Duck Dynasty Flap Proves A Lot

And here I thought reality TV had no redeeming value. How wrong I was.

Phil Robertson, star of the A&E hit show Duck Dynasty, expressed a belief on his own time that homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God. A&E retaliated by announcing that it was canceling his contract, and the "tolerant" cohort rushed to A&E's defense by emphasizing that the First Amendment bars only governmental speech restrictions, not the choices of a private business.

The glee with which these people defend private business is refreshing, though a tad insincere. After all, these are the same "tolerant" people who seek to force bakeries to bake cakes against their will (see my previous post); who seek to punish Chick-Fil-A for voicing opposition to same-sex marriage; who seek to eradicate the Boy Scouts for exercising freedom of association; or who champion the Byzantine patchwork of federal laws and regulations forcing businesses to hire particular demographics. The truth of the matter is that the "tolerant" embrace freedom only when convenient; the moment anyone dares contradict their dogma, all bets are off.

Imagine for a moment that a television network canned someone for advocating rather than opposing homosexuality. I wonder if you can. Now imagine the "tolerant" cohort rushing to the defense of such a network. I know you can't.

A trite pronouncement that A&E is free to disassociate itself from Phil Robertson carries no weight, not when voiced by people who attack freedom in every other context. You can sponge off the complacence of middle America for only so long before middle America fights back. Middle America indeed is fighting back, so much so that A&E retreated and allowed Robertson to return. I would have respected A&E if it had stuck to its guns; at least this would have shown an adherence to principle (however skewed). But like so many others today, A&E is an amoral coward that values only money. With the economic collapse continuing apace, you'll have to hitch your wagons to something more meaningful.       

EDIT:

GLAAD and many others on the left are enraged that A&E changed its mind by allowing Phil Robertson to continue the show. Strange how quickly these people abandoned their newfound love of corporate autonomy.

Also, I can't help but notice that most of the people excoriating Phil Robertson reject the very notion of God. If what he's talking about is fantasy and nonsense, where's the harm? I thought that was the modern, crimped metric of morality -- tangible harm. A same-sex marriage is "harmless," so surely the ramblings of a redneck are "harmless" as well, right?

Slavery Is Freedom

Reading an article such as this removes any doubts whether we inhabit Orwellian times. Surely we do, for in the name of "freedom" a business is being forced to bake cakes for certain people against its will, and one of the lead proponents of this slavery is an organization that claims to protect civil liberties. All variants of leftism -- whether feminism, race hustling, gay-rights agitation, or otherwise -- rely on force, and they pervert language to trick themselves into believing that they are pursuing noble objectives. But there is nothing noble about forcing people to associate with you. That is the behavior of self-hating scum, not proud doers and achievers. 

A healthy person would sense a business opportunity to bake cakes for only a homosexual clientele, and a healthy society would allow such a person to do so while also allowing other people to bake only for heterosexuals if they wish. But tyranny is so much less demanding than freedom, and it offers far more opportunities to seize the limelight while claiming the sacred mantle of victimhood on the courthouse steps.

Invigorating New Life

I should have started working for myself long ago. It's both rewarding and challenging, and for the first time in a long time I feel truly alive.

On the rewarding side, I have a small but growing number of clients who send me repeat business, and one of them was so pleased with my work that he told me to keep the balance of his retainer deposit, well beyond what I had invoiced him. To have someone express appreciation for my work is a refreshing change of pace. My liberation from office politics and neurosis is icing on the cake.

On the challenging side, I need more clients to reach full cruising altitude, and the future of this enterprise remains far from certain. But this is the stuff of life -- risk, uncertainty, danger, and the fight for survival. I could last about two or three years if I didn't earn a cent, but if blowing through my savings and flirting with penury are what it takes to build something that is mine, so be it. We all die eventually anyway.

Best of all, I continue to work on my book, which I have decided to make my own rather than a joint project. My buddy believes America can be saved with a series of political ploys, but I believe we are way beyond that and confront a full-fledged societal collapse. You cannot save a nation that no longer even exists. Americans lack any shared fundamental principles or "mystic chords of memory" (to quote Lincoln) necessary to define and sustain a nation, plus the reigning philosophy among political and cultural elites is one of collective suicide. Will anyone read it? Who knows, but I do these things not for calculated result, but rather because I am compelled to. Those of you who love to hate me will get a kick out of this sneak preview of the chapters I've written thus far (and there's more to come):

The United States Constitution, Once Functional But Now Historical

The Scourge Of Political Correctness

The Proper Role Of Government In A Free Society

The Great Stereopticon, Revisited [this is a reference to Richard Weaver's book, Ideas Have Consequences]

The Breakdown Of The Family

From Christianity Back To Paganism

Unintended Consequences

I started this blog primarily to blow off steam, but also in the hope that others could identify with my feeling that something is terribly wrong and unsustainable about modern life in the West. For more than two years I have pursued this theme across different realms such as politics, law, history, language, relationships, and common occurrences.

Despite the almost total lack of comments, a steady flow of readers keeps returning and displays habits that strike me as rather interesting. For one, they flock to posts that I put the least thought into, such as musings about dodgeball, daily nuisances, and sex. For another, they get enraged when I voice ideas and experiences they dislike. This demographic tips its hand through real-world behaviors that are hard to miss; Google Analytics isn't that powerful, but suffice it to say that I have angered people where I live as well as thousands of miles away.

In other words, the bulk of readers I've managed to draw here are 1) shallow; and 2) hypersensitive. This is clearly not what I intended. No matter, though, because I can continue to blow off steam while helping this audience to re-think a few things.

For the shallow folk, if I draw you here with talk of office trysts and childhood sports, just maybe you'll take a glance at other posts concerning fundamental matters that you otherwise might ignore. There is far more to life than working, eating, sleeping, defecating, and procreating. Pause for a moment to consider right and wrong, good and evil, freedom and slavery, and where on the spectrum modern life fits. Be a human, not a mollusk.

For the hypersensitive folk, get over yourselves. Your worldview is not holy writ; indeed, it has several gaping holes in it, and your anger at me is a measure of your own insecurity. America is not a free country. Government re-distribution of wealth for welfare, healthcare, birth control, the arts, or any other pet cause is robbery and tears the social fabric. America is far more misandrist than misogynist. Obnoxiousness is not strength. Vampire and zombie fiction are sub-literate crap. Adultery is a mortal sin. . . .  If you come here and get enraged at reading such sentiments, it's on you.

Preach It, Fred Reed

My favorite curmudgeon, Fred Reed, shares my disdain for all things modern but has a greater reservoir of memory from which to draw comparisons between the sane world of yesteryear and the raging insanity of today. In this article he tackles the feminist war against education and boys. Great stuff (here's a small sample):

All of my teachers in grade school, and perhaps half in high school, were women. They were fine. The reason was that they accepted the masculine view that schools existed to teach content. They did: first arithmetic and then math, and history, English grammar and composition, literature, Latin, and so on. Bless them.

What I dislike is the feminized, therapeutic view of schools as places not to teach anything but to engage in Pavlovian conditioning of kids to female norms of syrupy goodness, non-violence (tag, dodge ball, and wrestling) docility, conformity, and warm interpersonal glop. Learning anything gets short shrift.

An examination of the intellectual qualifications of teachers, such as rankings against those in other fields on the Graduate Record Exams, will show them to be at the bottom. These are averages, of course, and there are exceptions. Still, people of low voltage do not naturally have much interest in academics. They easily become prey to a pedagogy focusing on “interpersonal relations.”

EDIT: And here is an inspiring story of resistance against the very tyranny Fred was describing -- a young boy steadfastly refuses to pledge allegiance despite his teacher's efforts to geld him in front of the class. Even though the teacher was aware that the boy is a Jehovah's Witness, she apparently didn't know that they do not pledge allegiance (there's even Supreme Court precedent on this), driving home Fred's point concerning the dim nature of modern pedagogues. 

The Fountainhead Is Far Better Than Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand is extremely popular with modern, libertarian-minded folk because she preaches individualism from an atheistic standpoint. According to Rand, the exercise of pure reason sheds light on an objective reality whereby notions of altruism, collectivism, selflessness, and other code words for tyranny are shown to be false. Rand's assertion was and is deeply flawed, for "pure reason" has been exercised to perpetrate collectivist massacres such as the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, China's Cultural Revolution, and Cambodia's Khmer Rouge. Many of the people opposing those revolutions (i.e., counter-revolutionaries) were labeled irrational or insane, and duly dispatched. Truth be told, we are witnessing the same dynamic unfold in America, as alluded to in my last post where I mentioned that any adherence to the limited-government principles this country was founded on is now deemed "crazy." This is evolving beyond mere rhetoric, as various government agencies now label constitutionalists as "extremists" and potential "terrorists," even conducting investigations and detentions for mere speech in some instances.

