to
    except that about you.


    What does love mean to you?
    brought to you by Quizilla

    (Via ALLANLINGZ.)

    UPDATE: Whoa, there! I just spotted something I didn't write in the above description, and it worries me, because I think it may be an error, but it can be read three ways.

    Do I really want people to "except that" about me? How do they know I don't want them to expect that? Or maybe even accept that?

    posted by Eric at 06:08 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)




    Slice, dice, and winnow!

    So it's Hillary all along, eh?

    One of the reasons that makes so much sense is that it does not surprise me at all.

    Nor does the fact that Lanny Davis (link via Glenn Reynolds) has come to the defense....

    Skullduggery at high levels once again.

    UPDATE: It also begins to explain why Wesley Clark would first predict the scandal, and then back out of the race so tantalizingly close to when this story broke. The connections between the Clark campaign and the first leak to the blogosphere are kind of hard to ignore, as is the Lehane connection to Clark (Via Daily Pundit.)

    Gives the term "stalking horse" new meaning, I think.

    MORE: Considering everything I have said and heard, I think there is at least a possibility that this scandal is disinformation deliberately fed from Wesley Clark. Why he might do that is even more puzzling. Are they assuming that the blogosphere will pump and sex up a fake story before it's really been verified? Would Kerry then be able to masquerade as a victim (blaming the big bad Karl Rove)?

    I don't know, but for now I think the story's genesis is juicier than its possible merits!


    MORAL CHERRY TREE LESSON: If this story is a fake, the lesson for all those non-blogging peasants who get their news from TV (or maybe a daily newspaper) will be that the Internet is bad, and "the blogosphere is a bunch of hooey":

    What is that whooshing sound that you hear? It is all the hot air escaping from the self-styled "blogosphere."
    (From Tim Blair, via Glenn Reynolds.)

    NO END TO UPDATES: It appears that this story is now local news:

    A global media scrum descended on the Chester County suburb of Malvern yesterday because of a furor over a rumored romantic link between a 1995 Great Valley High School grad and presidential hopeful John Kerry.

    Despite the frenzy, little information was forthcoming yesterday, and there was no confirmation of any relationship between Kerry and the woman.

    Several news trucks and assorted gawkers loitered outside the home of the parents of 27-year-old Alexandra Polier after her dad was quoted in a British tabloid that Kerry was "a sleazeball" who'd shown an interest in his daughter.

    Hey, Malvern is only a half an hour away. Maybe I should drive over there and search for truth!

    posted by Eric at 09:44 PM | TrackBacks (0)



    BBC sets the record straight on Gaddafi's sincere reforms!

    It's tough to know how to interpret a story like this one -- but the BBC thinks that Muammar Gaddafi's feelings -- and his "sincere" reform, are more laudable and creditworthy than attempts by the mean United States to punish him while he tried to be good!

    Why Gaddafi gave up WMD
    By George Joffe
    Centre of International Studies, Cambridge University

    Although President George W Bush has sought to portray Libya's willingness to admit inspectors to examine its programmes of weapons of mass destruction as a success for American policy, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi may well feel that the success is really his.

    Isn't it nice to know that the BBC considers the "feelings" of Colonel Gaddafi to be controlling on these matters?

    What are Gaddafi's feelings, anyway?

    The universal oil and travel sanctions against Libya gave Libyans a sense of isolation that many deeply resented.

    Throughout the 1990s, Libya sought to ease the burden, succeeding only at the end of the decade when it surrendered the two suspects for the Lockerbie bombing for trial in the Netherlands, after Britain had persuaded the US to accept the plan.

    So over the past four years Libya has re-established links with Europe. But unilateral American sanctions remained and those imposed by the UN regime were only suspended, not ended.

    Libya knew that it would have to pay compensation for the Lockerbie affair, renounce terrorism and accept formal responsibility for what had happened.

    Lengthy negotiations over the past year resulted in a compensation settlement three months ago and the end of the international sanctions.

    The US demanded still more, however, before it would end its own sanctions.

    Gee we're so mean!

    But I am relieved nonetheless that the BBC gave credit where credit is due!

    To Gaddafi!

    posted by Eric at 06:57 PM | TrackBacks (0)



    No self censorship!

    For the first time in my short life as a blogger, I gave serious thought to deleting a post. Because that goes completely against my grain, I decided to leave it.

    Let me explain. Yesterday I was so outraged over the "Abolish Incidents of Marriage Amendment" (which is what it should properly be called), that I devoted another long, windbaggy post to the deception involved, and the very serious overreaching of this proposed amendment.

    Even as I wrote it, I kept asking myself "Where's the outrage?" For this is an attack on all unmarried couples -- gay, straight, bi, eccentric -- in short, everyone who lives together without benefit of marriage.

    A good legal argument could be made the that centuries-old legal doctrine of common law marriage would be declared unconstitutional.

    The amendment is simply a grotesque overreaching -- so overbroad as to discredit the ostensible idea of prohibiting merely same sex marriage.

    Now I realize that the gay rights movement should get down on their knees and thank the Amendment's drafters. No wonder they've been mostly silent. Remaining strategically silent now strikes me as the best way to defeat the damned thing. A strategic silence would allow the proponents to rush the thing through the "easy" states, and then and only then have the opponents move in for the kill.

    Hopefully the sane and sober advice (by Eugene Volokh and others) to clean the thing up by removing "ambiguities" will be ignored, and the whole thing will go down in flames.

    Anyway, this blog is not influential enough for me to worry about the possible downside of not keeping silent. And I don't take marching orders from the "gay movement" or any other movement. (I'm glad Andrew Sullivan doesn't either!)

    So yesterday's post stays.

    Otherwise, why blog at all?


    UPDATE: In my last post I mentioned "civil disobedience" (possibly for heterosexuals) as a tactic. Now I see (via Drudge) that the City of San Francisco has beaten everyone else to the punch.

    MORE: Here's the cached Google version of the Alliance for Marriage chart. (I hate it when such things "disappear".....)

    AND MORE!: Definitionitis is spreading!

    Here's the Federal "Y Men Amendment":

    In the United States, a man is defined as a person who is born with a Y chromosome. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to recognize a person without a Y chromosome to be a man.
    (Hilarious comment left by Fritz, at Michael Demmons' Discount Blogger.)

    Well, "Y" not? We must close the chromosomal loophole fast! Otherwise, the chromo homos will try positively anything! Are you now, or have you ever been, a chromosexual?

    posted by Eric at 02:43 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)




    Is it time to BOYCOTT MARRIAGE yet?

    What does the Federal Marriage Amendment say?

    According to this website, the original language restricted marriage to opposite sex couples:

    "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

    That was back in May. Since then, the language seems to have undergone a change.

    The following is the language at the official Alliance for Marriage web site:

    FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (H.J.Res. 56)

    Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

    That is very different. The broad, sweeping language of the Amendment does much more than prohibit same sex marriage.

    Let's take the phrase, "nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

    That means, simply:

    "no state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples"

    In the most literal sense, the plain language could be interpreted as prohibiting all unmarried couples from ever marrying! For if "marital status" is prohibited from being conferred upon unmarried couples, then how might any unmarried couple ever legally marry?

    Certainly the drafters never intended such an absurd result.

    What they obviously meant to say was:

    "no state or federal law shall be construed to require that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups"

    Among other things, the legal incidents of marriage include the right to inheritance, to insurance, to hospital visitation, and possibly even cohabitation! No law passed by any state could ever be construed to confer any of these things, if the dastardly thing passes.

    Note that the AFM's website disingenously claims that "BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH MARRIAGE" would be the "Decision of State Legislature." Sure, the State Legislature could still "decide" to pass laws which might appear to be conferring benefits, but courts would be forbidden to construe them the way they might appear! Thus, any such legislative acts would be legally unconstitutional, and about as meaningful as the pre-Lawrence sodomy laws. (Nice ironic twist, eh? Any wonder these folks are called "hateful"?)

    Note that the text is silent about the sex or sexual orientation of the "unmarried couples." That means, then, all unmarried couples, heterosexual or homosexual!

    As Andrew Sullivan said, these people know what they're doing:

    That language doesn't need to be in there if you're just banning marriage for gays. If you merely wanted to keep the word marriage from gays, you would simply withhold "marital status." But by barring "all the legal incidents" of marriage - in state or federal law - the amendment would render all civil unions and domestic partnerships legally and constitutionally void everywhere in America. The religious right know what they're doing.

    I think the president has made a major mistake in supporting this attempted smear against the Constitution. If it is passed, it will live in infamy.

    As Glenn Reynolds made clear, the future is not with its proponents.


    PUZZLING QUESTION: I couldn't help noticing the date this odious measure was introduced: May 21, 2003.

    Just a coincidence?

    I wonder....

    UPDATE: Eugene Volokh describes (by hypothetical example) how civil union legislation, even though passed by state legislatures, could in fact be nullified by this amendment, and he asks,

    if the amendment is still in the drafting stages, why not modify it to avoid these ambiguities in the first place?
    Why? Because they have already modified it -- not to avoid ambiguities, but to create them!

    posted by Eric at 02:40 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (2)



    Required Reading!

    Carnival of the Vanities is up at On the Third Hand.

    Great posts (my proposal on how to end the Drug War is one of them). I was especially taken by Josh Cohen's scientific analysis of the Kerry stampede, too.

    Read 'em all!

    posted by Eric at 09:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)




    Hanoi Jane, meet Tehran John?

