Don't Be Fooled By My Penchant For Criticism

I spend virtually all of my time here criticizing, which may lead you to believe that I think of myself as beyond reproach. You couldn't be more wrong. I am deeply flawed. Arrogant, withdrawn, inattentive, unaffectionate, boring, pedantic, vain, obsessive-compulsive, vindictive, mendacious, cold, cynical -- I'm guilty of them all. The number of mistakes and offenses I've committed are too numerous to count. All I've sought to accomplish here is to proclaim that there IS such a thing as good, that truth DOES exist, that some things ARE worth dying for, and that we MUST strive to be noble. I just wish more people felt the same way.

Reason #1,024 Not To Get Married

Because the family court will screw you over, literally and figuratively, and do it with impunity. Might as well marry in a brothel for all the security the institution now offers.

Florida Lynch Mob (Sorry, Jury) Takes Aim At Tobacco

A man who started smoking well after the federal government (unconstitutionally) banned cigarette advertising from the broadcast media died from his habit in 1996, and his widow blamed R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company for negligently failing to discourage him from consuming their perfectly legal product. In a saner era, such a claim would have been laughed out of court as either failing to state a cause of action or, alternatively, trumped by ironclad defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk.

In the modern world, however, nobody is ever to blame for his own errors in judgment. We inhabit an era not of personal responsibility, but of interpersonal liability, a despicable and socialistic mindset that drove a Florida jury to penalize R.J. Reynolds to the tune of $23.6 billion. The fact that cigarettes have been known as "coffin nails" since the 19th century is irrelevant. The fact that the deceased chose to smoke despite ubiquitous governmental warnings about the dangers of doing so is irrelevant. The fact that it is entirely possible to quit smoking and that there are more ex-smokers than smokers is irrelevant. All that matters is that the big, bad company was brought to heel.

If anyone wants to know why the economy is tanking, this story alone holds a big clue. You cannot maintain First World living standards with Third World lawlessness and irresponsibility. If America is going to emulate the Third World, I might as well just move to a Third World country that spares me the empty rhetoric of liberty and justice. As Lincoln once remarked: 

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.

Divorce Porn

The excellent blogger of familial breakdown, Dalrock, nails it in this post about the modern fetishization of divorce. Reason #1,023 to avoid marriage, except perhaps in the Philippines. Notice that this has nothing to do with trapping people against their will, and everything to do with obligating people to fulfill their promises (which are an act of the will).

To argue that you should not be bound by your promises is to concede that you are not a moral agent, cannot be trusted, and should instead be regarded as a juvenile/ward of the state. Small wonder that many of the same people who demand immunity from their promises also demand massive, paternalistic government intrusion in our daily lives. Incapable of responsibility, they are likewise incapable of freedom.

More Annoyances

The list is endless, but here are a few more:

• People who fling their driver-side car door open without thinking or caring about the traffic passing by.

• People who get confused at traffic circles (a.k.a. roundabouts). Let's review. There is no need to stop if nobody is approaching you from your left; it's a yield sign, not a stop sign. Conversely, there IS a need to stop if someone is in the circle and approaching you from your left. Got it?

• Anyone who says "it's only a movie" as a lowbrow deflection to considering plot holes, inconsistencies, moral content, or hidden meanings. If it's "only a movie," why are actors treated like gods, and why are there Academy Awards? Clearly this is something important, which makes analysis and criticism worthwhile.

• Poor communication etiquette. I'm noticing this more often, but it appears that many people feel no obligation to respond promptly (or at all) upon receiving an email, text message, or voicemail. This is incredibly rude. If I'm busy, not in the mood to talk, or think that your message is foolish, I still give a prompt response even if just to say that I received the message and will give a full answer later. Get some manners, people.

• The fact that calling someone out on crummy or unprofessional behavior is often viewed as a worse offense than the behavior itself. I don't subscribe to "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." This lets evilDOERS off the hook.

• The widespread view that the purpose of higher learning is to secure a higher income. Wrong. The purpose of higher learning is to secure a higher awareness of the world and the universe, and to become more capable of independent and critical thought (i.e., freedom). Even more annoying is that modern "higher learning" fails on both counts.

• People who attend (and actually cheer at) professional golf tournaments.   

• Anyone dressed casually in church, in court, or at a wedding.

• Tuxedos with neckties. It's not a tuxedo anymore; if you want to wear a necktie, wear a suit. 

• The fact that everyone is obsessed with physical health (e.g., diet, smoking, vaccines, etc.) but pays little or no care to spiritual health (e.g., language, fidelity, compassion, etc.).

• People who run downhill on hiking paths. There is no health benefit to this, and it's an inconvenience to those who wish to descend in peace. I also strongly suspect that if one these people slipped and fell off the path, he would file a lawsuit.

