Pelosi's Panic Is Cause For Celebration

Pelosi has claimed that she and her Democratic cohort in Congress are trying to save life on the planet as we know it. I have no doubt they are, and I hope they fail because life as we know it is intolerable. I don't want to save a world that has betrayed my ancestors' heroic efforts to carve human liberty and dignity out of millennia of Darwinian muck. I would readily embrace an economic meltdown, default, depression, and abject poverty if it would mean I could recover what my ancestors enjoyed -- the right to be left the hell alone. No politician should be able to inflict the tremendous harm that confronts us now; it makes no difference which side wins the cataclysmic debate, for the debate's very existence shows that the dam has broken. Let the waters rage and scour the political and social landscape clean so we can start over.

Religion

Religion is something I discuss rather often because modern Western thought on the subject is hopelessly wrong and typical of dying civilizations. Secularism is not new, cutting-edge, or enlightened; it is merely the sign of a fragmented people who have lost any shared sense of purpose and strive for nothing greater than daily survival and self-gratification. Ancient Greece and Rome declined because their citizens -- grown fat and happy on the purposeful efforts of their ancestors -- could no longer coordinate their activities or compete with other, more robust peoples who had not devolved into the worship of ease. "Civilizations are born stoic, but die epicurean," noted Will Durant, and the modern West is epicurean to its softened core.

For the intelligent and educated people who cannot bring themselves to believe in religion because it has no basis in scientific fact, I say this: there is a universe of difference between fact and truth. Whether religion is factual means nothing to me, for it conveys fundamental truth that is invaluable to human nobility.

Even if we assume that religion is nothing more than a fairy tale in the believer's mind, consider the priceless gifts this fairy tale bestows (I will focus on Protestant Christianity because that is the gift my ancestors gave me).

• A true believer will not resign himself to the pronouncements or commands of others, since his internal dialogue is a higher source of authority that must be satisfied (i.e., the believer answers to himself rather than to others).

• A true believer ranks people not on wealth, fame, or erudition, but rather on character. Presidents can be wrong, and paupers can be right.

• A true believer will sacrifice relationships, pleasure, wealth, and even life to preserve an ideal. Jesus could have renounced his beliefs and spared himself unspeakable pain, but he refused because the soul is far more precious than the body. A true believer who swears an oath will keep it no matter what, making him reliable and enabling society to function (courts, marriages, public servants, etc.). Additionally, there is no more deadly warrior than one who is unafraid to lose his life.

• A true believer feels someone's eyes on him even where no human can look, motivating him to do what is right and refrain from what is wrong regardless of the lack of earthly consequences.

• A true believer strives to better himself and meet an ideal, not to ingratiate himself with the herd as it plunges over a cliff.

• A true believer is merciful to the weak, the elderly, and the condemned, enabling him to bring out what is best in others.

• A true believer does not succumb to addiction, psychosis, or other fugues from pain; he accepts pain as an integral part of life in this world.

Now, I'm sure that many people will counter that the true believer causes a great deal of harm as well, either through "intolerance" or terrorism. But the historical record shows otherwise. The greatest carnage and cruelty are the fruit of governments that make themselves into gods -- such governments are worshipped by masses of people who have lost faith in anything other than the material and yearn for what government can accomplish here and now.

Is religion perfect? No, there will surely be intolerance and occasional violence stemming from it, but it is far better than the alternative. A world stripped of religion does not look like Star Trek; it looks like the killing fields of Cambodia, or the mass starvation of the Ukraine under Stalin, or the millions ground up in Mao's Great Leap Forward.

What's The Harm?

A news story from Indiana tells of two adults fornicating in a public pool in front of children. I can practically hear a multitude of modern minds asking themselves, "what's the harm?" I can also imagine large numbers of moderns taking it a step further and into the realm of Brave New World by congratulating this couple for exhibiting behavior that is "natural," "healthy," and even "beautiful" for children to see and perhaps emulate.

For a modern ethos that conceives of humans in general and "harm" in particular as merely physical -- i.e., if nobody gets hurt, there's no cause for concern -- these questions make sense.

But for the ethos that has informed civilization ever since it began, the harm here is worse than physical because it degrades. It degrades a uniquely human experience of intimacy and makes it into an animalistic spectacle worthy of a zoo. We clothe ourselves; we defecate in private; we use utensils; we create art; we show mercy; we seek justice; and we exercise self-restraint, all because we are more than animals. Every hole in the dike that separates humans from animals is cause for concern, for without it you welcome the law of the jungle (which is not beautiful or harmonious, but ferocious and pitiless).

I am sure many disagree and hold, against the evidence of all recorded history, that humans are animals as well. But I guarantee you that these same people ardently believe in "protecting the environment" against human influence, betraying their understanding that humans indeed are unique (although erroneously placing humans beneath animals, but I will post on that later).

Striving Without Reaching

The asymptote, that perfect line stretching to infinity.
We curves of nature strive toward you and yearn to match your grace,
And all we can do is approach, for you we shall never reach.
But the approach remains a worthy cause.
Those who never try are left to twist aimlessly across the ordinate and abscissa of existence,
While we, who dare to chase you, can achieve order and beauty in a world of chaos.
Archimedes wept when his machines served as pale imitations of the ideal,
But a vision of the ideal is what makes men gods rather than animals,
So I will continue striving without reaching, until I leave matter behind
To rejoin the ideal and ethereal.