    I just received the following email from BLOG-IRAN:

    Dear Bloggers and Talk Radio Hosts:

    Look at these articles and others that will surely come out. Then be sure to pay close attention to those who contribute money to the Kerry campaign. There are lobbyists (PRO-Islamic Regime) in the US putting tons of money in his pockets as well as other politicians. Remember: Many Iranian groups in the US are on the right side and are with the Iranian people, however - there are some groups who definitely work for the regime and spend millions of dollars in an effort to prolong the Islamic Republic's life and hold 70 million Iranians hostage. The regime is on the verge of collapse - PLEASE WATCH THIS STORY and GET THE WORD OUT!

    Here is Senator Kerry's Debut in the Islamic Criminal Regime's Papers:

    http://www.tehrantimes.com/Detailview.asp?Keyword=Kerry&Da=2/7/2004&Cat=2&Num=6

    Senator Kerry Would Seek Direct Talks With Iran: Adviser

    http://www.tehrantimes.com/Detailview.asp?Keyword=Kerry&Da=2/8/2004&Cat=2&Num=26

    Kerry Says He Will Repair Damage If He Wins Election

    The problem I am having right now is that I cannot get the links to open. Instead, I get the following error message:

    Due to technical problems you can not see TehranTimes at the moment.
    Please try again later.

    Hope its not an FDR coincidence!

    I'll keep checking.

    Surely this has to be a coincidence.

    UPDATE: FALSE ALARM, THANK GOD!

    I just got another email with the correct links:


    Kerry Says He Will Repair Damage If He Wins Election
    http://www.tehrantimes.com/archives/Description.asp?Da=2/8/2004&Cat=2&Num=026


    Senator Kerry Would Seek Direct Talks With Iran: Adviser

    http://www.tehrantimes.com/Detailview.asp?Keyword=Kerry&Da=2/7/2004&Cat=2&Num=6

    (Whew! For a minute there, I thought someone from the Kerry campaign was trying to hide something....)


    With an endorsement from the Tehran Times, how can Kerry lose?


    ________________________________

    (It's not polite to point.)

    thepoint.jpg

    posted by Eric at 09:52 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)



    Are you sick of Vietnam yet?

    Glenn Reynolds has written a column about Kerry and the Jane Fonda problem. Many bloggers will be posting and posting and posting.

    I really don't want to write about this at all, for a variety of reasons. But what the hell; it's a big issue, whether I like it or not.

    Yet another election is going to be about Vietnam.

    Well, I am sick to death of Vietnam!

    I am more sick of Vietnam than I am of Kerry, even. And that man promises to turn this election into a referendum on the morality of Vietnam.

    It will be divisive and ugly.

    For what it's worth, here's why I'm sick of Vietnam. I grew up with Vietnam on television, day after day after day. I saw the modern machinery of big media cut their teeth on Vietnam War coverage. Many of today's media titans were reporters during that war. Most of them were on the anti-war side.

    I saw the Vietnam War manipulated by innumerable activists -- to the point where everyone was hounded by slogans like

    "You're either part of the solution or part of the problem!"

    Opposition to the war in Vietnam was more than an opinion in those days. It came to be a big dividing line in the culture.

    One of the things I noticed early on was how tough it was to tell whether most of the antiwar activists were against the war out of genuine conviction (either that all war was wrong, or this war was wrong) or whether they were motivated by personal concerns and took on the antiwar stance as a sort of cover.

    What do I mean by that?

    Back in those days, the country had this thing called the draft. Most of the time, it took the form of avuncular General Hershey, who oversaw what was called the Selective Service System. The draft lent itself to endless mini-corruptions of the soul -- chiefly by a system of "deferments." If you were in college, you'd get a deferment. If you stayed on through graduate school, you'd get another deferment. A lengthy, drawn-out process that turned many a young man into a cringing wimp.

    Under this system there were only two ways to avoid becoming a wimp: military service (of whatever variety might be available) or becoming a ferocious anti-war radical.

    Many of the war protesters were really involved in the protests to prove their manhood. Failing that, they were at least covering up their cowardice. They weren't shirking a war because they didn't want to go! Why, they had principles!

    All of these guys (those who served and those who shirked) are now middle aged men, in the prime income-earning years of their lives. What do they think? Is there still animosity between those who served and those who didn't?

    How much self-righteous anger and indignation can be summoned?

    Enough to win or lose an election? Enough to favor Bush or Kerry?

    Both men served, but each had a different message about the war -- and each one will try to spin his version to these middle aged men from both camps.

    I have no idea how it might play out, nor do I know how the rest of the country might feel.

    I'm from the post-draft (er, "new, improved draft") generation. For men born after 1953 (a key dividing line in the Boomer generation, by the way), a lottery system replaced the draft. It was a good idea, really. Instead of the never-never land of endless deferments (and classifying nearly everyone else 1-A), the new system was swift and certain. Each day of the year was assigned a number, and numbers would be called from lowest to highest. Depending on what number your date of birth drew, you knew the odds, because by the time I was eligible, they were only calling the first 100 or so numbers. When my birthday drew number 318, I knew that I simply would not be drafted.

    Besides, when I turned eighteen it was 1972, and the war had been pretty much settled by a now-long-forgotten (but then soon-to-be-signed) peace treaty.

    Yes! There was peace in Vietnam, and the treaty's drafters, Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, were each awarded a Nobel Prize. (1973)

    Nixon intended for the peace to hold, and he had bombed the shit out of North Vietnam to the point where they really couldn't stand it anymore. They knew that despite Nixon's "Vietnamization," and "peace with honor" plan, he wouldn't hesitate to send the B52s right back if there'd been any trouble.

    Fortunately for North Vietnam, a thing called Watergate intervened.

    At least this election isn't about Watergate.

    (I heard a lot about that too.)


    UPDATE: Reading over this post (I edit by reading the blog because Movable Type is too uncooperative), I was struck by the way my lottery number -- 318 -- leaped from my memory as I wrote, when I hadn't thought about it in years.

    I guess that war really did a number on people.

    Would I have been "different" had I drawn a low number and had to contend with the draft? Would it have made me a better person to have been forced to serve? Or would it have been better to have molded myself into a "principled" antiwar activist motivated mainly by indignantly denied cowardice?

    I'll never know -- any more than I'll know what it would have been like to be uncircumcised.

    posted by Eric at 08:39 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)



    Buckle up for safety!

    As part of what I see as my ongoing duty to report the latest in belt-tightening news; here is a TRUE story involving airport security and private morality:

    ATHENS (AFP) - When a 40-year old British woman set off a metal detector alarm at Athens airport, bemused security staff found that it was caused by a chastity belt she was wearing.

    "It happened a few days before Christmas. The metal detector went off and after a further check we found out she was wearing a chastity belt," airport police official Dimitris Tzouvaras told AFP, confirming a report in the daily newspaper To Vima.

    "The woman was allowed to fly on to London on the pilot's responsibility," Tzouvaras added Friday.

    According to the press report, the woman told police officers her husband had forced her to put on the belt to make sure she had no extra-marital affair during a brief visit to Greece.

    Tzouvaras did not comment on that report.

    Not a new topic here at Classical Values! In an earlier post, I reported problems a friend was having when he contemplated a chastity belt purchase on ebay, and my advice to him. (I ended up siding with -- gasp! -- traditional values!)

    Now that I see such a strict traditional idea being revived, I have no choice but to comment on it. In my view, virtues such as chastity should be freely chosen. This woman had every right to wear a chastity belt, just as drivers have every right to wear seat belts.

    No moral equivalency argument here of course; driving is much more dangerous than sex!

    posted by Eric at 03:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)



    Burn baby burn!

    This week's Bonfire of the Vanities is hosted by Josh Cohen. A sci-fi nerdy type, Josh has a pretty good post of his own about his latest Trek incarnation, and I enjoyed his treatment of "What to Say When a Girl Wants to Put Something in Your Butt." (You learn the strangest things in the blogosphere!)

    Check 'em all out!

    posted by Eric at 09:22 AM | TrackBacks (1)




    State subsidization of public immorality? In zoos?

    Nature is shocking!

    At least, according to the New York Times, nature shocks people when the subject is natural homosexuality. So goes this discussion of homosexual behavior in a pair of penguins named Roy and Silo:

    Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

    This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them "animalistic."

    But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?

    The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. "There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it," said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape" (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly.

    Before his own book, "American scientists who investigated bonobos never discussed sex at all," said Mr. de Waal, director of the Living Links Center of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta.

    There's a lot more, and it is worth reading -- especially for the skeptics who refuse to believe that any animal would engage in a form of perversion so foul that only humans in the hell-bent modern world would consider it "natural."

    I am not sure that morality is the issue here, so much as honesty.

    Depending on who does the defining, nature may well be said to be "immoral", but it can hardly be said to be "unnatural."

    What has not been documented among animals is prejudice against homosexuality. Is it known to occur in nature?

    I guess that depends on who gets to define "nature."

    I take back everything I said! These animals must be made aware of natural law! Someone, quick! Get to work fast to stop depravity in our nation's zoos. These animals are acting in clear defiance of "God's warnings." They are committing crimes against nature!

    Don't they know that they are in clear violation of the "laws of nature and of nature's god"?

    Isn't there a way to educate them about what nature commands?

    Maybe Fred Phelps can put up one of his plaques in front of the penguin exhibit.

    I guess that in the days of ancient Greece and Rome, nature hadn't been invented yet. Where were Phelps and his buddies when civilization needed them?


    (Link to penguin story courtesy of a friend whose business is hotter than Hell.)


    UPDATE: Eugene Volokh (via Glenn Reynolds) offers a serious answer to Jerry Falwell's (and others') nonsense argument that the immorality of homosexuality is proven by its nonexistence in animals:

    ...[S]ince people have made the "animals don't do it, so it's unnatural, and so it's evil" argument -- and, to my knowledge, continue doing so -- it seems quite right to point out that the argument is wrong not just in one way, but in two. First, as the reader writes, what animals do or do not do is no guide for how humans should act. But second, as a factual matter, homosexuality isn't something done only by man, who fell in the Garden of Eden -- it's something that other animals do, too.
    Hey, maybe we "fell" in the Garden of Eden. But wasn't that the snake's fault?