The point is that "pure reason" is only as good as the people exercising it, and given what we have to work with, the results are often bad. At best, "pure reason" causes endless debate and confusion. At worst, it causes genocide. For humans to function either individually or socially, there must be an arbitrary standard of right and wrong that lies beyond all debate. That arbitrary standard is, of course, a religious and supernatural one. The atheism that Rand fervently embraced was her and her followers' own worst enemy.  Rand should have paid heed to her mentor, Isabel Paterson, whose intelligence was tempered by a quality that Rand utterly lacked: wisdom. Paterson admonished Rand that human freedom and dignity cannot survive absent some conception of God. As is often the case, the world remembers the brash and erroneous rather than the quiet and correct. 

That lengthy introduction aside, I wanted to recommend The Fountainhead to anyone who considers reading Rand. Her most famous work is Atlas Shrugged, which has grown all the more popular because of its prescient narrative of American collapse. But The Fountainhead is far more profound because rather than illustrate what happens when collectivists run amok, it gets to the heart of what truly separates an individualist from a collectivist.

Howard Roark is the character who embodies individualism. Roark is a brilliant architect who does not seek to dominate, flatter, or win favor. All he seeks is excellence, a quality that rubs most everyone around him the wrong way. His teachers chastise him and expel him from school for his rejection of stale forms that everyone else mindlessly follows. His classmate, Peter Keating, is one such person and is regarded as a brilliant architect with a bright future, yet he secretly knows that he lacks Roark's talent. Keating often asks Roark for help on projects and continues to do so after embarking on a career with the most reputable firm in the nation. For his part, Roark produces exquisite work and continues helping his friend, but Roark sinks into obscurity and penury while Keating soars. Because his work is fresh and original, most people can't even perceive its excellence, so Roark has great difficulty finding clients. The few who do perceive Roark's excellence hate Roark for it and seek to destroy him. Chief among these antagonists is Ellsworth Toohey, a leftist "intellectual" who molds public opinion in a newspaper column and takes aim at Roark and attacks his work at every opportunity. In one bit of dialogue, Toohey admits that his goal is to tear down excellence and impoverish the mind of man so that all may be equal, revealing the leftist inferiority complex in a plain manner that no real leftist ever would.

The plot takes several interesting twists and turns, but the culmination (for me, anyway) is when Roark blows up a low-cost government housing project -- not because he has something against low-cost housing, but rather because the designers of the project broke their word to use his design with no modifications. The watered-down monstrosity they eventually produced was an affront to Roark specifically and to human dignity generally, so the uncompromising Roark blew the mother up, and he remained unrepentant about it. Such unrepentant pursuit of excellence is what separates individualists from collectivists, and the latter fear and hate the former. Sadly, they outnumber the former as well.

America was exceptional precisely because it was founded by those few who engaged in the unrepentant pursuit of excellence. But America has been overtaken by the many Keatings and Tooheys, the "second-handers" who know they are not excellent and seek to tear down anyone who is. They largely have succeeded, but something far more terrifying than their utopian paradise of equality awaits.  

What The Budget Battle Has Taught Us

To question the massive and unconstitutional scope of the modern federal government; to suggest that we not go deeper into debt to pay an already-obscene debt load; to deliver an actual filibuster rather than make a coward's agreement to dodge a vote; to reduce federal functions by a paltry 13%; to try to rescue future generations from penury, debt, and servitude -- are now all considered "crazy." In a perfect example of projection, the addicts have condemned the sober.

It should be noted that there was no danger of default, for the Treasury has more than enough money to pay interest on the national debt. What really got under people's skin was that "entitlement" spending would have to be shorn if the debt ceiling were not raised, which is not a default but rather a slight reduction of rampant thievery.

America was once proud, strong, and free, but now it is pusillanimous, weak, and slavish. The very notion of limited government strikes fear in Americans' feeble hearts, and we have no sense of life other than what government can force upon us. I do not fear what might happen; I lament what already has happened, and I understand that the time for pretending has passed. Ted Cruz is making a futile attempt to persuade the remnant that mainstream politics can still save us, but he is doing us a tremendous disservice. Look away from Washington, but rather turn your eyes to your state or city to preserve a flame of civilization in the darkness swirling about us.

Don't Sleep With People In The Office

I must have heard this warning a thousand of times before disregarding it back in 2011, but disregard it I did. Recently divorced, I was intrigued by an office paralegal with a harsh exterior that I thought must conceal some pain. I had no intention of doing anything until one of the partners (a woman) confided that the paralegal was interested in me. Having a virtual green light now, I went ahead and asked the paralegal out and enjoyed getting to know her. As I suspected, she had been through the wringer and showed me another side of herself that was kind and affectionate.

It was great for a couple of months, but just when I thought I had disproved the collective wisdom of the working world, things got weird. We would have a wonderful date on Friday night, but she would storm into my office on Monday morning ranting about something I had said that irritated her. Soon she started flying off the handle during chit-chat over lunch, displaying a hair-trigger hostility approaching paranoid schizophrenia. I figured she had trust issues that she needed to work out, so I was patient and kept trying to calm her down. But the last straw came when I returned to town after a summer visit with my friends and family back home; when I texted her a message asking her out, her response was a curt "I'm busy all weekend."

In my former life this would have angered me and provoked me to respond. The new me, however, doesn't play games or tolerate shit tests (pardon the language). I deleted her number from my phone and stopped talking to her except for what was strictly necessary for office work. It was time to go back to the status quo ante, as arm's-length professionals, and I wasn't going to waste my time arguing about it. I immediately and completely cut her out of my personal life.

She went berserk, and what followed was two years of the most crude, obnoxious, petty, childish, and unprofessional conduct I have ever witnessed. Slamming her office door when I was near. Insulting emails. Running and whining to partners about me on a regular basis. Someone should have told her that the opposite of love is not hate, but apathy; I had no feelings for her anymore, yet the hateful theatrics coming from her confirmed that she was still hung up, inspiring more amusement than annoyance.

Now that I work for myself I can speak about it freely (my anonymity on this site is paper-thin). The rest of you out there might not make so clean a getaway, so please don't do what I did, even if one of the higher-ups in your office assumes the role of procurer.

Shut It Down

So the federal government has shut down? Good. I wager that it would take less than a year of such respite from Rome on the Potomac for America to bounce back. Without the federal bootheel on our necks, creativity could flourish unhindered; people could (and would have to) set the terms of their personal and economic interactions on mutually-agreeable terms, rather than on federal dictates; supply could re-adjust to demand; prices could find their natural level (likely falling dramatically); corrupt and politically-connected businesses would collapse like deadwood; new and productive businesses could emerge from under their shadows; and hordes of parasites who depend on federal coercion for their survival would have to learn how to become productive citizens again.

In the new America, however, even a day without totalitarian control over our lives is viewed as a calamity.

Free

That's what I am now. No longer shackled to someone else's desk, I carry my life in my own hands and look forward to the future as I try to get my new business off the ground. When I first considered doing this I was afraid, but it passed as soon as I realized that I was being a hypocrite: here I am accusing everyone of spurning freedom out of a fear of responsibility, yet I have been doing the exact same thing for years on end. Just as many Americans can't conceive of life without the pervasive control of government, I could not conceive of life without the pervasive control of an employer. While both are demeaning, they offer security and continuity, and as time goes by we come to regard them as essential to survival. I have shed my Stockholm syndrome; my only regret is that I didn't do it sooner.

So who am I now? A man going his own way in a bankrupt society, doing what he can to live the virtues of his ancestors. I ask for no loan with an artificially-suppressed interest rate, but rather use my money accumulated from years of toil, engaging in true capitalism rather than the fascistic cronyism picking the flesh from America's bones. I ask for no "bailout" if I don't succeed, but rather will take my lumps and continue working to learn and improve. I don't take credit for other people's work, but rather offer my own at my own price. I don't apologize for speaking truth, no matter the offense it provokes, and I relish the opportunity to continue offending those who are comfortable with the perverted status quo. I may not be able to change society, but society will not change me, and that alone ensures that I will die a happy man.     

Tattoo Redux

Two otherwise talented bloggers have gone off the deep end with their terrible, awful, insensitive, and mean-spirited criticism of tattoos, here and here.  I may have expressed dislike for tattoos in the past, but these guys are engaging in hate speech and should be censured, if not outright censored.