Kelo Conundrum

I can't help but laugh when I hear liberals and conservatives rant about the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision. This is the one where the Court decided that a local government may take land from one private entity and transfer it to another, so long as the transfer serves some sort of "public purpose." The outrage stems from the fact that the Fifth Amendment authorizes takings only for a "public use" such as national defense, highways, or other non-rivalrous goods available to every Joe Sixpack in sight.

The first reason I laugh is that the Court actually reached the right result, if only for the wrong reason: the Fifth Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights apply only to the federal government as a reminder of its enumerated powers. The Amendment does not restrain state governments or their subdivisions, so Kelo helps preserve local sovereignty (although it would have been even better if the Court had declined jurisdiction completely, since now the Court presumes to decide something beyond its purview and has augmented federal takings powers as well).

But the bigger reason I laugh is that government at all levels has been robbing Peter to pay Paul for decades now. Why the sudden consternation? Ever hear of Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security? Ever hear of unemployment compensation? These are illicit property transfers whose only distinction from Kelo is that they concern money rather than land, but they are property transfers nonetheless. So on the one hand, forcible money transfers among private parties are hailed as wonderful and even "mandatory"; but on the other hand, forcible land transfers are condemned as theft.

This is the government you all wanted, so eat up.

Same-Sex Marriage And Sovereignty

Congratulations to New York for choosing to recognize same-sex marriage. I am not being flippant in any way, for New York has exercised its sovereignty in a manner reflecting the desires of the majority of its citizens. Local, decentralized sovereignty is the cornerstone of the Republic and enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, and for good reason: it allows governments to experiment with new ideas without causing much harm; even if harmful choices are made, people can vote with their feet and rob the offending government of its tax base (a wonderful incentive to rethink bad policy). Monopolies may be bad in business, but they are worse in government, and competition among rival governments is the only proven restraint against runaway abuses of power.

I cannot help but wonder, though, whether most people celebrating New York's decision would denounce local sovereignty the moment it worked against them. Would they, for example, support a State's decision not to recognize same-sex marriage? Highly doubtful. The "open-minded" in our midst would be far more likely to dash to the nearest federal courthouse and beg for immolation of the people's will under tortured readings of the 14th Amendment, not recognizing that this undermines New York's own sovereignty and that of every other member of the Union. (In fact this already has occurred in California, where the illustrious David Boies has hammered another nail into the Constitution's coffin.) And it would not surprise me at all if a same-sex couple wedded in New York and sought divorce elsewhere in a bid to force the other State to treat the marriage as legitimate, even if only to destroy it, and even if only to score a political victory.

If you want freedom, you must be willing to tolerate outcomes you dislike. But "tolerance" is merely a popular slogan with no traction, much the same as "diversity."

Casey Anthony Trial Offers A Bundle Of Lessons

As my vacation here in Florida comes to an end, I notice how impossible it has been to avoid the media frenzy surrounding the trial of Casey Anthony, a woman accused of murdering her daughter. People around America and the world now sit in rapt vigil for a jury to render its verdict. For my part, I enjoy the multitude of insights this ordeal has given me into modern life.

First is the very fact that this trial draws so much attention at all. America is waging six unconstitutional wars and the economy is a shambles, yet a murder trial in Florida dominates everyone's attention. This is rather bizarre and disproportionate, and the only explanation I can think of is this: people need a spectator sport now that basketball season has ended. Reality is not something people enjoy grappling with, especially when it's unpleasant, so the incessant modern need for entertainment has latched onto a host. I'm sure the media will be sorely disappointed if this comes to a swift and certain conclusion.

Second is the pleasure I derive from having left the practice of law in Florida far behind me. The smirking and self-important defense lawyer, the histrionic prosecution, and the general seediness of the entire proceeding give me flashbacks of a former life not missed. (I do miss visiting the Orange County courthouse on occasion, as it's far better than what Broward and Miami-Dade have to offer.)

Third is something I touched on in a recent post: the judge wrongly informed the jury that it MUST apply the law regardless of whether the jury agrees with it. This is a slap in the face to America's time-honored tradition of jury nullification; ignoring the doctrine might be excusable, but lying about it is not.

Fourth is the all-too-predictable lawsuit by "Zanny the Nanny" against Casey Anthony for defamation -- as if anyone knew who Zanny was or even believes Casey's lies about her at this point. The lawsuit itself brings far more attention than Zanny ever had, which is the likely goal of this pathetic exercise (God knows there won't be a collectible judgment).

Fifth is the banal and perpetual analysis by the media talking heads of every minute detail. The jury's demographics are examined, an open admission that demographics do matter (whereas attorneys are strictly forbidden from taking them into account). One talking head pronounced that if Casey is acquitted, no one else may prosecute her -- yet this is untrue, as the feds could prosecute her for any number of (albeit unconstitutional) federal crimes, since a state prosecution does not pose a double-jeopardy bar to a federal one.

Sixth is Casey Anthony herself, the poster child for the modern persona -- narcissistic, amoral, spoiled, mendacious, and unruffled by any of the undercurrents of human tragedy. This goes regardless of whether she committed the crime or not; her carefree deportment following the death of her daughter was shocking, but all too standard now.

UPDATE:

The verdict is coming back mere moments after I posted, and there is one more thing that leaps off the screen -- the slovenly attire of the spectators. Going to court is a close second to going to church. Shorts, T-shirts, and baseball caps do not belong there, and nor do the people sporting them.