    MORE: Justin Case has called my attention to a book titled Biological Exuberance which explores such animal behavior in detail. Haven't searched Amazon.com for it yet, so I don't know the publisher.

    Penguin Classic, perhaps?

    LinuxPenguin.gif

    (I certainly hope Linux fans will take no offense....)

    posted by Eric at 05:36 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)



    No more Afghanistans?

    The "war against terrorism" has turned into a seemingly hopeless dispute over whether Bush lied. Whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is being presented as the grand national question. If no WMD, then "Bush lied," the war is illegitimate, and Americans died for absolutely no reason at all.

    Bush's interview with Tim Russert has been widely dissected in the blogosphere. Typical analysis here. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

    Yet the big news -- reported only with the greatest reluctance -- is the al Qaida connection with Iraq. Central to that debate is whether or not they were there when Saddam Hussein was alive, or have filtered in since.

    In order to accept the view that Iraq has been invaded by al Qaeda since (and, I guess, because of) the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein, one has to see Saddam Hussein as the guy who kept them out. For whatever reason. This strains credulity (and I have presented evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion), but for the sake of argument let us assume it is true.

    That means that al Qaida is now in Iraq in order to fight and kill Americans. Otherwise, why would they have gone in?

    When was the last time Americans were reminded of Afghanistan? I can't help notice that there hasn't been much talk of Afghanistan in the news lately. Might that be because the public support of that phase of the war was strong? Might another reason be that it is harder to present as a quagmire? Originally, Afghanistan was seen as home to Al Qaida and bin Laden. And the deal (as announced by Bush) was supposed to be, wherever you guys are, we'll go in and get you!

    (In case anyone has forgotten, that's because al Qaida carried out the September 11 attacks, which is why we went to war!)

    Iraq has been spun as many things. "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" "No Weapons of Mass Destruction Found!" "Bush lied! people died!"

    Vietnam (of course) is the latest. Kerry is the current high priest of the cult of no-more-Vietnams.

    But it's looking more and more like Afghanistan to me.

    And, as this blogger says, it's good enough to be a "campaign commercial for Bush":

    Picture of Zarqawi [Iraqi al Qaida op] - text: "By God, this is suffocation!"

    Announcer: "The War on Terror...it's working".


    Is Bush playing dumb?

    posted by Eric at 03:24 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)




    A pique inside a crack!

    A Labradoodle pup (named "Cookie") showed up in my yard on a very cold day. Cookie refused to leave, and this was what she looked like, shivering in the cold:

    cookie.jpg

    Somewhat irresistible. So I let Puff out for a closer look:

    PuffCookie2.jpgPuffCookie.jpg
    While this was going on, I noticed that Molly the Jack Russell Terrorist was having a conniption fit just inside the front door. I could not dare let her out, because she hates all animals even though for reasons best known to her she allows Puff to live -- albeit in a terrorized state. (She is all of fifteen pounds, to Puff's fifty seven, and she is female, leaving the good-natured Puff at a serious disadvantage.)

    But I couldn't resist snapping a photo of as much as I dared without letting her out. Opening the door just a crack was enough to display her warmth and charm.

    MollyBares.jpg

    I did not raise Molly; I inherited her.

    She allows me to live here, on probation.

    posted by Eric at 11:19 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (2)



    If Bush is Hitler, then Perle and Frum are BLACK METAL!

    Now that the Black Metal movement has been analogized to Richard Perle and David Frum (see this for more "depth"), I think a little common sense is in order. (Link via Glenn Reynolds.)

    The Norwegian Black Metal movement is now over ten years old. A number of its original proponents are either dead or in prison, and while it has been repeatedly analyzed as a musical phenomenon, most serious students of rock history agree that Black Sabbath was its progenitor. Frankly, aside from its obviously contrived Satan-Hitler-Evil shock value (read this interview with the late Euronymous to get a feel for the latter), Black Metal strikes me as tired and unoriginal. An adolescent mass-nightmare till the fans all overdose, kill each other, or grow up.

    But not so fast!

    Black Metal has now been infused with new political life, by means of one of the most strained analogies I have ever seen.

    Why, it's so Nazi, it's positively Bush!

    A sample:

    Black Metalists saw heathen Norway in a life-or-death struggle for existence with the Semitic tribes’ Judeo-Christianity, Perle and Frum see Judeo-Christian America under threat from Islam. And both have the same solution: War, dude!

    To be fair, Vikernes and another Black Metalist murderer, Hendrik Mobus, come off as far more interesting, intellectual and complex with their second-rate Nietzschean ideas mixed up with D&D mythology, whereas Perle and Frum’s war manifesto is surprisingly dull and sparse. Indeed, on each page the words are spaced so far apart you could drive a fertilizer-packed white van between each line. I read it in one sitting and came away with only one memorable line, in which they disparagingly called Belgium "France’s pilot fish." On the other hand, Perle and Frum have used their influence over Bush to rack up a far, far higher corpse-count than the hapless Norwegian dirtheads, so they more than make up for their lack of aesthetic flair or stylized corpse paint with genuine blood on their hands.

    Indeed, every sad word of An End to Evil oozes Perle’s and Frum’s pained, wasted 60s youths: wasted in yellow sheet stains, wasted studying maps color-coded with spheres-of-influence, wasted memorizing German armaments, and college years wasted playing Risk in their dorms while the socially successful hippies frolicked and fucked all around them. Perle and Frum will never forgive America for this humiliation and therefore they want to egg it on to its suicide by prodding it into a multi-front apocalyptic world war.

    Their Black Metal plan is simple: Push North Korea to the brink and China right along with it; set the path for war against Iran; foment a Shiite independence movement in oil-rich eastern Saudi Arabia; kick Russia out of the G-8; invade Syria and Lebanon, while pushing Israel to turn the heat up even further on the Palestinians; and lastly, openly declare our hostility to the European Union, even if it means making enemies of France and Germany.

    This raises another interesting question: Should Black Metalists cut their hair and vote Bush-Cheney ’04? Dude, I think the answer’s pretty fuckin’ obvious. In fact, thanks to these guys, America has become the world’s first Black Metal Nation.

    So says Mark Ames.

    Why Black Metal? Wouldn't the Ku Klux Klan have served equally well?

    Or do you supposed Ames is trying to shame the South Park Republicans?

    An "exile" living in Russia before his current stint, Ames clearly enjoys the politics of shame. In this earlier "twofer" piece ( in which Israeli officials are "racist freaks" who resort to "ethnic cleansing"), Ames condemns Israel -- a dreadful place Ames into which he warns the United States is degenerating:

    I remember the first time I went to Israel how surprised I was by the lack of enthusiasm most of the young Israelis I met had for Israel. They were tired of war, tired of isolation. They wanted to lead normal lives, not to be pariahs of the world. That was in 1991, during the first Intifadah. The salad days by comparison. When I returned to Israel last May, the deterioration was incredible. Now the Israelis barely venture outside of their homes. They live in a constant state of siege. Moreover, they have lost all moral legitimacy in the eyes of basically every country on earth except for America. Most of the world views them as something between an apartheid regime and the Gestapo, the very inverse of everything Israel was supposed to stand for. Israelis and their supporters defensively label their critics anti-Semites; the isolation is furthered, the positions even more hardened.

    Wherever you stand on the issue, if there's one thing America does not and should not want to become it's Israel. Isolated, loathed, fearful, under siege...

    "America’s descent has just begun" concludes Ames grimly.

    You have to admire the man's consistency, and his dedication to the principle of America's "descent." First, we were following the Israelis to our doom. Now it's the Black Metal Nazis.

    While Ames is too slick to play the tired game of calling Bush Hitler (and he certainly can't directly compare Israel to the Nazis) I suspect he'd like to do both.

    Hence the very strained analogy.

    And like Black Metal itself, the analogy is as evil as it is lame (or maybe as lame as it is evil.)




    (ADDITIONAL READING for anyone who is interested....)


    I don't want to burden readers with a long "exposé" of Black Metal history, but
    here's a pretty good summary of links from a San Francisco Museum of Modern Art site.

    On Nazi connection to Black Metal:

    Whilst overtly racist or fascist sentiments are far from the norm within the Black Metal and wider Extreme Metal genre and the intolerance of such beliefs within the Metal industry in general has been clearly illustrated on many occasions, it cannot be said that those who are open and committed to extreme right-wing beliefs have not gained attention and some support through the controversial iconography and discourse they have used.

    On the tiredness of Black Metal:

    Though most bands who attach themselves to the label of 'national socialist' pledge allegiance to no particular group or organization, it is worth noting that such, if any, of these organizations a few and far between, and have become more of an enigma than the image portrayed by the bands. One can even go so far as to say that the trend is dead. It's true: there are a number of bands that label themselves as national socialist, but it is rare to find one that can actually base their political stance on any tangible evidence or theory; it's mostly just hype. Some say the hype died the day that Varg Vikernes - the founder and lone member of the Black Metal/Avantgarde band BURZUM - decided to step away from the national socialist approach and embrace a more mystic path dictated by myth and folklore, while others believe that the sub-genre never existed in the first place.


    Discussed as hype by Cradle of Filth drummer:

    Barker sees the current worldwide popularity of black metal as a part of a cyclical process. "It's the way scenes come and go. The death metal thing got big at the end of the 80s and the first three years of the 90s. Then that died out, and the black metal thing started happening. Now, especially in Europe, the black metal thing is saturated, exactly how the death metal scene became, and the old-style thrash thing and old-school metal seems to be getting quite popular in like a full cycle, and people are starting to appreciate the old stuff more. You listen to bands from Europe, and they're trying to copy Venom."