• On the same note, people who go for an arduous uphill hike and force a little dog to accompany them. The poor things are always panting to death.

UPDATE

• On two recent occasions I was reminded of another major annoyance: being stuck with a malfunctioning DVD rental because the mindless people who had it earlier put their greasy paws all over it.

Random Thought On Secession

One of the arguments I frequently hear against secession is that the Constitution never mentions this right, so the right must not exist. Assuming for a moment that the rules of a political system control whether a group of citizens may cease participating in that system (a notion that contradicts the Declaration of Independence), how exactly does constitutional silence disprove secession? After all, the Tenth Amendment construes constitutional silence as permission for State activity but prohibition against federal activity. If we consider further that our federal masters ignore the Tenth Amendment and never allow constitutional silence to tie their own hands, it becomes undoubtable that constitutional silence cannot tie our hands either.

The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life? To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America's soul intact than a large nation with America's soul extinct.

World Cup Both Fun And Instructive

Soccer was the sport of my youth, from kindergarten through high school. I used to spend hours juggling the ball to see how long I could keep it in the air using feet, knees, head, and even shoulders. My buddy and I sometimes did this together, volleying the ball back and forth while keeping scrupulous count of how many touches we'd made. I'll never forget the day we got over 200 touches; toward the end, we were booting it the length of the street and eventually keeled over in laughter. I'll also never forget the last game I played within the city youth league, when I had just turned fifteen and would thereafter set my sights on the varsity squad for school. I was at the top of my game, a shark among minnows, and near the end I pivoted at midfield and blasted it toward the enemy goal without even looking. The goalie never had a chance.

My fond memories motivate me to watch the World Cup very closely every four years, and this recent one was incredible. Underdogs such as the United States, Colombia, and Costa Rica performed exceptionally well, whereas giants such as Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Brazil bit the dust. Although the traditional powerhouse Germany ultimately won, they clearly earned it and were the best team out there, plus the final match didn't come down to an unsporting shootout.

But of course, being who I am, I couldn't help but notice a deeper narrative at work here: for all its beauty, soccer is a dirty sport that reveals much about the people and nations who rabidly pursue it. Shirt-pulling, deliberate spiking, elbowing or smacking people's heads, biting(!), and the ubiquitous flopping that feigns injury in an effort to garner easy points. It was all on grotesque display, and what makes it especially offensive is that FIFA and the fans consider it an integral part of the game that shouldn't be rooted out with the simple solution of video review. This reflects an Old/Third World viewpoint that corruption is an indelible trait of human nature that should be entertained and endured, not resisted or transcended. America was founded by independent and uncompromising Protestants; enough of that heritage remains to give many Americans a bad taste in their mouths when witnessing grown men flop to the ground like rag dolls and cry out in the hope that the authority figure dispenses favor. It's probably no mistake that as the Protestant identity fades further away, and as America completes its transition to an Old/Third World mindset, the popularity of soccer only grows. (Indeed, many speculate that the American team has trouble advancing because it doesn't flop enough, which may very well change as America marches backward forward.)   

This also raises the important question of how we define manhood. The type on display at the World Cup is a man defined by his passion for victory at all costs, for whom questions of honor and dignity are best left to theologians. Such a man, whatever his athletic prowess, is nothing to admire and will always be a slave. As founding father Edmund Burke sagely noted:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

A man who cannot control himself makes for a more pliant subject. It is no accident that governments (and women, I might add) prefer such a man for precisely this reason: as a slave to his passions, he is easier to manipulate and will readily serve his designated role as pack mule or cannon fodder. The man they fear and despise is the one who is capable of self-control, who values truth and honor more than victory or even life. He owns himself and cannot be bribed or threatened into submission. And he will fight a revolution if just, regardless of whether it means his death.

Is it pure coincidence that such a giant push is being made to enhance the popularity of soccer within the United States? I think not. The overriding agenda -- whether it's a conspiracy or just a syndrome -- is One World/Old World/Third World. While the game of soccer itself is merely a sporting contest, the big business of soccer is far more, and it makes it harder for me to enjoy watching. Perhaps that's why I limit it to once every four years.

Hobby Lobby Hysteria

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act cannot compel a closely-held corporation to subsidize employees' contraceptives if doing so violates its members' religious beliefs.

The decision outrages me because, once again, it turns the Constitution on its head and presumes that the federal government may do anything not specifically prohibited, either by the Bill of Rights or, in this case, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As I've explained at some length, the federal government may do nothing unless the Constitution specifically allows it, and there is NO enumerated power to compel subsidies of other people's health care in general or sexual habits in particular. The ruling is an insult because it returns only a speck of the massive liberty stolen from us by the Affordable Care Act, a law that remains unconstitutional regardless of any approval by the Court (which is only a branch of the federal government and thus inferior to the Constitution). To argue that the federal government can or should be the final arbiter of its own powers is to attack every noble impulse that went into founding this country, and yet this is the pernicious doctrine we are told is our duty to embrace.