A Man For All Seasons

I'm re-reading this wonderful play by Robert Bolt that tells the story of Sir Thomas More, a man whose peers viciously turned on him when he quietly but steadfastly refused to take an oath manufactured by Henry VIII that violated his conscience. Life experience allows me to read this with a new pair of eyes, for where I once pondered why everyone hated More so much, now it is perfectly obvious: he made them feel guilty for doing what they knew was wrong. Rather than admit this to themselves, they had to kill him in a vain attempt to abolish his memory.

I used to believe that when confronted with the enormity of his acts a man would repent, but I've come to learn this is so rare that it likely requires a religious experience to make it happen. Perhaps only that can enable a man to transcend his "fight or flight" instinct and become something more than a mere animal, since a belief in a supernatural presence who is immune to your lies will make you come clean.

Invigorating

That's what it is for me to read the news on any given day, for just about every story great and small confirms the depths we are plumbing.

As anticipated, Obama has unilaterally decided to use military force against Syria, violating in one fell swoop the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter. The dickering over whether there is sufficient evidence that Syria used chemical weapons against its own people is a typical sleight of hand to shift inquiry away from where it belongs, since Obama's action remains unlawful aggression one way or the other. On the plus side, this renegade behavior isn't quite so easy as it used to be -- the U.K. parliament has rejected any participation, and both China and Russia are threatening to come to the collective defense of Syria as authorized by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

Bradley Manning announced that he is truly a woman and wishes to undergo sexual re-assignment to become Chelsea Manning. While I respect his whistleblowing (no pun intended), it's unfortunate that he has chosen the easy path for this part of his life. Maybe the inhuman treatment he experienced at the hands of the federal government caused him to snap, or maybe he would have done this regardless, but strength requires making your insides match your outsides. To do the opposite represents succumbing to consumerism and materialism, i.e., having things your way rather than meeting the demands of reality.

The second annual March On Washington featured a large gathering of people who self-identify as idealists yet demand that government grow even more powerful so as to create more jobs, make everyone "equal," and generally force society into a pre-conceived mold. This is the exact opposite of idealism and a betrayal of the very notion of a free society, which we clearly no longer are.

People around the country are rallying in support of fast-food workers who demand to be paid more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25, and most of the protesters claim that $15 is "fair." First, the federal minimum wage is unconstitutional in that Congress has no enumerated power to mandate what an employer pays an employee; a state government could set a minimum wage within its borders, and per the Tenth Amendment that is precisely why the federal government may not. Second, the minimum wage even if constitutional is an immoral and dictatorial attack on the ability of people to set their own terms of association. Third, the minimum wage sets an artificial price floor for labor and, as any Econ 101 student can tell you, interferes with the marketplace and causes a shortage of jobs. Fourth, there is no discernible reason to conclude that $15 is a fair wage for this labor. A fair wage is whatever one party is willing to accept AND the other party is willing to pay; any other conclusion represents thuggery and is unfair in the extreme.

Outrage continues to swell over a schoolteacher in Billings, Montana, who received only a 30-day prison sentence for having a sexual relationship with a girl who was under the age of legal consent, such girl committing suicide a few years later.  I'm not so contrarian as to argue that outrage is unwarranted here. However, the outrage needs to be directed everywhere it belongs and not solely at the judge in this case. First, everyone overlooks that the prosecutor dismissed all the charges against the offender, on the condition that the offender follow a course of rehabilitation. It was only because the offender did not follow that course -- specifically, by having a relationship with an adult woman and visiting children relatives -- that the charges were back on the table. So the issue is not whether the judge should have imposed a harsher sentence for the offense, but whether the judge should have imposed a harsher sentence for violating the terms of the deal. That was the prosecutor's deal, and the anger should be directed at the prosecutor for making it; the judge's decision was not irrational or unjust under the circumstances. Yet the judge has already genuflected for his insensitive language about the victim, which really appears to be driving the outrage here: a light sentence is one thing, but implying that a fourteen-year-old girl knew what she was doing is verboten. Which raises yet another question of why so many people on the one hand criticize statutory-rape laws as interfering in consensual sex, yet on the other hand explode with fire and brimstone when such laws are not strictly enforced. Finally, may I ask where is the outrage for the tens, dozens, scores, even hundreds of cases where female teachers take advantage of underage males yet receive only a slap on the wrist? We are all "equal" here, aren't we?  

Yes, reading the news is invigorating indeed. There's never a dull moment as I flip the pages and my wheels start turning.

Busy Busy

My plans for going into business are moving forward nicely, and come September I will launch the website and begin my new life on my own terms. Doing all that while performing my current job duties and working on my book have made for a busy life, to say the least.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn't stop here to comment on the passing scene. No one should fail to notice the irony of Edward Snowden's flight to Russia to obtain political asylum from the United States. I remember when we used to play that role for the likes of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov, which just goes to show my longstanding point that a fractured world of competing sovereigns offers the only refuge from tyranny, a disease to which no government is immune. And history is cyclical, for Abraham Lincoln once remarked about the slavery of his day as follows: “When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

On a related note, I was doing my best to stomach NPR while driving around town recently when the oh-so educated announcer described Bradley Manning -- another man of conscience in the state's crosshairs -- as being acquitted of the charge of treason "despite violating his soldier's oath to the government."  Excuse me? The soldier's oath is to the Constitution and to defend America from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  On that score Mr. Manning acquitted himself admirably and has endured inhuman treatment for doing so. No matter what the person occupying the presidency says, the government is not us; to suggest so betrays a fascist viewpoint completely at odds with the American founding and spirit.  "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government," the saying goes, and Manning proved his readiness in spades.

Momentarily Missing The Mustang

From the time I got my license up until three years ago, I drove Mustangs because they harken back to a time when cars had character and cool names such as Dart, Hawk, and Fury. Wouldn't you know it, just as I'm finally getting used to driving my humble but sturdy Subaru Outback around Missoula, today I spied a sky-blue vintage Mustang coasting down the road in the full glory of a sunny summer afternoon. It brought back fond memories and made me think for a moment that I should replace the one I shed. On further reflection, though, I recognized that such models are fairly useless when the weather gets cold and the terrain grows rough. I need something for all seasons, and now I've got it, so I waved the Mustang goodbye and pointed myself home.  

Exciting Times, For Me And For Us All

I have decided to take a major step toward personal freedom and independence: I am going to start my own law firm. For a long time I shied away from this because of all the headaches associated with running a full practice, but a little market research has shown a strong likelihood that I can work on a contractual basis to focus on researching, writing, and oral arguments -- the things I'm best at. Better still, I already have at least one person who wants to partner with me, and we can run this business out of our respective homes with little overhead. Will it pan out? I don't know, but I do know that I'd be crazy not to try. I have established a presence in my new home state; I can draw clients from my new state and the old one; I'm unmarried and have good savings to invest in myself; and if this indeed pans out, I can work from pretty much anywhere and have a lot more free time.

In short, I am making a bid to own my life. If there is a silver lining to be found in the "new normal" of vanishing jobs and economic insecurity, perhaps it is to motivate more people to take risks and think outside the box, thereby re-invigorating the creative spirit that once made America great.

Sometimes It's Wonderful To Be Wrong

Which I surely was about the outcome of the Zimmerman trial. The jury performed its duty admirably, contrary to my suspicions, and in so doing it has restored a kernel of my faith. It also has made me smile by giving a bold finger to the teeming mass of barbarians, lunatics, fools, and career agitators who are enraged that the rule of law triumphed over their bloodlust. This has been a valuable civics lesson for a dying civilization, and everyone who has a chance to sit on a jury should cherish rather than disdain it, for that is perhaps the only opportunity you will have to make a difference anymore (within the system, anyway).

EDIT

There is, of course, the distinct possibility that the Obama administration will pursue "civil rights" charges, which would be just as ludicrous and offensive as everything else about this administration. For one, Zimmerman is not a government actor and cannot deprive anyone of civil rights (indeed, he couldn't even be sued on such a theory). The only person whose civil rights are being routinely menaced and violated is Zimmerman himself, who exercised his most fundamental right to defend his life but has been attacked by government goons ever since. The state prosecution never should have been brought, and it never would have but for political intervention. Obama and other politicians disgraced their offices by taking sides rather than allow due process to run its course. Now that it has, they threaten to come back and persecute the man even more. For all the loose talk of riots, THIS is what truly justifies them, the spectacle of a government hostile to its law-abiding citizens. 