    While Venom is in many ways the progenitor of modern British black metal, it was the genre's transit to Scandinavia that poured a black shadow over the musical style. The 1993 murder of Euronymous, a key figure in the Norwegian metal underground, by the self-styled "Count Grishnackh," brought nationwide attention to a music scene that reveled in pagan history, virulent anti-Christian activism and bloodthirsty lore of Viking times.

    It's not an attitude Cradle of Filth are eager to be associated with. Said Barker of Scandinavian black metal: "We're kind of keeping away from it. There's a lot of bullshit behind it all, a lot of false pretense. A lot of them go for this white supremecy neo thing, which we're not really into. We're British. We're not a part of that. We sound different, we look different, and we're treated a bit as an outsider anyway. You get a lot of people from Scandinavia talking shit about us-bands like Satyricon, Marduk... just talking bullshit-like they're the real black metal, and when they see us, they're going to have a fight with us. You know, playground stuff. They're just bags of hot air. We played in Norway in December, and nobody showed up. These big hard guys who talk shit about us whimped out at the last minute."

    A few more links:

    National Socialism And Metal: Has The Trend Been Killed?

    Evolution of Black Metal.

    Murder of Euronymous

    Zzzzzzzz........

    posted by Eric at 07:14 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (2)



    At war? With religion?

    Another thought about Balkanization and the division between communitarianism and libertarianism.

    What about war?

    What about religion?

    Neither fits neatly into the communitarian or the libertarian scheme of things....

    And what worries me most of all is that war and religion are increasingly becoming synonymous. (In that regard at least, "Balkanization" is no overstatement.)

    posted by Eric at 05:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)




    Fundamentalists plus feminists = Family Fascism?

    A comment from Randall Parker to my earlier post (inspired by his discussion of marriage drugs) has encouraged me to explore further the issue of entanglement between marriage and state.

    The history of marriage (and divorce) in the United States seems hopelessly intertwined with earlier religious law, and its later enforcement by secular authority:

    Before 1857 in Britain, divorce and freedom to remarry could be obtained only by an act of Parliament following a separation decree given by an ecclesiastical court on the basis of some wrong (such as adultery or abandonment) done by the defendant to the plaintiff. This system, based on the premise that valid marriages may not be dissolved, reflected the Roman Catholic origins of English domestic-relations law.

    The early American colonists brought this fault-based divorce system with them to the New World. Because they feared the moral dangers posed by a married yet separated state, they made it possible to obtain an absolute divorce, but only on the traditional English grounds for separation. Basically, however, the conceptual and legal structure of the marriage-dissolution system remained as it had been created and maintained for a divorceless society.

    Ecclesiastical courts were abolished in Britain in 1857, and absolute divorce was then instituted. Incorporated into the law of absolute divorce were the fault-based notions that had grown up around separation. These notions continued to affect British and American divorce law and administration for more than a century.

    What happened was that government took over an area once occupied by religion without much debate over whether that was an appropriate zone for government to occupy. More disturbingly, even if divorce was once the sole province of religious law, what gave the government the right to take over a religious matter? How did a personal contract between two people (and whatever version of god they worshiped) become the government's prerogative?

    Since then, something called "Family Law" has, in my opinion, metastasized to the point where people are afraid to marry.

    Yet as Matt Welch made clear in a recent Reason article, there is no escape from the long arm of Family Fascism. Even if you have never married or fathered any children, if you are a man, you can be summarily ruined for life without ever being personally served with process -- all because some bureaucrat enters your name into a government computer.

    [W]hen the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn’t, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop -- even, in most cases, if there’s conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child’s father. (via Glenn Reynolds.)
    And now, the goal of many people is to bring the federal government into the realm of "family law."

    A former family practitioner, Venomous Kate, discusses how the "family law" system works in practice:

    After handling over 400 divorces, at least half of which involved children, and half as many child custody cases throughout the early years of my law practice, I have very, very little respect for family court judges. For the most part, I represented fathers because I was sick of seeing men screwed over by the legal system, their relationships with their children destroyed and their incomes devastated by women who knew how to work the system. Time and again I watched one-sided custodial determinations justified by something as morally irrelevant as whether dad allowed his toddler to play "boxing" with one of those inflatable clown toys that bounce back when knocked over or whether he let his pre-teen daughter watch PG-13 movies at his house - with him in the room - even though Mom thought that was inappropriate.

    I submit that most rational men (and many women too) who read the above would think twice before ever putting themselves in a position where it could happen to them.

    Most little boys these days grow up seeing pictures of "deadbeat dads" on the walls of post offices (where bank robbers used to be).

    Would you want to grow up and be wanted?

    As this historical summary shows, during the 20th Century, "family law" in the United States consisted largely of a battleground between moral conservatives and feminists. The former had (and still have) the goal of decreasing the divorce rate, while the latter seek to elevate the status of women.

    Might we have ended up with the worst of both worlds? It has long been my theory that when two sides battle it out, you don't end up with "either/or" -- but you end up with a mixture of both. Unfortunately, because of the unfortunate tendency of activists to dominate politics, the reasonable people -- the people with too much common sense to get involved in no-win shouting matches with activists but who are the most affected by the result -- are never heard from.

    Furthermore, the evidence shows that as the activists battled it out, the marriage rate declined:

    Americans are less likely to marry than ever before, according to a new study, and fewer people who do marry report being "very happy" in their marriages.

    The report, released yesterday by Rutgers University's National Marriage Project and touted as a benchmark compilation of statistics and surveys, found that the nation's marriage rate has dipped by 43 percent in the past four decades -- from 87.5 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women in 1960 to 49.7 marriages in 1996 -- leaving it at its lowest point in recorded history.

    The percentage of married people who reported being "very happy" in their marriages fell from 53.5 in 1973-76 to 37.8 in 1996.

    Even the word "marriage" has become as much the property of nutcase activists as the word "family." Is it any wonder people are scared away?

    I submit that moral conservatism plus feminism is a bad mix. Throw into that hopper the demands of gay activists that they too have the "right" to be included in the "Family Fascism " equation -- plus the demands of moral conservatives that same sex couples be written out of the Constitution -- and the question of whether marriage is a political act looms ever larger. Is this good?

    I am still puzzled over how something that ought to be the business of two people ever became an "institution" in the first place, but I think it's way out of hand. I can't prove that the declining marriage rate is related to all of this, but common sense suggests to me that it is.

    A number of my friends are happily married. But others (both heterosexual and homosexual) consider "marriage" and "family" to be hot-button language. It's almost like the gun issue.

    I think there are still people who would enjoy being married, but who fear the institution because they fear the government.

    (But I also know people who'd love to have a gun, but fear guns because they don't want the government to know they have one.)


    UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan wonders why the New York Times mischaracterizes the most radical version of the so-called "Marriage Initiative" as the "moderate" measure, and assumes the Times must not have read the following text:

    Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
    As Sullivan correctly notes, this measure would do far more than prohibit same sex marriage; it would outlaw all domestic partner or other legal arrangements, whether heterosexual or homosexual, if they confer the "legal incidents" of marriage!

    Talk about federalizing marriage! (And these people call themselves "conservative"?)

    One might wonder why the New York Times is helping along such a radical measure by calling it moderate. Sullivan, quite charitably, attributes the misreporting to ignorance.

    There's them that laughs, but knows better.......

    posted by Eric at 02:41 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (1)




    Only YOU can prevent blogicide!

    I am always sorry to see a blog die, but John Jenkins now says he is bored, and has retitled his blog "ALL GONE NOW."

    Reason?

    "I'm bored."

    I'll miss you John, so I won't say rest in peace! Perhaps your restlessness and boredom will cause you to change your mind, and perhaps you can reincarnate yourself.

    David at Sketches of Strain almost did the same thing, but fortunately was resurrected.

    Of course, David is now BORN AGAIN and has a brand new home. Go check it out if you haven't already.

    And I hate to dwell on omens, but by way of warning I do feel obligated to point out an ominous, even hellish, development. David has uncovered a Gay Reign of Terror in the making! This truly sadistic proposal comes from a talented blogger named Fritz, and while it is intended (for now, at least) to stop the Marriage Amendment, once started, something like this could easily get out of hand:

    National Bad Hair Days

    Imagine what would happen if every gay hairdresser in the country secretly selected certain days on which to give all of their straight clients the worst haircuts they’ve ever had in their lives.

    That’s right! Millions of women would be coming home to their husbands and boyfriends in tears. They would be in a bad mood for weeks while waiting for the bad haircut to grow out. Millions of men would be forced to wear baseball caps 24/7 or, in the worst cases, shave their heads like Matt Lauer.

    And, just when everyone begins to believe the worst is over, another Bad Hair Day will claim a new set of victims. Straight people will be forced to either take their chances with their regular stylists or wait months for an appointment with the few heterosexual hairdressers in town.

    Of course, those clients who are openly gay-friendly will continue to receive great haircuts. Anti-gay politicians and church leaders will soon realize that for them EVERY day is a Bad Hair Day. They will never get a decent haircut again.

    Now come on, John. Don't tell me the threat of terrorism at your local hair stylist is boring! Why, it's positively hair-raising! Just TAKE A LOOK at the pictures of the atrocities Fritz has in mind! I am reminded of a 1970s National Lampoon cartoon featuring John Wayne's Eternal Punishment in Hell: having make-up applied and his hair endlessly styled by a flaming, horned, hairdresser, whose name -- stenciled on his outfit -- read "Mr. Fritz, of Hell!" I am deadly serious and I remember the cartoon well.

    A word to the wise....