Even if the Affordable Care Act were a state law and thus not limited in the same manner as federal legislation, it would remain every bit as repugnant. Family planning is a matter of personal responsibility; if you don't want children, then do what is necessary to avoid having them and leave me out of it. It is not the legitimate role of any government in a (supposedly) free society to force others to subsidize your lifestyle. And if you still want someone else to pay for your contraception, there is only one legitimate way to do it -- persuasion. Your needs are not rights; get over it.

Which brings us to the shrill, hysterical denunciations by the dissenting Justices and many in the media. They are outraged that in the wake of the Court's ruling federal power to pillage and plunder is not total, and that some citizens can "opt out" of this imperial mandate. Such people have no right to call themselves Americans, let alone Justices. Righteous outrage belongs to us, not them, for we are all entitled to opt out of a law that is unconstitutional, null, and void.  To the extent we hear the same tired argument that a corporation is not a human being and has no rights, this is a red herring and completely irrelevant -- the burden is on you to explain what gives you the right to plunder, not on a corporation to explain why it shouldn't be plundered. You have no legal or moral leg to stand on. 

Besides, Obama already has opted out of this so-called law by unilaterally tinkering with it and postponing several of its deadlines, and I have detected no outrage whatsoever about that. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The rule of law binds both the government and the governed, so if the government is disregarding this one, we have every reason to do so as well.

Be Proud If You Don't Fit In

For most of my youth I hated myself because I couldn't be like most everyone else. It took me a while to appreciate the fact that the world is a crazy place, populated mostly by crazy people, and that fitting into this asylum is nothing to celebrate. If you find yourself at odds with the world around you, be proud, for you are likely among the aristocracy.

Happy Fourth

And I hope you take a moment to recall what we are commemorating on this day. It's not the impressive monuments in the capital; it's not marching bands; it's not people in uniforms; and it's certainly not politicians. The day is special because an extraordinary generation linked arms and declared that it was better to die on their feet than to live on their knees. They rebelled against their government and were marked for death as traitors, but they saw it through and kicked the pretentious powers-that-be back across the ocean. It's also worth remembering that the majority of their fellow Americans opposed them and remained loyal to the crown, for sheep always outnumber lions. Indeed, today is not just a commemoration, but also an ongoing lesson captured in Jefferson's famous words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Think about these things today, and ask yourself if you are worthy of the legacy handed down to you by the generation that sacrificed so much.

The Only Winning Move Is Not To Play

Such were the words of Joshua the supercomputer in the 1984 movie War Games, specifically upon realizing that to fight a nuclear war is futile and should rather be avoided. The same logic applies to at least two activities in modern American life: voting and marriage. While they served a noble and worthwhile purpose at one point, what they have become renders my participation not only futile, but unthinkable. Otherwise stated, I will not legitimize these activities or degrade myself by participating in them.

As for voting, its purpose was to allow educated and informed citizens with a genuine stake in public policy to select representatives who would discharge their narrow protective functions (e.g., national defense, police, courts) and leave us in peace to pursue happiness. Today, voting allows uneducated and uninformed parasites to usurp government power and embark on violence and plunder to enrich themselves and build their utopia on the backs of the productive. This goes for both major parties and most of the minor ones. And as I've discussed at length, the modern federal government operates entirely beyond the boundaries set by the Constitution. To vote under these circumstances is to join in a criminal enterprise, which I will not do.

As for marriage, it truly is the bedrock of society because it harnesses our energy and funnels it toward productive ends and away from animalistic, Darwinian rivalry. By taking vows in front of witnesses to devote themselves to one another for life, a man and a woman set aside their feral instincts to achieve something far greater and far more lasting. Only grievous fault could justify severing this vital bond, such as abuse, adultery, abandonment, or habitual intoxication. Today, however, our instincts are given free rein to destroy this bond and break our vows at will, the most popular being the narcissistic incantation of "I'm not happy." Worse still, the person breaching this sacred contract can profit from it, winning custody, child support, alimony, and forcing the other party into debt peonage. This is a sick joke. I will not walk down the aisle to exchange vows that are meaningless and may be canceled on a whim. Now, I'm not so cynical as to believe that every woman on the planet (or even in the West) is craven enough to disregard her vows, but that's not the point. To participate in mocking a once-sacred institution with a pale travesty thereof is something I will not do, especially when it invites the government to pillage me more than it already does.

In both cases, voting and marriage, we have here a matter of principle. Could my vote make a difference in a hotly-contested election? Could my getting married work out? Perhaps, but only upon destroying myself, which makes them not worth it.