Zimmerman Trial Promises Interesting Results, No Matter The Outcome

I have been listening to a live feed of the Zimmerman trial every day for the past two weeks, and it is clearer than ever that this prosecution is a despicable farce that never should have been brought and serves no purpose other than to slake some people's unquenchable thirst for vengeance. Zimmerman's version of events has been corroborated six ways to Sunday, and the prosecution's own case has shown that Zimmmerman is a decent and respectful man whose only sin was going the extra mile to watch out for his family and neighbors. However misguided or zealous so many people wish to portray his actions, there is no evidence that he broke any law and thereby surrendered his right to defend himself when jumped by someone who fancied himself a gangster. Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of imminent death or seriously body harm, so he terminated that threat as was his right.

I do pity the judge her task, for the television cameras are rolling and untold numbers of people will be (and already are) jumping down her throat no matter what she does. The jury's task is not so difficult, at least not on its face: applying the law to the facts compels acquittal as the only possible outcome. I suspect, however, that the jury will agonize over this and follow a primitive thought process dictating that they "do something" to rectify Trayvon Martin's death, regardless of what the law requires. I am an avowed defender of jury nullification and respect a jury's prerogative to do what it finds appropriate, the law be damned. This is a power stretching all the way back to the colonial era and serves as a reminder that in America, the people are supposed to be sovereign. But there are a couple of wrinkles in the present circumstance. For one, the case is legally inadequate to reach the jury at all, since the prosecution's own evidence has shown that Zimmerman did not have a criminal state of mind, and that he had a right to defend himself that trumps any potential criminal liability anyway. Jury nullification is meant to check government power, not amplify it, so there is no necessary role for the jury to play here. Jury duty also demands a skill that has gone virtually extinct, namely independent and critical thought. Very few people bother to reflect on anything or reach their own conclusions anymore; after all, in our technological utopia the "experts" and pundits tackle big questions and provide us with slick, pre-cooked, and easy-to-swallow answers that only nutballs (such as I) bother examining or debating. Thus a modern jury is ill-equipped to perform its protective function even when necessary.

If the jury indeed flubs this case which never should have been allowed to reach it -- such as by convicting Zimmerman of second-degree murder or, as I suspect, a lesser-included offense such as manslaughter -- I can only hope that the intermediate District Court of Appeal or the Florida Supreme Court tosses out the conviction. That would be a true test of those judges' fitness for the bench. Would they do what the law requires, or what the mob demands?

The mob is already telegraphing its intention to riot if the jury acquits. If that does happen, law-abiding citizens have every right to defend themselves and should not flinch from exercising it. Just because you don't go looking for trouble does not mean that you shouldn't bite its head off when it comes looking for you.

 

No matter what, Zimmerman will be harassed, bullied, and hunted forever, all of which is far less legal and justified than anything he did.

George Carlin Attacks Men

To lighten the mood and show that I'm an equal-opportunity offender, here's a funny clip of George Carlin stereotyping and attacking men. [WARNING: Extreme profanity, but sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.]

DOMA Dies, Proposition 8 Lives, And The Band Plays On While Titanic Sinks

The Star Chamber pronounced this past week that the Constitution forbids the federal government from defining marriage -- merely for the federal government's own internal workings, mind you -- as Western civilization has defined it for thousands of years.  On its face this is shocking enough, but it is all the more shocking when you consider that the Supreme Court previously upheld a federal law that imposed criminal penalties on people who attempted to live out novel interpretations of "marriage."  I think the framers of the Constitution would likewise feel startled to learn that the document they labored to create could be so radically altered without an amendment. But thinking is a dead pursuit, and people who cheer this decision do so on an emotional impulse without pausing to consider that allowing government to unilaterally change the supreme law of the land is extremely dangerous. Surely such people see no connection between the DOMA decision and phenomena such as NSA spying, drone attacks against American citizens, or undeclared wars, but the connection indeed exists, and such people have enabled the genie to slip free of its bottle. In so doing, they have waived their right to invoke the Constitution against the federal government ever again.

All the more offensive is where the Star Chamber failed to act, namely in refusing to defend the sovereign will of the people of California against their own state government and a tyrannical Ninth Circuit.  In America the people are supposed to be sovereign, and the people of California declared that they do not wish to embrace homosexual marriage, a declaration well within their sovereign rights and the American experience. Other states have decided to embrace homosexual marriage, as is their sovereign right too, but it appears that sovereignty is allowed only if it upholds what the elites deem correct (similar to the world stage, where national sovereignty is allowed unless those who assert it displease the federal government, whereupon they are sanctioned, bombed, or invaded). As I've discussed here previously, there is no credible or even sane way to read the Constitution as forbidding the people of California from ordering their affairs in this manner; what is truly insane is to read the Constitution as forcing them against their will to bless an institution as sacred, a despicable crime that blends servitude with sacrilege. Their own representatives in the state government refused to uphold their wishes when the usual suspects attacked them in the federal courts, and the Star Chamber latched onto this dereliction of duty as a pretext to deny review.  [Note -- Proposition 8 still lives, however, because other states can enact the same measure and try their luck with the federal judges in their neck of the woods, leaving the issue for future argument before the Star Chamber.]

At the end of the day, though, it makes little difference because marriage does not even exist as an institution in this country anymore, so the homosexual lobby is about to unveil a corpse bride. Sorry, but the heterosexuals already trashed it before you could.  Marriage was designed as an enduring institution to grant security for the people entering it and stability for the society around it, yet marriage now grants security and stability to no one. Modern marriage is simply cohabitation/fornication, for the ostensibly lifelong arrangement can be canceled with impunity at the whim of either party and inflict devastating results on the other, on the children, and on the society that must pick up the pieces. For those who quail that marriage might trap people against their will, they forget that taking the vows is an act of the will, so honoring them upholds freedom and its counterpart, responsibility. This is the philosophy underlying all contracts, i.e., you have freedom of contract because you are presumed responsible and will be held responsible upon your breach. Modern marriage absolves the promisor of responsibility and, bizarrely enough, often punishes the promisee when the promisor breaches. If you disagree with holding a promisor's feet to the fire, you merely have proclaimed that you are irresponsible and that your promises cannot be trusted. Proud of yourself?

History has shown that most people can endure hardship and poverty. It also has shown, and is showing again in spades, that most people cannot endure ease and wealth. Under the latter circumstances people lose their moorings and go freaking nuts, simply because there is nothing to stop them. But the Titanic still sinks no matter how loudly or boldly the band plays on.

Life Is Strange

I'm not a big fan of John Lennon, but he did make at least one insightful observation: "life is what happens when you're making other plans."

For one, I thought that embarking on my next book would sap my energy, but it's made me want to write even more.

I never wanted to practice law. Instead, I went to law school as an intellectual exercise and to postpone adulthood for a while longer, and I was miserable for several years after graduating. These days I must admit that I enjoy several aspects of my work. I'm a natural at arguing; the moment I start reading a new complaint or a motion, my mind latches onto weaknesses and inconsistencies, and I almost can't take notes fast enough to keep track of everything that's wrong with what I'm looking at. At hearings, I'm ready to leap out of my chair every few seconds to explain everything that's wrong with what the opposing counsel is saying, and it's torture to bite my tongue until the fool is finished. I have reached the point where I can smell contradictions in narratives, and I love hitting witnesses with them.

My personal evolution is the reverse of everyone else's. When I was young I took everything seriously and was very cautious; now, as I approach 40 and see my contemporaries getting all serious about their lives, I find myself thinking that maybe I should sell my belongings, shave my head, hop onto a motorcycle, and travel the countryside as an itinerant philosopher while civilization burns down around my ears.

I always needed solitude and hated being around other people. While I'm still an introvert for certain, people entertain me more than they ever did before, and I enjoy learning their unique life stories.

I used to always wonder whether I was right. Now, despite all my experiences that should sow doubt, I know that I am.

Spanish is a language I studied simply because I enjoy it, but now I find that it's very practical to know.

I was born and raised in South Florida; I love the ocean and beach volleyball; now I live in Montana -- and I love it here.

Zimmerman Trial Already Induces Nausea

I'm watching the first day of the trial and attempting to endure the prosecution's profane yet sanctimonious opening statement, which portrays Zimmerman as an evil man who followed Trayvon for improper reasons while portraying Trayvon as a perfectly innocent youngster unsuspecting of the evil coming after him.

It makes NO DIFFERENCE whether Zimmerman had a racial or other unsavory motive for following Trayvon. All that matters is whether Zimmerman's motive was to murder Trayvon, and there is no evidence of that. Zimmerman engaged in perfectly legal conduct when following Trayvon. Trayvon, however, decided to break the law and attack Zimmerman, pummeling his head into the pavement. Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life and stood his ground to defend himself, just as the law and justice entitled him to do.

