Bombardment vs. Dodgeball

When I was a kid, my friends and I loved playing a game called "bombardment" in which opposing teams would pelt each other with kickballs (and the occasional volleyball, which flies much faster and truer). If someone was skillful enough to catch the ball, the thrower would be out, and an already-out teammate of the catcher would be allowed back in.

Now this game is known as "dodgeball," and they even made a hilarious movie of the same name.

I don't know what happened to "bombardment," but I definitely prefer this name because it implies that people will be hit, or at least that this is the goal of the activity. The name "dodgeball" is passive and defensive, implying that the goal is to avoid being hit. Nonsense. The goal is to destroy and prevail, not merely to survive. Subtle changes of this type are yet another indicator of societal weakening.

Diversity, But Of What?

Americans today are perpetually admonished, scolded, prodded, and cajoled into celebrating something called "diversity," yet I can't help but wonder what this really means.

Diversity of opinion is not allowed, certainly not beyond the facile and monochromatic spectrum that passes for public discourse these days. Just try questioning affirmative action, the welfare state, the Warren court, feminism, or environmentalism and see what happens. And if you dare offer such diversity of opinion in a university -- the supposed bastion of free thought and intellectual inquiry -- you will be lucky to get out alive.

Diversity of governance is most certainly not allowed, even though the Constitution entrusts the vast reservoir of political power to individual States to experiment as they please. Any deviation from the federal playbook brings a swift and petulant lawsuit or the withdrawal of federal money (to which the States are addicted and will eagerly surrender their sovereignty to obtain). Any law that attempts a novel approach to homelessness, abortion, public decorum, drugs, or illegal invaders will be smacked down.

No, it appears that the only diversity that matters is precisely the kind we have no control over -- diversity of race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Celebrating that kind of diversity, and only that kind, supposedly enriches our lives. Why? If I glance at history in search of "diverse" societies I find far more strife than success. But there I go again, offering a diverse viewpoint.

The Liberating Power Of Rules

It amuses me to hear people pride themselves on "breaking all the rules," as if this made them freer, more adventurous, or more open-minded than the rest of us. The truth of the matter is that rules are freedom's greatest friend, whereas rule-breakers are freedom's greatest enemy.

With crystal-clear rules in place, one can order his affairs, plan for the future, and do any number of things with supreme confidence that he will be left unmolested so long as he stays within those boundaries -- his freedom of action is defined and inviolate. When rules erode, however, one can never tell when his life, liberty, or property might be yanked away from him. The most obvious example is the erosion of the supreme rules set forth in the Constitution, a process that has unleashed government to attack us every day for novel and unexpected reasons. Our judicial system of common law also has eroded to the point that precedent means nothing and courts will decide each case on its own facts, mimicking the civil-law approach of continental Europe -- once again leaving us at the mercy of fickle men and their impenetrable motives, rather than giving us a clear view of what we may do at any point in time. And from a cultural perspective, rules in the form of taboos maintain the heath of civil society and guarantee safe harbor for those who obey them; the destruction of these rules has sown cultural chaos and allows government to fill the void as parent, provider, and caregiver.

Despite their fanciful self-image, youthful adventurers who disregard rules are the handmaidens of elderly plutocrats and politicians who yearn for greater control over us. The worship of "youth culture" that has reigned ever since the 1960s has paralleled the death of law and the growth of government power, and this is no accident.

President Of The Montana Bar Demonstrates Once Again That Lawyers Are At War With The Rule Of Law

It was barely more than a year ago that I left Florida to begin practicing law in Montana, and I’m happy to say that the experience has been incredibly rewarding. Attorneys in this great state demonstrate a far higher level of professionalism and civility than I had grown accustomed to over nine years of practice on the other side of the country. This rings true for not only my co-workers, but for opposing counsel as well. Unfortunately, I stumbled on a recent statement by Joe Sullivan – president of the Montana Bar – that shocks the conscience and reminds me that there are lawyers throughout America all too eager to obliterate the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of government, which are quite different indeed.

In the May edition of The Montana Lawyer, Mr. Sullivan chastises the state legislature for a number of supposedly wrongheaded proposals and issues a call for greater “education” to avoid such blunders in the future. While this sounds wonderful in principle, the effrontery of Mr. Sullivan’s message becomes apparent in practice, specifically where he scorns the attempt to remind jurors of their sacred right to refuse to enforce unjust laws. This doctrine of “jury nullification” has a long and proud history in America stretching back to the famous trial in 1735 of John Peter Zenger, the publisher who relentlessly criticized New York’s governor to the point that the governor sought Zenger’s criminal prosecution for seditious libel. Andrew Hamilton, a lawyer truly worthy of the title, exhorted the jury to acquit by upholding the principle of free speech over the law as written. The jury agreed, exonerating Zenger and proving that the American concept of law flows up from the people and not down from the powerful. Ever since that time it has been a fundamental principle of American justice that a jury of private citizens forms the last line of defense against unjust laws and the government functionaries who enforce them. Jurors are entrusted with their power precisely because they are private citizens rather than government functionaries, the latter often having a greater interest in feathering their nests than in doing justice. Jurors have a right and a duty to judge not only the facts of a case, but also the law, and I would venture to say that the opportunity to vote in a jury is far more precious and meaningful than the opportunity to vote in an election. If a jury votes “not guilty,” neither the judge, nor the appeals court, nor the prosecutor, nor the governor, nor the president may force the jury to explain why. This is because in America the people are sovereign.

