WHAMs Are So Powerful That Even Their Singing Might Snatch Your Rights Away

There has been much gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts over a racially insensitive song sung by the University of Oklahoma chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon. It was understandable and fully within the national organization's rights to take action to remedy this embarrassing episode. But that wasn't enough, oh no. White heterosexual able-bodied males (WHAMs) are never allowed any slip-ups or moments of insensitivity, especially when they belong to an organization with roots in the War for Southern Independence. The university has banned the fraternity, and the matter has sparked another dialogue monologue on how we are all supposed to feel about race.

As a WHAM, I am amazed at how much power I have, especially considering that I've never sought it. I concur with Ayn Rand that people who seek power are "second-handers"; aware of their deep deficiencies, they crave power as the only method for feeling good about themselves. Yet I and other WHAMs can supposedly oppress women and minorities with a mere utterance. An incredible amount of fear and resentment must lurk beneath this hypersensitivity. It's not enough that a minority occupies the Oval Office or that the entire weight of modern government is poised to crash down on any WHAM who looks sideways at a woman or a minority. The mere fact that WHAMs can speak or (decreasingly) congregate in private poses a threat to the entire house of cards.

Good. The house of cards needs to fall because it is immoral and unconstitutional. If my words or the words of any WHAM have some special ability to accomplish this, let us make the most of it. And for the record, the goal is not to oppress anyone. Quite the opposite, the goal is to restore liberty, responsibility, and the rule of law. You have no "right" to commandeer government machinery to force people to act as you wish. If the prospect of losing such "rights" frightens or vexes you, that reflects poorly on you rather than me.

The Evil Of Employment Law

I recently attended a conference discussing the miasma of state and federal laws dictating how businesses may hire, employ, and fire people. The conclusion I drew was that I will never hire anyone, not only because doing so creates massive headaches and potentially ruinous liability, but also because of principle (that quaint concept).

In a "free" society the employment relationship is a private matter between consenting adults and can be smoothly governed by time-tested legal doctrines of contracts, torts, and property. There is no justification for government to become involved in this private relationship unless and until a dispute emerges that requires the application of these legal doctrines. Absent such a dispute, free people may set whatever terms of employment they wish; they may hire and fire for any reason they wish; and they may refuse service to third parties for any reason they wish.

But here's the rub: to be capable of individual freedom, people must also be capable of individual responsibility, and this is where Americans today are cowardly and deficient. Because they abhor responsibility, Americans prefer government at all levels to monitor and regulate the employment relationship rather than negotiate its terms for themselves. This preference is strong enough to have obliterated the clear limitations on federal power in the Constitution. As a result, Americans now have the intrusive government they deserve and are saddled with abominations such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Affordable Care Act, a host of regulations never voted on by Congress, and endless lawsuits that destroy businesses and drag down the economy.

There always have been weak souls who prefer external control to freedom and responsibility. In fact, most of humanity may be characterized this way. But America was founded by exceptional people with a serious sense of purpose and self-restraint, and the disappearance of their mettle from the national stock is directly proportional to modern government's obscene and pervasive controls over the nation's life.

The Simpsons

Sam Simon, a creator of the hit show The Simpsons, has died at the early age of 59. While it's unfortunate that he departed sooner than he should have, it's also unfortunate that a show of this nature has gained such purchase in the American psyche.

It is an attack on the very bourgeoisie who have lapped it up for an entire generation, often on the belief that watching it makes them intellectually superior or perhaps more in tune with social issues (after all, many of the scriptwriters attended Harvard, so basking in the glow of their smug worldview must be enriching). Issues are always addressed with a high level of crudity, sarcasm, and snark that now typifies many people's approach to everyday dialogue. As with so many other television shows and movies, there is also the unrelenting subversion of anything resembling moral or familial hierarchy: those appearing upright are found to be corrupt, whereas animals are smarter than humans, infants are smarter than children, children are smarter than adults, and everyone is smarter than father, who is a perpetually unshaven moron.

But The Simpsons was only a pioneer, much like Playboy. What has come to dominate entertainment in both spheres makes them look prudish by comparison.