    I have condemned blogicide repeatedly, and I wish I could prevent it!

    Please.

    Bad as boredom is, don't take this terrible step into the yawning abyss!

    posted by Eric at 11:56 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)



    Sister of the Psychotic Annunciation

    Well, just because it's late Friday doesn't mean that I forgot it was Online Test Day at Classical Values.

    My mood fits this first test -- "What Type of Lunatic are You?" -- beautifully. Complete loony tune! And I like the classic look too!

     Congratulations! you're a Complete Psycho!
    'Complete Psycho' PLEASE VOTE!!!


    What Type of Lunatic are You?
    brought to you by Quizilla

    Test courtesy of Ordinary Galoot.




    As a nice study in contrast, Ordinary Galoot also featured the next test, "Which Angel would you be?"

    I am the angel of Annunciation!


    Which Angel would you be?
    By
    Angel




    Now, it goes without saying that any self-respecting angel of annunciation ought to have something to announce, right? Only from Ghost of a flea could I discover which 1980s rock band I am.

    I hereby announce that I am Twisted Sister!

    twistedsister.jpg
    Ooooh. You're SO BAD. and you don't want to take
    shit from anyone. Unfortunately for you,
    you're going to have to, because your image
    isn't so much tough as it is hilarious.


    What band from the 80s are you?
    brought to you by Quizilla

    Well? What else could a completely psychotic angel of the annunciation possibly announce?

    Eminently reasonable.

    posted by Eric at 08:59 PM | TrackBacks (0)



    Slippery pseudopath....

    I am being persecuted again!

    That mean Hesiod guy keeps calling me a pseudo-libertarian, and now, a phony! What's more, he says I keep whining about it -- and pathetically at that!

    And, lame phony that I am, all I can do now is whine about it some more.

    I am not particularly hung up over whether I am a libertarian or not, but as I said in my comment, my curiosity will not let me leave this alone.

    Much as I hate labels, sometimes it is helpful to be able to clue people in (at least in the general sense) about your political philosophy. The reason I call myself a libertarian is not because I am trying to "be" a libertarian. I hate all "isms" and refuse to limit myself by stating that everything I think or say can be looked up and measured with reference to any political philosophy or ideology. It's just that of all the terms floating around out there, "libertarian" comes closer to approximating my general way of thinking than the more generally accepted terms like "liberal" or "conservative."

    And every time I take one of those "smallest political quiz" type tests, I get results like this:

    lpchart.gif

    I don't think I am alone in being "liberal" on social issues and "conservative" on economic issues. However, if I call myself a "conservative" I find myself denounced as not a "real" conservative by those who see themselves as the true and righteous upholders of that word.

    Ditto for "liberal."

    There are people who claim to be arbiters of "libertarian" truth and righteousness who as a standard tactic of winning arguments, will say that anyone who does not agree with them is not a "real" "libertarian."

    Obviously the easy thing to do would be to simply concede the point and state that I am not a libertarian. The problem with that is what to do about people (both liberal and conservative) who call me a libertarian because I don't agree with them!

    So what does that make me?

    A man without a label?

    Is not having a label necessarily a bad thing?

    I have taken several political compass tests which all put me solidly in the libertarian camp. Is it "phony" to point that out?

    This reminds me of the whole "gay" deal. I use that label too. After all, I can't call myself a heterosexual because the true and righteous heterosexuals would scream that anyone who's had long-term relationships with lovers of his own sex is not a heterosexual. Yet if I call myself homosexual, I run into trouble sometimes when I admit to attraction to members of the opposite sex -- or when I disagree with people who think that if you are a homosexual you have to be a socialist because the gay movement is part of the left and since the right hates you then you have to embrace socialism. (Tough to follow, but that's the way activists think; see my previous post about Michelangelo Signorile's attacks on Andrew Sullivan and others.)

    Likewise, "bisexuals" are said not to exist. They are also "phony." (Never mind what Freud and others have said about bisexuality being a universal human condition!) The word "bisexual" means even more trouble. And endless quibbling. With the gay equivalent of Libertarian Ideological Enforcers (who believe all bisexuals are homosexual) and with self-appointed heterosexual spokespeople (who also believe all bisexuals are homosexual). (See my previous post in which I attempted to grapple with this, with limited success.)

    Therefore, I call myself "gay" because it is a handle which is easy to relate to, and something which is often used as a personal attack by those who hate homosexuals. If I were to attempt to to hide or deny my homosexual feelings, people who learned about them (both pro or anti-homosexual) would try to shame me: one side by saying that I am in the closet, and the other by saying I should be ashamed either way. Because I have no sexual shame at all, it is easy for me to acknowledge these feelings, and thus face attempted shaming -- by the anti-homosexual crowd -- for the homosexuality. They have no business shaming anyone for this. Gay activists may accuse me of not being sufficiently "gay" for their tastes, but it's rather tough to be accused of being closeted about that which you freely admit. (Windows for closets?) So, "gay" is an easy default sort of label for me. I lost twenty friends, including three lovers, and there's also an element of respect for them involved in this.

    I can't be pseudo-gay, can I? Maybe I can; this stuff all depends on which ax the accuser happens to be grinding.

    In any case, I don't see why I have to hold myself accountable to anyone for my sexuality, or be told what I should think because of what I might f*ck.

    Why should politics be any different?

    Anyway, I stand accused of ideological impurity! And to an ideology to which I never subscribed!

    For someone wholly opposed to ideologues and ideological purity, I should be flattered.

    Still, it's all a no-win -- and a slippery, icy, path.

    icepath.jpg

    That photograph was just taken in front of my house. It is a path.

    But doesn't it look more like a frozen river?


    UPDATE: Another fascinating post by Frederick Turner explores the emergence of a new split in American politics: communitarianism versus libertarianism. Turner elaborates:

    ....perhaps we could say that in the intellectual absence of the left, an inherent rift in the right is becoming the new locus of debate, and the remnants of the left are having to choose one side or the other.
    I am inclined to agree with Mr. Turner. But this only worsens my plight! For I know that I am not a communitarian! (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

    ANOTHER TIDBIT: Dave Tepper notes that except for a little thing called slavery, the Confederacy was libertarian....

    MORE: This thoughtful discussion (via Glenn Reynolds) of "Balkanization" in the blogosphere provides much food for thought, not so much on the debate over "what is a libertarian?" -- but on the wisdom of associating solely with those who agree with you. I continue to adhere to a policy of linking even to blogs whose philosophy repels me. So today, I even placed a link to Hesiod, despite what I consider his less-than-laudable ad hominem approach.

    Don't get me wrong here; I am not a practitioner of turn-the-other-cheek. Nor is my policy one of "insult me and get a link!" It's just that on right-to-disagree matters, I am a bit of an extremist.

    (Possibly even a nut.)

    posted by Eric at 04:37 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)



    Is that a cell phone in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

    Just found an incredibly cool video link of a cellphone gun in action. (Link to Gizmodo via Glenn Reynolds.)

    Looks like it holds four rounds, .25 caliber automatic.

    I can just see it now.....

    Guy goes to doctor with two .25 caliber gunshot wounds in his head. (Yeah, you could still theoretically be walking and talking after being shot with a .25....)

    "How did this happen?" asks the doc.

    "Well, I forgot I was carrying my cellphone gun, and then when I heard a phone ring I tried to answer it and I got shot in the head!"

    "But what about the second shot?" the doctor asks incredulously.

    "I hung up, and it rang again!"

    posted by Eric at 12:03 PM | TrackBacks (4)




    A lifetime supply of whatever -- whenever....

    Hey, first it was mice producing monkey sperm, and now, thanks to Justin Case, I find that scientists have engineered mice that produce fish oil -- and we could too:

    Genetic engineering has turned mice into a source of healthy omega-3 fat and could let humans produce it themselves.

    Investigating a novel way to increase omega-3 fatty acid consumption, researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston have developed a strain of mice that can convert omega-6 fatty acids into omega-3s.

    Usually mammals cannot produce omega-3s from the more abundant omega-6 fatty acids, which do not have the health benefits of omega-3s.

    Seeing that there's no apparent limit to what could theoretically produce what, I want to return to a favorite theme: the damned Drug War.

    What fuels the Drug War, in my opinion, are the absurd prices people are willing to pay for otherwise worthless, commonly available substances -- simply because they are illegal in this country, and have to be imported at great risk from the Third World. (Or, like OxyContin, manufactured for pennies, then resold on the blackmarket for small fortunes.)

    Anyone ever heard of a real grow-your-own campaign? While it is no more in the interest of drug cartels than it is the DEA to do such a thing, I see no reason why some anonymous visionary somewhere might not be able to graft the morphine-producing gene from Papaver somniferum into, say E. coli.

    Or even common yeast! (Or the whatever-producing-gene into whatever....)

    That way, the addict could brew up his own fix in a pitcher of sugar water in the kitchen, leaving a little bit of the Morph-a-Yeast at the bottom, so that he can add a little more sugar and water (nutrient agar or other medium in the case of E. coli), and have tomorrow's batch ready overnight.

    I can't think of a better way to take the money out of the drug market.

    No money for criminals.

    An impossible situation for law enforcement.

    In short, a utopia!


    And, because the genes only involve plants (and possibly the lowest forms of animal life), no mice need be killed.


    UPDATE: Albert Einstein observed (speaking of Prohibition in 1921) that

    The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.
    That was 1921. Today the phrase "prestige of government" would bring laughter. While it is naive today to imagine that the government will ever stop passing laws which cannot be enforced, what I propose would make drug laws not only unenforceable, but unprofitable.

    No money for anyone!

    Why fight a "war" over a worthless substance?