This is a politically motivated prosecution through and through, a Bonfire Of The Vanities that gives the prosecution a chance to preen for the camera. Let's hope the jury sees through this and does its duty.

UPDATE

The defense is flubbing the opening badly. Overly dependent on props, rambling, and uninspired. I would focus like a laser on what's relevant. First, remind the jury that they must acquit unless the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman intended to murder Trayvon (after all, the charge is second-degree murder), which clearly cannot be shown. Second, remind the jury to ask whether Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life when he shot. Since the only possible answer is "yes" based on the evidence, the case is closed.

Grass Eaters The Next Phase Of Evolution?

I've read some fascinating articles lately on the Japanese phenomenon known as "herbivores" or "grass eaters," young men who renounce traditional roles and pursue their own interests in a quiet life of minimal effort with regard either to romance or to work. When considering how men have behaved since the dawn of recorded history -- e.g., killing each other or working ourselves into early graves for the benefit of women and children -- this mass retreat is nothing short of revolutionary, and it may very well point the way to the next phase of evolution.

I've written before that we are out of the jungle but the jungle is not out of us, since the reptilian hind brain perpetually threatens to emerge and destroy our delicate experiment with civilization (indeed, it has laid waste to our own within a brief fifty years of our allowing it to slither loose). With the herbivores, however, we witness the opposite trend as the frontal lobe is winning and pummeling the reptile into unconsciousness.  The frontal lobe is only a recent evolutionary development that until now has danced to the reptile's tune, with rare exceptions such as Isaac Newton and other geniuses. It's fascinating to see this young creature get the upper hand over its ancient parent on such a large scale. Feminism is a loud movement that demanded liberation from women's historical roles and continues to demand constant government intervention to change society to its liking. "Herbivorism" is a quiet movement that demands nothing, but rather shrugs and walks away from society.

Ironically (but unsurprisingly) it is the latter that has caused everyone to freak out. Herbivores are excoriated not only by women, but also by older men whose pride won't allow them to entertain the thought that they are mere beasts of burden. The familiar shaming language tells the herbivores to "man up," which means of course to re-assume their role as disposable tools, but they have chosen to live for themselves and won't budge even for the prospect of sex.

This leaves of course the question of reproduction and how Japan or any other society flirting with grass-eating can survive. Demographic implosion is surely a danger, but I'm wagering that the frontal lobe has a few more tricks up its sleeve and won't be defeated so easily. Perhaps a grass eater will unlock the secret of mortality and prolong life indefinitely. Or perhaps a grass eater will figure out how to create artificial wombs, such as imagined by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, thus liberating reproduction from sex. There is no telling what wonders our minds, unhindered, could achieve at that point. Maybe Jesus was right: the meek will inherit the Earth!

It's unlikely I'll live to see how this shakes out, but for now I do enjoy the panic the grass eaters are causing simply by doing their own thing.    

Caught At A Drag Party

I'm on my own for the weekend, and I was getting cabin fever writing my next brilliant book, so I headed over to the Palace Lounge to sip some suds and shoot some pool. It's been a full two years since I visited that place (with an ex-girlfiend -- and that's not a typo).  It's a dark underground lair that offers anonymity and good tunes; little did I know that I was in for a drag party scheduled for this particular evening. I've always been slow to pick up on my surroundings, so I didn't notice anything unusual until a young Venezuelan man started chatting me up at the bar. After exchanging a few words in Spanish I finally figured out that he was hitting on me. My gaydar is weak, but when he remarked that I look much younger than I am and lamented that I have a girlfriend, it was difficult even for me to miss what was happening. The man belting out "Jar Of Hearts" on stage was another clue I couldn't miss. No matter, I thought, I'm secure enough in my sexuality not to feel threatened; if anything, I was flattered because gay men don't like you if you're fugly (truth be told, sometimes I wish I were gay because whatever discrimination society offers doesn't hold a candle to the grief women can dish out). I settled into my surroundings to enjoy some people-watching and exotic music.

Why do I mention this here?  Because however introverted I am or you might be, the occasional feast of sight and sound is good for you.

The Imperial Presidency Attacks Syria

As I discussed one year ago, for the United States to intervene in Syria's civil war on the side of the rebels would be a violation of the very UN Charter that the United States helped establish after the Second World War. It is treason of the worst kind, for the act of initiating warfare against a sovereign nation is the "original sin" that unleashed so many others and plunged the world into chaos, as Justice Robert Jackson noted when heading the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.  

Unsurprisingly, King President Obama has unilaterally declared that the United States indeed will do this, compounding the betrayal by shredding our Constitution and its requirement that Congress declare war. The unilateral power of the British monarchs to take their subjects -- including those living in America -- into war was a major contributing factor to our Revolution and the motivation for entrusting that power to Congress, the body most representative of the people. It makes no difference whether Obama plans to put American "boots on the ground"; he is openly declaring hostilities against a sovereign government, and in so doing he has imperiled us all without our consent. Likely we will have to surrender even more of our rights to the NSA, DHS, and any number of other federal agencies to "protect" us from the consequences. 

Another historical parallel I drew was with Abraham Lincoln, who told the rest of the world to keep out of the War For Southern Independence. Yet now I hear that Obama has quoted Lincoln as justification for intervening in someone else's problems. Although this initially struck me as a contradiction, I admit it makes sense on further reflection. Lincoln destroyed the sovereignty of the states to create a new central government with open-ended power to bring "civil rights" to every corner of the country (in truth, to hold the power of life and death over us all). Obama and those like him seek to accomplish something very similar on the world stage -- to destroy the sovereignty of nation-states to erect a central and supra-national authority with open-ended power to bring "human rights" to every corner of the world (again meaning that the power over us will be complete).  

I should pause to mention that the UN Charter still has a role to play here.  Because the United States is now attacking Syria, Article 51 of the Charter entitles any other country to come to the defense of Syria and attack the United States, without seeking approval from the Security Council.  In other words, Obama has just placed a seal of legitimacy on foreign violence against us. This is a man who swore to uphold the Constitution and protect us. He has betrayed those oaths and placed us in danger to pursue what he believes are the best interests of foreigners. Though this is no different from what presidents have been doing to us for roughly the past century, it needs to be called out for what it is.

Edward Snowden Gives A Lesson On Manhood

Nothing is more powerful than a man with a conscience. Not even the most powerful government the world has ever seen -- with its bounteous rewards for obedience and terrible retribution for rebellion -- could stop Edward Snowden from doing what he believed was right and gumming up the works. In so doing, he likely sacrificed everything in this world, an act that confounds the modern mind in its perception of happiness as purely material. I've said it before, and it's time to say it again: men cannot live by bread alone. We crave truth and justice, and by fighting for them Edward Snowden has become far richer than he ever was or could otherwise be. They can whisk him away and rob him of his due process to their hearts' desire, but he has transcended and defeated them.

Dreams

One must never underestimate their power. Many ancient and tribal cultures have understood that the world of dreams provides a glimpse behind the veil of consciousness, a view of the world beyond what our impoverished senses convey. Unfortunately, we live in a time and place that values only what the senses convey, a society addicted to sensation but numb to truth. I have always had vivid dreams. Strangely enough, the scary ones have given me the greatest truth.

 

Nightmares haunted me frequently when I was young.

There was a creature pursuing me through a labyrinth. I couldn't see the creature, but I heard it making a noise that grew louder as it caught up with me. I ran furiously and managed to reach a point where the noise finally died away. Thinking myself safe, I opened a door and heard the blare of a thousand horns.

It was dark, and I was locked outside the house as I heard my parents talking within. I knocked on the door furiously, but they didn't hear me. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, from across the street in the neighbor's yard. Turning, I peered into the darkness and saw something moving over there. I slowly walked toward it, and then it lurched at me with a growl.  

A strange man hunted me with a gun. I figured out that I was dreaming and forced myself awake, relieved to find myself in my bedroom. But suddenly his shadow sprang up on the wall.

A giant dinosaur interrogated me with words I couldn't understand, digging its talons into my ribs.

After my parents divorced, I awoke in my bedroom at my mom's house during the night and knew something was wrong. If I didn't leave that room, something terrible would come out of the darkness, likely the closet. I made my way across the house to my mother's room, relieved to find her sleeping there. Her back was turned to me. As I touched her shoulder to tell her I was scared, she whipped around with bright green eyes and grabbed me.

As I stood in a dark hallway, I saw the faint and misshapen silhouette of someone at the other end.  Squinting, I saw it was the Elephant Man. He rushed toward me.

Though not as frequent, nightmares still have paid me occasional visits into adulthood.