Oblivious to (or perhaps contemptuous of) all this, Joe Sullivan makes the following statement under the ironic heading “The need for education”:

[C]onsider legislation that would allow a jury to determine what law does or does not apply to a certain case. I give the people of Montana a lot of credit. They are both highly educated and have a lot of good common sense. However, I would not like the idea of being a party, in either a civil or criminal matter, where a group of twelve people not only decided the believability of the facts presented, but what law they are going to apply to those facts. If that type of uncertainty does not scare off business in this state, I do not know what would.

In one fell swoop, Mr. Sullivan shows his own dire need for education; he mocks and misleads the people of Montana; and he broadcasts his preference for thirty pieces of silver over a bulwark of American justice. I am an attorney, and I am here to tell you that you can and should refuse to enforce laws that you, as a juror, find unjust. The law derives its legitimacy from you, not from judicial officers such as attorneys or judges. Even the brief description that The Montana Lawyer provides of the legislation is deceitful:

HB 332 would have restored the right of a ‘fully informed jury,’ allowing a jury to judge both the facts of a civil or criminal case and the applicable law. The State Bar opposed.

Yet you require no legislation “allowing” you to judge both the facts and the law, for that right already is yours. It’s a disgrace that the legal profession opposes informing you of this fundamental right; worse yet, this opposition leaves in place jury instructions that are false because they charge the jury to apply existing law no matter what. Lawyers once defended the citizen against the government; now lawyers line up to support government power and dictate right and wrong to the citizen. Don’t let us get away with it.

Only once did I have a chance to serve on a jury, and it was for the trial of a man accused of drunk driving. During the selection process, the prosecutor insisted that the jury must vote guilty if it found the accused had a blood-alcohol content over .08 because the statute fixed this as the point of no return for impairment – it made no difference whether the jury thought the man was not truly impaired. I was not selected for the jury despite answering all of the voir dire questions fairly and honestly, but I made sure to inform the jury pool that what the prosecutor had told them was false. They, as jurors, had every right to acquit if they truly believed the accused was not impaired despite having a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit, and they took it to heart before I left the courthouse. With this column, I hope to accomplish the same for all of you. Ignore the state bar, ignore the Joe Sullivans of the world, and ignore every other person who tells you that the law belongs to a select elite rather than to you. Relish the chance for jury duty and make the most of it. A person’s life may hang in the balance, and you may make all the difference, which is far more than you can say for a general election.

Annoyances

We all have them. Here are a few of mine.

Whenever a news story refers to the federal government as "the government." The federal government is only one among many in America, and it wields very few legitimate powers at that. Terminology of this sort is either grossly inaccurate or intentionally misleading (though I try never to attribute to malice what can be explained as ignorance).

Whenever I barely make it through a yellow light that has just turned red, and I see that a remora has followed me through on some sort of belief that he shares my car's gravitational field.

People who flick cigarette butts out their car windows. Jerks.

People who spit in public, unless they're in the midst of a baseball game.

Any English speaker over the age of 8 who confuses "it's" with "its."

Another round of presidential debates conducted on the intellectual level of a middle schooler -- but which draws rapt attention anyway.

The fact that everyone's worldview closely tracks his personal interests.

Bad movies that earn widespread acclaim.

Good movies that barely break even.

Another silly, superficial book on the New York Times' bestseller list.

Cheaters, especially the ones who justify their cheating. Please don't cloak perfidy with the language of righteousness.

People who take cheaters back. Have some self-respect, for God's sake.

Self-help books.

Prozac, Ritalin, or any other substance designed to blunt the inherent difficulties of the human condition.

People who love swapping stories about vomiting over the weekend.

Another election that misleads everyone into thinking that real change is now upon us.

People who keep dangerous animals as pets but express shock when the pet hurts somebody.

Scientists who rush to the scene of a shark attack to explain that the shark didn't mean it. What difference does it make whether the shark meant it? Do wild animals ever have criminal intent?

Another news story referring to the "danger" of atmospheric CO2 levels, even though those levels are a micro-fraction of what they were during the lush Mesozoic Era (i.e., the dinosaurs).

People glued to their phones when in social settings. Rude.

People who send food back because it is slightly over- or undercooked.

People who can't order simply what appears on the menu.

People who claim to speak a second language but remember only scraps of what they stayed awake long enough to hear in high school.

College graduates who can't name all fifty states or find Chile on a map.

Another law school receiving ABA certification.

"Bono." Enough said.

People who lift far more weight than they are capable of, grunting loudly as a spotter does at least half the work.

People who drive in the passing lane when not attempting to pass anyone.

People who go to church as if dressed for a ballgame.

Clothing with logos splashed across it. If I act as a billboard, I get paid for it.

Enough (for now, at least).

And So It Begins

The economy falls off a cliff. This is the natural consequence of surrendering your lives, your fortunes, and your sacred honor to politicians, bureaucrats, academics for hire, and other assorted swine. You have refused to think for yourselves or take seriously the warnings of people you label as "extremists" for far too long. Not that you will change your ways. I fully anticipate that as the situation grows more dire, you will howl for the same people to do even worse things to rescue you. You prefer the security of a jail cell to the fear posed by the open sky. Rest assured that you will get what you want.