    MORE: The creation of an unlimited free supply of drugs would also have the beneficial side effect of fighting terrorism. As this report shows, illegal drugs are a major source of funding for groups like the Taliban and al Qaida.

    What galled me in the above report was this Orwellian statement:

    "Fighting drug trafficking equals fighting terrorism."
    Pure doublespeak; the only reason opium has such a ricidulously inflated value is because of the drug laws, and the artificially limited supply.

    One could say, more truthfully, "Fighting drug laws equals fighting terrorism!" Were drugs rendered worthless by the simple strategy I suggest, terrorists would have to find other sources of funds. (As it is, more of their money comes from Saudi oil than anywhere else. If American drug addicts are "guilty" of funding terrorism, then American drivers are the guiltiest of all!)

    posted by Eric at 08:56 PM | TrackBacks (1)



    Drugs work better than government!

    After discussing recent evidence of brain changes during the "falling in love" syndrome (for example, "men tended to show more activity in two regions in the brain: ....visual.... and ..... penile...."), Randall Parker proposes a high tech solution to the nation's marriage woes:

    We need drugs that will keep people happily married. The cost of divorce and illegitimacy for society is terrible. In some societies marriage for child-rearing is becoming the exception. This means childen are less well cared for and they do not turn out as well in terms of educational attainment, crime rates, and general success in life. Split ups of households lower the living standards as it costs more to maintain two separate households. If we accept the evolutionary psychology argument about why people fall in and out of love it seems to me that the problem is that humans have not been selected for to behave in a way most optimal for extended child-raising and this problem needs to be fixed pharmacologically. Everything from the declining strength of religious belief to the mass media portrayals of tempting objects of affections are reducing forces holding marriage together with tragic results.

    We can not fix this problem with gene therapy because that is going to take a lot longer to develop. Many potential gene therapies will have to be done on fetuses and therefore their results will not be felt until the babies grow to be adults. Also, many people might oppose the idea of genetically engineering their children to be highly monogamous and faithful by nature But we might be able to keep people together with pharmaceuticals.

    Take whatever biochemical state people have in the initial flush of love. Imagne being able to maintain that feeling for years with both partners agreeing to do so together. Imagine a drug which. if you took it while looking at a particular person, that person would, as a result, look very sexy to you. Think about how much happier everyone would be if they weren't all walking around thinking that the grass looked greener on that unattainable other side of the river. Imagine that the sexiness of a lover never wore out or got old. A lot of married people would stay together a lot longer and long enough to raise kids to adulthood of they could use drugs to maintain their attraction to each other.

    Science may eventually be able to produce the love potions of mythical stories and modern fantasy TV shows and movies. Love drugs could help prevent and reverse the decline of marriage. If this became possible the benefits would be substantial.

    Maybe people wouldn't spend as much time fretting about such things as the "institution" of marriage. Instead, they'd be focused on their own lives, their own marriages.

    Without miring myself yet again in the quicksand of same sex marriage (although a good example of the quagmire can be seen in Rosemary Esmay's heartfelt post, along with the reactions thereto), I am not sure that marriage as an institution is a proper concern of government. It's a little analogous to enforcing charity; once you force people to be good, they are no longer good, because they lack a choice. This might also explain the rather odd phenomenon I've seen repeatedly of successful couples who live together for years, but no sooner do they get married than trouble starts.

    Well, with Big Brother breathing down your necks, can the marriage really be said to be yours?

    Hell, what do I know? I've never been married.

    Does that mean I belong in an institution?

    Couldn't I just take the drugs?


    ADDITIONAL NOTE: I am not alone in my inclination that marriage is not an institution. Here's Joe Kelley:

    Homosexuality strikes me as wholly unnatural and unhealthy.

    Yet, and this is the most important part, what other people do with their marriage has no bearing on mine.

    Those who tout the “institution” of marriage are Chicken Littles screaming about the sky falling. Marriage is not an institution, it’s an intimate and personal arrangement you have with the person you love.

    Yeah, and whose business is that? I have enough government in my life.

    posted by Eric at 07:41 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)




    Seminal nuclear family issues and more....

    Long day into night with no posts. My heat quit last night and I nearly shivered to death and didn't sleep much. Finally got repair people here, which set me back half a day, and an evening engagement kept me out until late.

    I am proud to state that I have a new nickname -- "Another Bill"! Read that teasing, cryptic puzzler (along with a collection of some very fine posts) at today's (well, it's still "today") CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES.

    Now I know why they call it a carnival.... Check out this stereotype-smasher.


    And now for some serious scientific reports.

    1. BBC still counting SPERM!

    Just days after the exploding sperm whale report, the BBC is now reporting that mice are now producing monkey sperm, and that human sperm may not be far away. Come what may?

    My generic mouse (standard Microsoft variety) is not emitting anything yet.

    2. Life extended before birth!

    Twin human babies produced by 12-year-old embryos have just been born. If these embryos were people all along, it is too insolent to ask whether they'll have the right to vote in 8 years?

    3. Your body as a nuclear-free zone?

    This report (found at winds of change) gave me a warm, glowing feeling.

    The exam included a stress test with injection of a radioactive isotope -- most likely technetium or thallium -- which helps illuminate the heart muscle during exercise. The doctor told him he passed.

    The elated lawyer says he left work several hours later and was driving along I Street NW between 16th and 17th when a police car with lights flashing zipped up behind him. An officer on a bicycle pulled alongside.

    What could this be? Couldn't be speeding, a red light or a stop sign.

    "Sir," the officer explained, "you were not pulled over because of a traffic violation. You were pulled over because you are radioactive."

    While I am glad to know that radioactivity is being detected, I am reminded of the case of a relative who received Strontium as late-term prostate cancer therapy. The stuff worked quite well (best result the radiologists had seen) but he reached a point where they refused to give him any more.

    My relative asked them why not, saying that because he was dying he would gladly sign a waiver of all liability. What he failed to understand (and what had to be explained to him as delicately as possible) was that the liability was not the sort that could be waived.

    He was given an official sheet which explained that his urine and his feces were now radioactive waste, that even after he died embalmers and coroners would be at risk of contamination by working on him!

    No more Strontium for him! Ha ha ha! (There are federal dosage guidelines, but I have no idea how to interpret them....)

    Now the poor man is in the ground.

    Patient radioactivity, of course, is not a new issue. -- certainly nothing to be impatient about.

    (I wonder whether the cemetery is in violation of applicable federal laws.....)

    posted by Eric at 05:14 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)




    Charity or enablement?

    Dr. Helen Smith (wife of Glenn Reynolds, and forensic psychologist specializing in treating violent kids) highlighted a detail of the Appalachian Law School shooting case which I somehow missed (perhaps because it didn't appear in my local newspaper):

    ...[A]t the Appalachian Law School in 2002, a student by the name of Peter Odighizuwa murdered three and wounded three others before being subdued at gunpoint by his fellow students. Dean L. Anthony Sutin had helped Odighizuwa get into law school and even allowed him back in after he had flunked out the first time. Sutin and the school helped him get a loan, and to buy a car and a computer. Odighizuwa was known for his belligerent manner and threats to harm others. But in the academic world where nonviolence and understanding are believed to work wonders, no one bothered to tell Odighizuwa that his behavior was unacceptable. Once he flunked a second time, he was told he had to go, but instead he took the lives of some of the people who had helped him the most.
    Today (and doubtless in 2002), behavior like that of the Appalachian Law School officials would be called "enablement."

    It's also an example of what my boss (a used car dealer) told me years ago:

    "Eric, if you walk by someone's house and put ten dollars in his mailbox every day for thirty days, but then after the thirtieth day you walk by and don't put anything in the mailbox, you know what? You won't have a friend; you'll have an enemy!"
    That was in 1974. Since then, I have seen this principle at work so many times that you'd think I would spot such situations before they occur. The problem in practice is that life is not an easy game of strangers, money, and mailboxes. In life, you deal with friends -- some of whom are grateful. There are, in fact, people who'd be genuinely grateful for thirty days of the ten dollar payouts my boss described, and who might even attempt to pay you back, on their own, without even being asked. (Rare, I admit, but still possible.)

    How do you separate the good guys from the bad guys, though?

    I'll let you know when I figure it out.

    But it may be a long, long time.

    It has to do with intelligent discrimination. "Discrimination" used to be both a good word (when done for good reasons) as well as a bad word (when done for bad reasons). The blurring of the distinction is why employers are afraid to hire anyone. Landlords are afraid to rent to anyone.

    All discrimination is becoming illegal. For any reason. If I hire you, I should not be allowed to fire you. For any reason. Even if you can't do the job! If I rent you an apartment, I shouldn't be allowed evict you -- even for non-payment of rent. I saw rent control do to Berkeley what a larger movement is now doing to the country.

    I do not believe in the Old Testament view that I should be my brother's keeper. I believe I should have the right to choose which "brothers" I keep, and which I don't. And if I make a mistake, it should be my mistake. I say this as someone who has taken in more than one homeless person, with mixed results.

    Were things safer when people just put money in the collection plate?

    posted by Eric at 05:13 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)



    Latest "slant" on the news....

    Censorship in Philadelphia? In the name of "brotherly love?"

    A local cheese steak business is being squashed in the name of political correctness, because it is named "Chink's." (Apparently that was the nickname of the establishment's Jewish founder.)

    Is "Chink" hate speech? This local writer thinks so, and he claims that a mere word like "Chink" is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

    ....Chink's Steaks is illegal under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It outlaws segregation in public accommodations even if facilities are equal. The statute went further, by making it illegal for restaurants to keep "white" or "colored" entry signs up, even if patrons were not denied access to either. Chink's Steaks, which sends an inherent message of racial inferiority, is in violation of this antidiscrimination principle.
    I am not sure the above legal analysis withstands scrutiny, unless it could be shown that there was an intent to convey a message of racial inferiority.