I was a police officer investigating a case of child abuse. My partners and I found a mother doing something to her daughter, though we weren't sure what, so I ordered that the daughter be taken into a separate room so I could figure things out. As I approached the mother, I heard a scream and saw the daughter run back into view, with an older woman's head on her body. I turned to look at the mother and saw a little girl's head on her shoulders, smiling and laughing while the daughter kept screaming.

I was a vampire, and a group of people dragged me outside to witness dawn. When dawn broke, I felt flames envelop me.

Sometimes I awaken in a "hypnagogic" state -- my mind is conscious, but my body is asleep and will not obey my commands to move. It feels as though I could be paralyzed indefinitely, and I strain to force myself out of bed but can't budge. While trapped one time, I felt something move at the foot of the bed and work its way onto my chest, pressing down on me. I struggled to make it stop; it did, but then I felt the covers being pulled off me, and a hand grabbed my leg. It was a waking dream, but it felt real.

As horrifying as these experiences were, I view them as a gift that instructed me early on about a simple truth: the placid waters of daily life are mere illusion, and all manner of creature lurks just beneath the surface. Most people choose to ignore the creatures; I can't. 

More Grammar Gripes

I see illiterate people . . . everywhere. For example:

"Principle" is a noun, not an adjective.

It's "different from," not "different than."

It's "people who," not "people that."

It's "the reason that," not "the reason why" (a tautology).

"General consensus" is also a tautology.

It's "ad nauseam," not "ad naseum."

An "aid" is something that helps; an "aide" is someone who helps.

"Anxious" means nervous, not eager.

When referring to historical epochs, "B.C." appears after the number while "A.D." appears before. I saw this mistake recently in a news article published by none other than the Associated Press. 2000 B.C. means two thousand years "before Christ," whereas A.D. 2000 means "in the year of our Lord, 2000." Popular nowadays are "B.C.E." (before the Common Era) and "C.E." (the Common Era), a transparent dodge that relies on the same odometer reading while excluding the landmark. It's rewarding to adhere to the old system and offend such people. They are, however, ultimately prevailing because the fidelity, justice, charity, and mercy of the Christian Era are ceding ground to the treason, injustice, rapacity, and cruelty of paganism. 

Brilliant Young Man Learns His First Real Lesson

While on a road trip to Helena this weekend, I read a news story about a teenager who had managed to construct a fusion reactor in his garage. This is an astounding achievement, especially for a young man still in high school. For those of you who don't understand, nuclear fusion is when the nuclei of two light atoms (typically hydrogen, the lightest ) are joined to create heavier elements. This is rather difficult to accomplish because the positive charge of the protons in each nucleus repels each other, requiring a tremendous amount of force to overcome it and drive the nuclei together, which in turn releases a tremendous amount of energy. Such fusion occurs naturally in stars because they are so massive that their own gravity squeezes the nuclei together. A garage is a different story. Moreover, fusion is the holy grail of energy production because it is clean and leaves no radioactive waste (unlike the fission featured in nuclear reactors, which splits the nuclei of heavy elements and leaves quite a mess behind).  The problem is that modern science requires so much energy to create fusion that the yield is a net loss. Perhaps the young man's experiment could chart a path to cheap and clean energy production in the future. Regardless, he deserves to be celebrated.

However, the remainder of the news article promptly reminded me of the world we inhabit: the International Science and Engineering Fair disqualified the young man from competing, stating that he had competed in too many science fairs already. I guarantee you this is a pretext to exclude someone who makes everyone else's tinkerings with wind farms, ethanol, and solar panels look foolish by comparison. Perhaps some benefactor has a child enrolled in the competition. Perhaps these "scientists" don't want their government plunder funding revealed as an abject waste of time. Or perhaps they think it's unfair that a young man should achieve great things. It could be any or all of them. 

The young man expressed anger and confusion of a sort that I am all too familiar with, but he has learned a valuable lesson about excellence -- it alienates the vast majority of people. If he continues down this path, he will have a lonely and difficult life, but he will be true to himself and may give the world something it has never seen. Surely the world will gladly snatch his achievements for itself and express little or no gratitude for it.  Yet the world will never comprehend that excellent people ultimately do what they do for themselves and their love of truth and beauty, not for you.

Rebirth

Weighted with worry, I plunge into cold waters
And strain my muscles to pull through.
Back, side, and front.  Back and forth, back and forth.
Their faces haunt me from the depths, threatening to pull me under
Until at last my pain drowns them while preserving me.
Afterwards, steam carries sweat down my naked body,
Washing me clean, rendering me new to the world again.
Ready to fight. Ready to live.   

Downloading A Gun On A 3D Printer

Represents something glorious and unstoppable: the democratization of power. No longer is democracy an empty slogan to lull the masses into supporting Establishment Candidate 1 or Establishment Candidate 2. The spread of technology has enabled us to learn, to communicate, and now to act without need for establishment proxies. We are cutting out the middlemen. Surely they will not go gentle into that good night; their increasingly tyrannical behavior reeks of desperation. But do not misunderstand me -- I am not advocating the use of a gun for anything other than recreation or self-defense. I am simply observing that a world where the state is losing its monopoly on violence is sure to be a better one, for only when that monopoly is assured do we witness the rampant thievery, injustice, and bloodshed that the state is uniquely capable of.

On Being Anti-Social

The epithet "anti-social" has been flung at me from time to time because I am, admittedly, an introvert who needs time alone to delve the universe before I can interact with this tiny corner of it. But I deny that the epithet fits me in any way, shape, or form.

I say "please" and "thank you." I treat people with respect, unless they attack me or otherwise show themselves unworthy of it. I mind my own business and don't pry into other people's affairs or spread gossip. If I make a promise, I keep it no matter the discomfort or displeasure it causes. If someone bests me or generally excels, I offer congratulations; I don't seethe with envy or try to cut the person down to size. I don't curse in mixed company or in front of children. I don't resent people whose lives are more prosperous or enjoyable than mine, nor do I demand that they pay for my mistakes or take on my problems. I say what I mean, and I do what I say. I tip waitstaff well. I'm a considerate driver: I don't linger in the passing lane; I don't tailgate; I use my turn signal; and I use my horn only to warn, not to scorn. If I go to church, I dress in an appropriate and respectful manner. I have never stood up a date. I have never hit a woman and never will. And I don't jettison friends simply because I disagree with their politics.

Society is coming apart at the seams, but it is not because of people like me.          

The Magic Of Music

No trenchant criticism this evening. I've been writing my new book, and after an initial speed bump the words are flowing freely now. It makes no difference whether this book goes nowhere as my others have; it represents a part of me that will remain after I'm gone. Though I once dreamt of having children, I have come to grips with the fact that's not going to happen, so writing is all I have left.

In the meantime, I found this beautiful stretch of music from the Dances With Wolves soundtrack, and I wanted to share it because whatever you might think of the film itself, the music captures the human spirit in merely eight minutes. Hope, progress, danger, tragedy, love, and peace are all found here -- with no lyrics to cheapen them. Enjoy.

No Hate For The Ex

A buddy of mine asked me today whether I hate my ex-wife for betraying and abandoning me, and I didn't hesitate for a moment in giving the answer: no. She is the woman I fell in love with and married; I don't have it in me to hate her, no matter the things she's done and said. All I feel for her is sadness. Like so many people today, she has no moral core and no sense of self, which is why she fell into a dark world that supplies her the identity she lacked. My wedding day was the happiest day of my life, and nobody can take that away from me. I consider myself a widower. Perhaps one day I'll see her ghost, but the woman I married is dead. We mourn the dead, but we must move on with life.

Altered Consciousness

I've never tried narcotics because they represent cowardice, a desire to flee reality rather than face it. Besides, I achieve altered states of consciousness on my own, and reality is far more captivating than fantasy.

Case in point, I was competing in a chess tournament this weekend hosted by a local expert popularly known as "the Octopus," a name he acquired by playing exhibitions against multiple players simultaneously. The Octopus's tournaments are fun because they are unrated, so I can let my mind wander down various rabbit holes to explore creative possibilities that I wouldn't ordinarily pursue. After winning my first round, it fell upon me to play the Octopus himself, whom everyone presumed would win our game and the tournament. The few times I had managed to beat him were in speed games of five minutes per person, but this was to be a pitched battle with no refuge found in a clock flag. As we played I saw the pieces and the board in a way I never used to, a galaxy of possibilities now laid bare to someone previously blind to them. He was tightening the noose around my king, so rather than die a slow death fending him off, I sacrificed my knight near his own king -- which opened up a file for my rooks to come after him. Before long he sacrificed his own knight to defend himself, and next thing I knew the position was drawn. I won my remaining games, but the Octopus drew again when playing against another expert, so at the end of the day I finished first and the Octopus second. This was the completion of unfinished business from three years ago, when I arrived in Missoula and won an Octopus tournament without having to play the man himself.

