Author: VD

It’s about time to see this silly little concept fading away:

The time was 1972, and I was on my first date with a guy named Gary Mathewes. “The woman’s liberation movement is very important to me,” I announced, in my best mess-with-me-and-I’ll-knock-you-down-Bub voice.

“Me too,” he said, to my surprise. We sat idling at a stoplight in his puttering green VW. “In fact,” he went on, “I always thought that if I ever got married, I’d want my wife and I to hyphenate our names. Both of us, I mean.”

Wow, I thought, he just might be the one….

Two years later we stood in the woods grooving on a classic hippie wedding, right down to my unbleached muslin dress and the vegetarian reception under the trees. Soon after we hiked down to City Hall to have our names legally changed: both of us would henceforth be Mathewes-Greens. We didn’t know that the usual custom is for the woman’s name to go first; we chose billing solely for euphony. “Green-Mathewes” sounded clunky, and besides, we joked, we wanted to have kids. Don’t you know that old song, “God Didn’t Make Little Green Mathewes”?

It didn’t work out. Oh, the marriage did; 30 years later, Gary is my sweetheart more than ever. We have been blessed in more ways than we can count. But the name didn’t turn out to be such a great idea.

I always thought hypenated names was an ludicrously stupid practice; like feminism itself it held the inevitable seeds of its own destruction. It never ceases to amaze me how even intelligent and educated people are so seldom capable of projecting the logical consequences of their actions into the future. But, as Mrs. Mathewes-Green points out, the most important thing is the marriage relationship itself, not the trappings.

I do wonder, though, why so many writers at National Review are either former Communists, former Democrats, or former hippies. Perhaps if most of their contributors weren’t former members of the other side, they might be taken a little more seriously by the majority of those who are supposed to be on their side now.

It seems that academics are the last to figure out the fundamental impracticality of hyphenation: “There is a bizarro-world custom being perpetrated by many I know in the academy who get married: that of combining both last names with a hyphen to create one last name to be used by both couples.”

Although, I suppose if you’ve got two aging left-wing professors getting together, they’re not that likely to have kids before they divorce or the she-spouse hits menopause.

Yet another school shooting, this time in Germany:

Police said that the teenager, Tim Kretschmer, killed a total of 16 people, 13 of them at the Albertville technical school in Winnenden, in the suburbs of Stuttgart, before he was himself shot dead. The death toll matches Germany’s worst school shooting, in the eastern city of Erfurt in 2002, which prompted the rewriting of the country’s gun ownership laws.

One of the many ironies at play here is that Germany actively bans the only action that parents can take to protect their children from the risk of being killed at school, homeschooling. Granted, a child’s risk of being shot at school is still statistically low, but if the risk is sufficient to justify passing additional legislative activity, it must also certainly justify keeping your children out of such harm’s way in such a temptingly target-rich environment.

FS finds it hard to believe I really don’t want to ban anything:

Can you conceive of a chemical that you would ban? Just as an exercise. Define it’s attraction and affects and then say, “Nope, we cant go there.” I bet you can. So it all boils down to a question of degree. The chemicals we have today don’t cross the line for you. You call it recreational drug use, maybe not the best thing but a matter of personnel choice. The drugs we have now crossed my line years ago and I call it national suicide. And I’m glad there are laws against suicide.

You won’t get your way but even if you did there would come a day when the magic in the periodic table would force you to change your tune. I think you know that, but hay it’s Monday, you’ve got to get the column out whether or not you’ve got any good ideas. And by the way, I read that Washington was a little embarrassed about the hemp and tried kept it quiet.

I love your column though, Libertarians are awesome. Libertarians are the true ideological descendents of the founders. I think they are the most hopeful, optimistic and idealistic people in the country. They really believe in the “better angels of our nature”. And in that vein I’d rather have Ron Paul as President than Lincoln, he’s more idealistic and purer. I wish we could live in a libertarian world but we’re addicted to the drugs of selfish partisanship and expedient compromise. Don’t you wish they were prohibited?