    Increasingly, though, intent is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that someone felt offended. There doesn't even have to be specific use of offending words; even similar sounding words can lead to trouble. An example was the use of the word "niggardly" in the District of Columbia, which forced a mayoral aide to resign.

    Well, what about the disappearance of Spic and Span detergent? People claim they can't find it on store shelves. I can't.

    Is there a plot?

    Procter and Gamble sold off Spic-n-Span in 2001. Apparently, there was no connection between the sale and the word police. Instead the issue was globalism:

    when Procter & Gamble decided that Spic 'n Span no longer fit with its focus on global brands last year, San Francisco's Shansby Group purchased the brand.
    Well, at least there's still a Spic-n-Span web site, refresh with clean-sounding music!

    The product is, after all, more famous than the Vice President:

    "Spic and Span has higher name recognition than Vice President Dick Cheney, but name recognition and goodwill do not immediately translate into ongoing sales and share growth," Mr. Flickinger said.
    It is not for sale at my local stores.

    Is Spic and Span doomed?

    Are we on a slippery "slope"?

    On the advice of my esteemed researcher Justin Case, I offer no opinion about "getting the chinks out of our armor"! Although this article maintains that "Chinks" were "showing" in South Carolina in November.

    Journalists can get away with racism and hate speech, obviously.....


    MORE: It seems that the phrase "illegal alien" will soon be considered "hate speech." Maybe even "terrorist." (But depending on the country, maybe not "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?)

    "Gringo"?

    posted by Eric at 12:18 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (1)




    My pseudo karma just ran over my inner dogma!

    People just won't stop trying to frighten, intimidate, and control others by means of labels. (A complaint of mine from the first days of this blog.)

    Are we in a great national label war?

    Glenn Reynolds links to Eugene Volokh's mordant reference to a new blogger, who, among other things, attempts to "smear" (I guess that's what this is) constitutional scholar Randy Barnett by calling him a "pseudo-libertarian."

    I guess I have my work cut out for me. Do I have to change what I call myself? (In the interest of, er, honesty? Or would that be damage control?)

    "Pseudo-libertarian," of course, is not a new smear. D.C. Thornton links to a post by Hesiod -- which attempts to expose impure ("pro war") libertarians as "pseudo-libertarians":

    ....[S]omeone adheres to libertarian beliefs here at home, but has no compunction about imposing "solutions" on other peoples beyond our shores is an interesting question.

    Is it hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, or just plane lazy-intellectual reasoning?

    I suspect that many libertarians are confronted with two choices in opposition to creeping authoritarianism in the United States. Particularly that resulting from the "war on terror." They can oppose it directly by denouncing the Government's actions, even to the point where they embrace the "lesser of two evils", and start voting and supporting the opposing political party [in this case, the Democrats]. Or, they can oppose it indirectly and seek to remove the motivating force [in their minds] behind the Government's actions. Namely terrorists, and the states that harbor or support them.

    Thus, many libertarians, but by no means all, both support limited government here at home, and unilateral [if necessary] military action to "change regimes" abroad, and impose an quasi-imperial U.S. administration upon those regimes.

    To them, it means the best of both worlds [sort of]. Since the Ashcroftian crackdown on civil liberties in the United States does not [yet] directly touch them [it only applies, so far, to "enemy conbatants," and immigrants], they can [in their minds] safely remain opposed to the Democratric party [and its more government, more taxes on the wealthy agenda] without suffering direct negative consequences.

    But, they can also, they believe, indirectly alleviate the pressure on civil liberties in the United States by supporting the agressive policies of the Bush administration toward Iraq [and others down the road]. So what if, in the short term, it means a violation of libertarian principles "over there." That's them, and not us. And, they rationalize to themselves, we are going to "impose" a regime on the people of Iraq that is more "libertarian" in its outlook. So, it's a win/win situation!

    This is discussed (and fisked as another false dichotomy), by Alex Knapp:
    Note that all of Hesiod's arguments (and read the whole thing--I didn't quote it all) boil down to these points:
    1. Pro-war libertarians only want war to stop violations of civil liberties.
    2. In the meantime, they're perfectly willing to put up with violations of civil liberties.
    3. Wars of liberation are unlibertarian.
    4. Real libertarians vote Democrat.

    None of these statements are actually backed up with quotes or links to any pro-war libertarians. And where's the huge groundswell of anti-war libertarians who plan on working for the Democratic party? I don't know any of them, either. As for myself, I think that Ashcroft should be impeached, Homeland Security should be junked, and we should go to war with Iraq. Oh yeah, and I've only voted for one Republican in my life, and I only did that because the Democrat was the incumbent and I was voting against him. And I'd be willing to bet that a lot of pro-war libertarians are with me on that.

    This all reminds me of something else Roger L. Simon said:

    ....[O]ne of the hallmarks of a good weblog is the honesty of the blogger--or at least the decent attempt at honesty because no one can be honest all the time, as Molière has shown us.
    I'll try to be honest here. I use the term "libertarian" because it strikes me as more honest than "liberal" or "conservative." I do not know (and thus cannot say) who I am going to vote for. I will not vote for Kerry, though, because I think he's a socialist. In the interest of full disclosure, though, I will disclose who I have voted for (in my limited lifetime as a voter):

  • 1972: George McGovern

  • 1976: Roger McBride

  • 1980: Jimmy Carter

  • 1984: Walter Mondale

  • 1988: Michael Dukakis

  • 1992: Bill Clinton

  • 1996: Bob Dole

  • 2000: George W. Bush
  • That's two Republicans, five Democrats, and one Libertarian. My politics have not changed much since 1976. I abhor socialism and moral conservatism.

    I wish someone would run a "pseudo-libertarian" candidate, but I don't see that happening. (Actually, my blogfather floated an idea ahead of its time -- which I won't bring up....)

    Because I have switched parties so many times, I have grown quite accustomed to being called a "liberal" by conservatives, and a "conservative" by liberals. A DINO, a RINO -- all that stuff. "Libertarian" is one of those words which more accurately describes my beliefs than any other, although lately I have tried to get away with calling myself a "libertarian centrist," because I believe that "small-l" libertarianism should be acknowledged as the new center that it is. Activists in both parties hate those who refuse to conform, and more than anything they hate those who refuse to listen to them or take them seriously. Thus they always tend to hate the majority -- particularly the new libertarian majority.

    But hell, if people don't want me to call myself a libertarian, there's nothing new about it, and nothing I can do about it. (And in fairness, I only voted for the Libertarian presidential ticket once -- in 1976.)

    Sometimes it's just easier to accept labels which are intended to intimidate. If I am called a conservative by angry liberals, a liberal by angry conservatives, a pseudo-libertarian by angry libertarians, well, I'll try to plead guilty.

    But I can't be all things to all people.

    As I keep saying, I only want to be allowed to think what I think.

    So, let the labels fly.

    (Obviously, my thoughts are so impure that they're only pseudo-thoughts.)


    UPDATE: I am still marveling over Proculian Meditations -- a new blogger who obviously takes after Marcus Antistius Labeo. ("Undisguised antipathy to the new regime" is always in style -- and very much a classical value....)

    posted by Eric at 04:33 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)



    Auschwitz redefined.

    Roger L. Simon recently shed some new light (for me, anyway) on the Bush-as-Hitler smear. Citing a dreadful piece which compares the Bush administration to Hitler's Nazi regime (which I'll also refrain from linking directly), Roger makes it clear that these ostensible attacks on Bush are more insidious than what they appear to be. They do far more than smear Bush; they diminish the Holocaust and cheapen the memory of those who died.

    The left hurls around the Nazi label and comparisons to the Holocaust far too freely. (I have, for example, been called a Nazi for owning guns and believing in self defense.)

    Unfortunately, the right does the same thing all too often. And I am not merely referring to the far right practice of linking homosexuals to Nazis by claiming that Hitler and all the top Nazis were gay.

    I can't tell you how many times I have heard abortion equated with Auschwitz.

    This is not to say that abortion is good. It is not. I think it is inherently immoral, especially in cases of late-term abortion. But the moral purists call all abortion murder, and they don't stop there. They call RU-486 (the "morning after" pill) murder (why, it's no different than Zyklon-B!). They call it murder to destroy a fertilized human ovum even when that has never been implanted in the uterine wall.

    Is a seed a tree? If so, then why isn't putting seeds in your bird-feeder the moral equivalent of clear cutting?

    And if you're a bleeding heart like me who, while recognizing the immorality of abortion, nevertheless simply could not stand sentencing a woman to prison for early termination of a pregnancy, why, then you are guilty of a Holocaust!

    If that does not cheapen the memories of those who were machine-gunned by the millions into killing pits, or lined up and marched into the gas chambers, then what does?

    Typical example here.

    And that was only the first link that came up under Google. I hope readers will see my simple point.

    Once again, I am NOT defending abortion.

    Nor do I have any relatives who perished in the Holocaust. But if I did, I might get more than a little ticked off by being told that their terrible suffering and deaths were the moral equivalent of a woman preventing her fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.

    Call me a Nazi for saying this, but I think such moral absolutism ill serves the cause of morality.

    posted by Eric at 12:12 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (3)




    A case of pseudo self defense?

    Regular readers to this blog know how much I hate labels and ad hominem attacks. Of course, no matter how much I hate them, the nation's leading labelmakers will never stop cranking them out.

    Still, I have to draw the line somewhere -- in this case it comes down to misusing or redefining words. A recent piece by Ann Coulter (at one of my favorite of the no-holds-barred websites) will serve as an example.

    Here's the offending excerpt:

    ...[I]f we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money.

    Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president.