This was also the realization that reality and its workings fascinate me more than fantasy ever could. I had a brief conversation with a young man also competing in the tournament, and we shared stories about how unlocking the key to stronger chess is so much like unlocking the key to languages, engineering, martial arts, and just about any other endeavor. We catch brief glimpses of the mind of God, the ordered genius behind all things, and we feel divine. No flight of fancy could ever compete.         

Sickly Musings

This past weekend I was hit with stomach flu and had a limited range of activities, chief of which was lying in bed and stewing in my own juices (figuratively).  Despite the nausea, intermittent chills and sweats, and pounding temples, I managed to derive some enjoyment from the ordeal.

For one, I prided myself on taking no medications whatsoever. This wasn't just to relish the pain -- which I do value, incidentally -- but because medication suppresses symptoms and thereby disrupts the body's immune response. This led me to consider how the supposed fixes for the economy are nothing more than symptom-suppression; the "experts" are so afraid of falling asset prices that they are doing everything in their power to artificially prop them up, which disrupts the natural process of excreting out economic waste and allowing supply to re-adjust to demand -- and which guarantees that things will be even worse later on.  Then I decided to dwell on the more specific news of late about the Boston Marathon. I could just imagine the media's frustration that the prime bombing suspects are not angry white homegrown conservatives, but rather young Muslim immigrants, and I ventured to guess that a leftist narrative would be constructed to give them a pass that the desired suspects never would have received (if what I've heard on the news today is any indication, I was right -- I didn't see "childhood bullying" coming, but that's a stroke of genius because it might place fault on white conservatives anyway!). Then I drifted from the specific back to the general, as is my tendency, and I recalled the infamous Boston marathoner Rosie Ruiz. Here is someone who got caught red-handed hopping into the race near the finish to claim a superhuman victory time, and more than thirty years after the fact she doggedly maintains that she won the race fair and square, and I'll bet she actually believes that she's the victim. The brain has an amazing ability to construct comforting fantasies; apparently, the pursuit of truth represents too selfless an undertaking for most people, but perhaps that's why an entire religion had to be founded to encourage it. Then I paused to notice that some of my chess buddies are reluctant to play me anymore, which mystified me at first because I always enjoy having someone stronger to practice against; for example, I've been invited to the state closed championship for the second year in a row, and I will enjoy the experience despite knowing that I will likely get my butt kicked.  But I remembered so many other times in life when something like this happened; the world belongs to charming mediocrities, and I guess I never have made peace with that fact.

It was almost unfortunate that I got better so quickly and had to bring these and other musings to a (temporary) halt.    

Why I Oppose Feminism

At last I will explain my beef with feminism, something I've addressed only humorously or tangentially until now. There are several good reasons for my opposition.

First, the doctrine by its very essence is hostile to me as a man. The bedrock tenet of feminism is that women are oppressed and that men are their oppressors. Sorry, but I've never oppressed anyone, and I reject the notion that I owe anyone an apology for something I did not do. (And "oppression" does not mean to annoy or anger; that's part of life, and if you can't handle it, you need to grow up.) I also reject the notion that the average woman historically had it worse than the average man. When you consider the countless numbers of men who have been mutilated or killed in wars; wasted away in mines, factories, and fields performing back-breaking work; or had their lives and property stolen by tyrants, it is downright offensive to argue -- nay, to take as a given -- that men have had it better. Feminism commits the "apex fallacy" by focusing on a few powerful men and extrapolating that status onto all men. While feminism claims that this apex of men is cause enough for revolution, feminism has done nothing to challenge those men, but rather increases their power. Powerful men love feminism, and with good reason because it makes ordinary men easier to harangue and control.

Second, consider that feminism reached its zenith precisely at the historic moment when the mind of man created such incredible technologies that idleness -- or "the problem that has no name," as Betty Friedan put it -- became women's biggest problem. This truly shows that no good deed goes unpunished.

Third, I'm against feminism because it is tyrannical. For instance, the mere fact that I'm on this blog exercising my right of free speech and offering a different viewpoint would be deemed hateful and "oppressive" by feminists, even though they're the ones espousing an entire ideology based on their sex. Couple that with how feminism wields the power of government to destroy private property, freedom of contract, and freedom of association -- not freedom of speech yet, but they're working on it -- and it's easy to conclude that feminism fosters oppression rather than combats it.

Fourth, I'm against feminism because I'm in favor of women. That's right, I said it: feminism hurts women. A good deal of the harm is psychological in that feminism tells women they must measure their worth by male standards. As the great G.K. Chesterton once observed, feminism represents abject surrender; whereas women previously looked on men's affairs as pretentious rubbish, now men's affairs are viewed as so important that to miss out on them is deemed a crime. A standard response is that feminism at least created choices for a woman, who now can choose whether or not to engage in previously male activities. This is false, for the vast majority of women today have no choice between home or career -- they must pursue both because by doubling the labor force, feminism has driven wages down and made it virtually impossible for a family to thrive on one person's income. Surely there are exceptions, but by and large women are pushed into the mind-numbing world of men's work regardless of whether they want it. And by all accounts, women are far less happy about this state of affairs. And yet another source of female misery stems from the sexual revolution, which feminism portrayed as liberating because it shredded all taboos, yet which allows men complete license to "come and go" as we please. If I truly had a grudge against women, I would shut up about this and simply enjoy the new status quo. 

Fifth, I'm against feminism because it harms boys and men. Boys are harmed in the slaughterhouses known as schools, be they public or private, because feminism predominates there and perceives boys' strongest qualities -- independence, spontaneity, and thinking outside the box -- as defects to be ironed out, often by pharmacology that produces headcases and mass murderers. Feminism thus is strangling in the cradle the dynamic male qualities that fuel a healthy civilization, opting instead to churn out waves of emasculated conformists who dutifully absorb their lessons, always follow orders no matter how outrageous, and faintly recall their manliness by watching sports or engaging in other mindless pleasure-seeking (i.e., nothing that might upset the applecart). Even if boys manage to resist this programming and emerge relatively unscathed into manhood, what awaits us isn't very promising, for there are no longer any social spaces that we can claim as uniquely our own; we can get into serious trouble or tossed in jail just for saying "boo" to the wrong woman; we are constantly mocked and denigrated in the media while being expected to laugh it off; and if we marry, we run a high risk of getting swallowed by the family-court gulag, which can occur at the drop of a hat even in the absence of fault.

Sixth, of course, are feminism's flagrant double standards, many of which I humorously discussed once before. We are to be "equal."  Yet, for example, only men are conscripted into military service. Only men are expected to lay down our lives for others if danger is afoot. Only male adulterers are evil and self-serving. Only women may complain about the opposite sex; if a man does so, there must be something "wrong" with him. Only a male pervert who abuses children is duly punished, but female perverts who abuse children get a slap on the wrist or are hailed as heroines. The list goes on and on.    

Seventh, one of the crown jewels of feminism -- the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the vote -- has done little more than advance the dangerous notion that government is vital to every aspect of society. In a free and healthy society, government is mostly irrelevant and comes out of the woodwork only when violence is absolutely necessary to keep the peace, resolve disputes, or defend the nation. Not participating in these occasional, necessary evils is no cause for palpitations or sleep loss. Yet the feminist narrative makes these incidents all-important, portraying government as synonymous with society and the vote as a ticket to participating in society, which has paved the way for government to become the ubiquitous monstrosity it is now. Violence by means of politics permeates every nook and cranny of American life because feminism (and leftism in general) tells us this is liberating; now there is no refuge from government violence, and we are all worse off for it. Both men and women had far more control over our lives before this supposed golden age descended upon us. I myself refrain from voting in federal elections because I refuse to participate in unlawful enterprises, and this abstention makes me feel healthier, happier, and far more dignified. You should try it too.

I suppose that's enough "oppression" for one evening; it's not nice that I actually defend myself against an ideology proclaiming me the enemy.

I Couldn't Have Said It Better

If only I could claim credit for the following remark, which I stumbled upon after reading an article on how sex-obsessed modern life has become in just a few decades.

Re:."Who would've thought that Haley's "Rock Around the Clock" would eventually lead to gangster rap?” In 1955 my steady girlfriend and I did foresee something like that. We saw the substantive subliminal message in Rock and Roll ("Rock Around the Clock") immediately. Music, the most powerful of the arts carries its own more potent message quite apart from the lyrics. The Pre-TV generation of Eisenhower Administration and the 1950s were more free thinking and "liberated" than the conformist useful-idiots of all succeeding decades. We were not prudes, we just had self-control and a sense of the sacred. This freed us. The mass media provided a channel for the injection of a suicidal subversive culture into our populace and rendered them vile. They are now prisoners of the tyranny of their urges. I know no one that "lost" their faith. I know many whose faith was assassinated.

At least the remnant still lives and breathes, which means there remains hope for civilization to re-assert itself. 

"Intimidated By Intelligence" Works Both Ways

In the neverending saga of the gender wars, a frequent refrain is that men are intimidated by intelligent women. I won't deny it; many men indeed are. But I should pause to mention that women are often just as intimidated by intelligent men. The past forty years of relentless feminist indoctrination, coupled with the equally relentless portrayal of men in movies and television, has led many women to take it as a given that 1) men are horny idiots, and 2) the only way a man could possibly be superior to a woman is by oppressing her. It must be comforting to hang around with a lustful lowbrow who fits this stereotype, since he is easily manipulated through his libido and his simplicity reinforces the woman's fierce conviction that she is superior. An intelligent man whose thoughts originate above the waist poses a serious threat to this rewarding and delusional existence.

Here is one case where equality manifests itself. Only a confident and secure man can enjoy the company of intelligent women, but only a confident and secure woman can enjoy the company of intelligent men.  

A Brief Insight On Easter

Today Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, an important event signifying that the corrupt powers of this world cannot murder truth. Yet many of these selfsame Christians have forgotten or distorted Jesus' teaching to signify something rather different, like a manual for leading a pleasant and prosperous existence within the world. This is a serious mistake, a category error that forgets how a true Christian is in the world but never really of it. For example, the story of the rich man whom Jesus tells to give all his belongings to the poor is distorted to focus on the worldly benefit done for the poor, when the true message is the spiritual benefit done for the rich man. After all, if the rich man gives everything away, he will now be poor as well, so there has been no improvement in worldly terms. The improvement is spiritual. Jesus instructed that poverty should not worry us nor the treasures of the world entice us; it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven, not because wealth alone is corrupting, but rather because the acquisitiveness and worldliness necessary to gather it are. If you observe Easter as a Christian, take at least this much from it: follow what is right and true regardless of unpleasant consequences, least of all to yourself.   

Unbelievable

This generation's capacity for critical thought is even more impaired than I suspected. Today I have witnessed a flood of treacly pronouncements in the news and in social circles demanding that the Supreme Court make everyone "equal" as to marriage. The thinking (as it were) goes something like this: "it's totally unfair that homosexual couples are banned from getting married, so the Supreme Court should rule that they have just as much a right to marry each other as heterosexual couples."

I've posted about this before, but let's review for the people who are still sucking their bongs.

First, homosexuals are not banned from getting married anywhere in the United States. Nothing prevents them from marrying each other. There are no fire hoses, barking dogs, or lynch mobs who will stand in the way. What's at issue here is something very different, namely whether citizens of a state (in this case, California) are free to withhold their public seal of approval from such unions. Everyone chanting about freedom and equality is, in truth, seeking to impose slavery by forcing those citizens to approve of something they do not wish to. Like feminism and all other forms of leftism, the gay-rights movement seeks to force its will onto society and cannot tolerate dissent. 

Second, whether you support gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Constitution requires it, which is the question before the Court. It is juvenile and barbaric to assume that your preferences form part of the supreme law of the land, especially here, since only a lunatic would conclude that the same Constitution that once allowed states to criminalize homosexual activity now requires states to sanctify it. The only proper response to such lunacy (which surely won't come) is for the Court to strike down what the lower federal courts did as an assault on the Constitution, a deviation from precedent, and an incursion on California's sovereignty.

Third, everyone already is equal as to marriage. We all have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex if that person is above a certain age and beyond a certain degree of kinship (but perhaps those are the next "rights" in the bullpen). The fact that you do not wish to exercise this right does not make your situation unequal or unfair. There are plenty of people who never wish to marry, and there are others (like me) who are divorced and will never marry again. And guess what? My fellow citizens have every right to acknowledge and reward their marriages as more desirable than my singlehood. I accept that the enhanced public status of marriage will never be mine again, and I am not so arrogant as to demand that the community treat me as "equal" in this regard. To sanctify everyone equally is to sanctify nobody, and believe me, that's the real goal afoot here and with leftism in general -- dragging everyone down as opposed to allowing only some to rise up.

This episode captures so much that is fallen about our modern condition, such as the triumph of emotion over reason, of courts over the people, and of centralized power over the Constitution.

Rand Paul Sells Out

By rolling out the red carpet to interlopers. This was easily foreseeable, for it is impossible now to attain or occupy federal office while holding the fundamental convictions necessary to preserve America. To be fair, I'll wager that Paul honestly believes that the founding principles of this country are universally applicable and workable, revealing a depth of naïveté to match his father's dream of resurrecting the Constitution. Surely people the world over savor the fruits of limited government and the rule of law, but precious few of them possess the self-restraint necessary to till that soil. If they did, there would be no need for them to barge in here; they could simply read our founding documents and duplicate the magic in their own countries, which never happens.     

Random Thought On The True Benefits Of Exercise

I believe that if most people had the option, they would swallow a magic pill to make them perpetually fit without having to expend any time or effort. This is another manifestation of materialism, a society that knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. The act of forcing oneself to maintain a consistent workout schedule -- and consistency is key -- is itself a strengthening experience. Strength must be both physical and spiritual; a magic pill eliminates a fundamental part of the equation.  

Why Do I Do This?

Blogging, that is, although I haven't had time to do much of it lately. Because this is my sanctuary. Here I can explore matters of fundamental importance and escape from the blue-pill world, where modern Americans live entirely in the present; treat life as if it were a theme park; leave important questions to "experts"; and wallow in complete ignorance or denial about the barbaric forces chewing away at the civilization that our (or at least my) ancestors founded. I couldn't tolerate such a world if it were in my face every waking moment; I come here to expunge some of my angst. 

People sometimes ask me why I'm angry. My response is to ask how the hell can you not be angry? The Magna Carta is dead. The Constitution is dead. All mainstream political discourse, whether "liberal" or "conservative," is off the legal or moral reservation. The blood-soaked lessons of the twentieth century about the dangers of government power are already forgotten. The President claims unilateral authority to make war on foreign countries and to murder American citizens here at home. More government spending and higher taxes are equated with prosperity. We are drowning under a public debt that can never be repaid. No politician can suggest even slowing the increase in obscene federal spending, lest he be tarred as seeking "cuts." No real cuts are imaginable because legions of Americans -- perhaps even the majority -- have become parasites who cannot conceive of life other than at someone else's expense. The Federal Reserve wields Soviet-like power to control interest rates, and it is beyond the reach of public scrutiny. Savers and investors are punished in order to rescue profligate spenders and deadbeats. Winners and losers are chosen by political favoritism rather than allowed to find their natural place through work or merit. Foreigners waltz across the border and demand public largesse as a right; anyone who cries foul is denounced as a racist or xenophobe. Marriage is dead. Infidelity is celebrated and promoted. Divorce is merely a routine, like douching, and it promises rich rewards for many who pursue it. Bastardy and STDs are rampant through all sectors of the population. Young boys are forcibly medicated to make them act like girls. Ordinary people out in public look and act as if they were just paroled. Intelligence, sincerity, decorum, and manners are ridiculed. Every lawsuit, no matter how petulant or farcical, deserves its day in court. Literature is dead. Art is dead. Philosophy is dead. Manhood -- real manhood, not the caricature in modern movies and television -- is dead. The stench of political correctness is everywhere and threatens anyone who might offend a protected class. 

And that's just scratching the surface of the insane world I find myself inhabiting. One of the craziest things of all is that most people accept this world as normal or even good. I cannot identify with this, or with the multitudes who do. I reject it as a sick, twisted, and (mercifully) unsustainable state of affairs. One thing I do appreciate, though, is that it makes it easy for me to understand who I am: virtually everything that the modern world is not. A woman from my former life once remarked that something about me just seems "negative," and she was right because in her mind the modern world is a positive force, and I indeed am opposed to it . . . to the core of my "negative" soul.

EDIT

I have been expressing a thorough level of societal alienation, something I recently discussed with regard to leftism. You should note, however, that it is not civil society that alienates me; it is the uncivil society that leftism has created that alienates me. My alienation is conservative and counter-revolutionary.