    [Let me assure my readers that defending Kerry is the last thing I want to do. And, while I wish that in general political critics could stick with attacking the substance of what candidates say, rather than attacking them for accidents of birth, or whether they married into money, I really have to object when the labels are just plain misuse of langauge.]

    What, pray tell, is a "pseudo-Brahmin"? And what is a "gigolo"?

    Let's start with "pseudo-Brahmin."

    The prefix "pseudo" means that someone is being at least fake (and most likely lying) about something. A "pseudo-intellectual" is not a real intellectual. A pseudonym is a fictitious name. The Greek word "pseudos" means, simply, "falsehood."

    A lie.

    OK, so Kerry is apparently lying about his "Brahmin" background. He either says he is a Brahmin, or else somehow has duped the world into thinking he's one.

    But that name -- "Kerry." Sounds to me about as "Brahmin" as "Kennedy."

    Did Kennedy pass himself himself off as a Brahmin? Is that the impled aroma here? A Boston JFK wannabe?

    Hardly.

    The following colloquy is from an interview with a biographer of Patriarch Joe Kennedy:

    4) JLeB: What drove Joe Kennedy? What was he trying to overcome? Was it class warfare with him, an Irish immigrant, versus the Boston Brahmin Establishment?

    Ed Klein: Joe Kennedy harbored deep feelings of worthlessness. In The Kennedy Curse, I trace these feelings back to the Kennedys' early history, which left an indelible scar on their psyche. Among America's immigrant groups in the nineteenth century, the Irish were the only people who suffered the soul-searing experience of colonialism. Before coming to this country, they lived under the heel of cruel English oppressors for several centuries. Although the Kennedys achieved financial security early in their American sojourn, they were denied social acceptance and status by the Protestant Establishment. Joe and his sons never forgot this slight and they sought revenge all of their lives.

    Hmmmm.....


    I guess we need to go to the dictionary to discover the meaning of "Brahmin." Bear with me if you can bear it.

    Brahmin: a highly cultured person; an intellectual, esp. one who is supercilious or exclusive; -- used satirically. Webster's New International (Second Ed., 1958)

    Here's Kerry's real background (what he's accused of trying to hide):

    Divorced in 1982, he is now married to Teresa Heinz Kerry. While some of his constituents had assumed that he had Irish roots, the Kerry side of the family in fact came from Austria. A genealogist hired by The Globe confirmed that Kerry's grandfather was originally Fritz Kohn, of Jewish descent, a discovery that surprised Kerry, who had suspected only that his grandmother might have been Jewish. Kohn and his wife, the former Ida Lowe, changed their name to Kerry, converted to Catholicism, and immigrated to the United States in 1905. Kerry's Brahmin roots come from his maternal side, the Winthrops and Forbeses. A Winthrop great-aunt helped pay for much of his education at St. Paul's School in Concord, N.H. Even now, some of Kerry's fondest memories are of skating on the pond that rings St. Paul's. Now he campaigns in the state where he spent his formative years, hoping a strong showing in the primary there will give him a speedy start as he seeks to fulfill his lifelong ambition of becoming president.
    Whoa! Kerry is half Jewish immigrant -- and half elite Boston aristocrat!

    Now, where does the "pseudo" part come in? Is that schweinhund Kerry passing himself off as cultured because he is half converted Jew? Or does the "pseudo" appellation refer to his mother's family, hidden behind the more cultured Jewish side?

    I ask that as a rhetorical question only to demonstrate that Ms. Coulter is trading on certain assumptions here. Assumptions I don't think most people would catch. Might a more subtle smear be at work via the play on words? Brahmin blood is superior; something to brag about. Jewish blood is something to hide. Is the implication that he's been hiding his Jewish blood? Why would Senator Kerry do that? I find it hard to believe.

    Is he being tarred for the alleged sins of his Jewish ancestors?

    (Ah! Those clever half Jews strike again! -- trying to pass themselves off as good Aryans!)

    How else am I to make sense of the word "pseudo"? Kerry is a phony what?

    I guess she couldn't have dared call him a "pseudo-Jew."

    "Pseudo-American" perhaps.

    I think this whole thing of smearing people because of accidents of birth isn't even pseudo-American.

    It's un-American.

    (But I don't even like Kerry! Why do I feel compelled to get into this?)

    Let's give Ms. Coulter the benefit of the doubt here. Might she not care about the Jewish ancestry of Senator Kerry? Rather, might she merely be annoyed that his forbears hid it?

    In 1905?

    To my mind, that only makes the smear worse. European anti-Semitism, as well as American anti-Semitism, were in full swing back then. Is it fair to sit in judgment on immigrants who might have taken advantage of a move to a new country to convert, assimilate, and hope no one would notice? Hell, I'd be willing to bet that the condescending liberals of the time would have lauded this as the essence of the American "melting pot."

    But that's the thing about purists. They won't really let you melt. Instead, dirt in your pedigree will always lurk in the background, just waiting for someone to come along and call you a "pseudo" something-or-other. (Reminds me of the attacks on homosexuals. If they come out, they're part of the hated "gay agenda"! If they are discreet, then they ought to be ashamed for hiding it! The classic no-win.)

    I know these deals firsthand. My mom was a Philadelphia blueblood, whose ancestry in America dates back to before the Revolution. My father was of Norwegian immigant stock and grew up on a farm. I don't think of myself as either a "blueblood" or a "Norwegian-American." But just to get my tainted past out of the way, right now, I plead guilty to being a "pseudo-Blueblood".

    (At the rate this is going, I'm gonna end up liking Kerry! Nah; I won't, because I don't like socialism -- but that's not the point.)

    Now, onto the "Gigolo" business. Once again, definitions. A "gigolo" is defined as follows:

    ...fr. giguer to hop, dance. See JIG.] 1. a man who lives upon the earnings of a professional prostitute. 2. A paid dancing partner or male escort, as at a cabaret. Webster's New International (Second Ed., 1958)
    The accusation here is that Kerry married rich women, and lived off them. According to my dictionary, unless one of them was a prostitute, then Kerry is not a gigolo. Surely, he does not have time to work as a male escort. Even if his wife never gave him a dime, his salary as United States Senator ought to furnish him with enough money that he shouldn't have to hang out with old ladies or dance for money.

    However, if evidence that Kerry did these things turns up, well, I'll just have to retract my charge that the word "gigolo" is being misused.

    Even then, I still might not like Kerry. But the fact is, I don't see facts supporting the charge that he's a gigolo.

    But let's take a broader, more general view of the term. Might Ms. Coulter be suggesting that Kerry is a gigolo for living off his wife?

    What is his senatorial salary, anyway? A paltry $154,000, more or less. Chump change for Kerry's wife. But considering all the perks, including full health care, office expenses, parking, etc., the man is hardly forced to live off his wife.

    No matter how I look at it, Kerry is not a gigolo. If men who marry rich women are henceforth "gigolos", that changes the meaning of the word.

    I am a little sensitive about this insult too. I run around with some elderly female friends, and I have been snidely called a "male escort" for it.

    I am therefore far closer to the dictionary definition of "gigolo" than Kerry. He's just not in my league.

    But again, I don't like to brag.

    Can I just be a pseudo-gigolo?


    UPDATE: The almighty AgendaBender offers a post which damn near corners the market (if I may say that) on the pseudo topic. A story in the Corner reveals that 90% of homosexuals are only pseudo!

    "Of all those who call themselves lesbian or gay, a maximum of five to 10 percent are effectively lesbian or gay . . . All the rest are just sexual perverts."
    Adds AgendaBender:
    The raspberry bereted, canary suited flaneurs (90%) are just perverts--Chromosexuals. The black and white wallflower shut-ins(10%) are the real homos. Because, uhm, well, the ones who stay at home and favor grayscale outfits are somberly (and tastefully) gay, I guess. Sounds like the Cardinal is gunning for the clothes-guy slot on Queer Eye. He's got my vote there.
    Makes sense to me! We've all heard of lipstick lesbians. Why not pseudo homo? (Will the NIH discover whether it's possible to fake a gay orgasm?)

    And following AgendaBender's lead, I also attempted to Mixmasterize this blog with one of my faves -- and I got the following error message:

    You b0rked the MixMaster :(

    Reason: http://classicalvalues.com too large

    Too large?

    Do I have to pseudo-downsize?

    2-05-04 UPDATE (IN AN ATTEMPT AT HONESTY): I am not sure that Ann Coulter deserves the credit for activating the pseudo-meme which I began on this blog after reading her diatribe against Kerry.

    I now suspect the pseudo-seed had been planted in my pseudo-brain earlier!

    A couple of days before the Coulter post, Glenn Reynolds reported a putdown of him and other nanotechnology advocates by a guy with a name almost as unpronounceable as "Enver Hoxha":

    Mark Modzelewski of the NanoBusiness Alliance, responding to an earlier post on this topic here at InstaPundit, puts down "bloggers, Drexlerians, pseudo-pundits, panderers and other denizens of their mom’s basements."
    In a burst of reflexive creativity, I grabbed the name "pseudopundit.com" -- which I later found appears to be taken by another blogger. I believe in being fair, but I notice his blog has been "dead" (no posts) for a year, and that there were only seven posts in the entire life of the blog. Still, I know what it's like to die, as well as to lose interest in a blog, and so if that blogger is reading this and wants the dot-com, I would be all too happy to sell it to him at my cost.

    Until then, I am officially "pseudo" -- through and through, dyed in the pseudo-wool!

    Enough! I'm all pseudoed out.

    posted by Eric at 09:54 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (1)




    June 2009
    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4 5 6
    7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    28 29 30        

    ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
    WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


    Search the Site


    E-mail



    Classics To Go

    Classical Values PDA Link



    Archives



    Recent Entries



    Links



    Site Credits