No, there is no chemical that I believe should be prohibited from personal consumption. While a theoretical case can be made to prohibit a drug that would directly lead to the inevitable harming of others who did not take it, that’s simply not true of even the most dangerous illegal drugs known today. Nor do I wish to ban either “selfish partisanship” or “expedient compromise”. In that desire to control the behavior of other individuals is the seed of every totalitarian nightmare ever created or contemplated.

I appreciate the kind words, but FS simply doesn’t understand that libertarianism is not an optimistic or idealistic perspective, but rather a pessimistic one. It is also the only rational one. If one does not trust the ability of individuals to control themselves, how does it make sense to place one’s trust in individuals with the power to control others?

This little factoid might come in handy when dealing with the average pot-smoking Visualize World Peacenik:

In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a “drug-free world” and to “eliminating or significantly reducing” the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008. That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.

Interesting to see the Economist come out in favor of legalization.

Catkiller! has his doubts:

Which would you say has caused more death, the war on drugs or abortion? Sure, you’re pro-life, but aren’t most libertarians pro-choice? If conservatives and libertarians are ever going to form any kind of working coalition, we’re each going to have to give up something. As a Russell Kirk traditionalist, I have no problem giving up the war on drugs. Now, are you going to tell me the rank and file libertarians are going to drop their pro-choice stance?

Abortion, obviously. As for the Libertarian party, I doubt they’re going to go firmly pro-life anytime soon; if they had any capability for political compromise they probably wouldn’t be card-carrying Libertarians in the first place. But, it’s absolutely necessary for conservatives to give up the War on Drugs and for libertarians to give up the fictitious “right” to abortion if the greater Right is ever to come together. Long-time readers will recall that I once wrote a column recommending precisely such a trade-off.

However, it’s much too late. The third-worlders are already inside the gates and claimed the Cherry Blossom Throne. I declared Game Over some time ago and I’ve seen nothing to convince me to even begin contemplating changing my mind. I don’t know why people seem to have such a hard time understanding that once the rollercoaster passes a certain point, there is no going back. Now, there’s nothing to do except do one’s best to enjoy the ride.

Surrender Drug Warriors!

Conservatives tend to assume that, unlike dirty, treasonous liberals, they are on the side of truth, justice, liberty and the American way. This is not without reason, as most of the time, they are. However, for nearly 30 years, conservatives have been guilty of one of the greatest abuses of American liberties in American history, and have actively abetted the growth of central government by their thoughtless support for the war on drugs….

NB adds: “The sainted William F. Buckley, Jr. made the identical point in National Review, years ago. Glad to see Buchanan has come around to his point of view. But it’d be nice if you’d give credit where credit is due. The Old Man of the movement was preaching the truth decades before people started listening.”

To respond with something that isn’t merely stupid, but demonstrates an inability to comprehend what he just read. SM serves up a real humdinger of an example:

what are you talking about blaming Obama for this massive mess we are in? dont you recall the village idiot who has lead this nation for nearly the last decade? that george bush fucker. why do conservatives consistently do two things in common: seemingly conveniently always forgeting history (remember we have been spending billions and billions and billions on endless wars in iraq and Afghanistan (and considering that the war in Iraq was clearly unnecessary, i mean there never were ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that was a LIE fabricated by your conservative leaders because conservatives don’t know what the fuck to do leading people unless its to go to war) second: going back to the last election, Bush/Kerry, your boy Bush constantly called Kerry a ‘tax and spend liberal’ well my words back are ‘what the fuck are you conservatives but a bunch of DEBT AND SPEND CONSERVATIVES, get it? its still all about spending. and we have spent a bundle thanks to George.

My boy Bush? I am not, as I have repeatedly stated for eight years now, a conservative. The fact that SM managed to miss this in a column advocating the legalization of drugs is truly impressive. I was also an early opponent of the twin occupations, nor have I ever blamed the financial crisis on Obama.

Obama is falling backward, yes. however the only reason he is falling backward is thanks to George Bush. who deregulated everything? who has been our captain. remember we have been in recession at least since January of 2008 (thats more than a year ago) and the real shit started hitting the fan in september. ALL UNDER GEORGE BUSH’S REIGN. HOW DO YOU FUCKING FORGET THAT SO EASILY? HOW? HOW? HOW? HOW? HOW? Obama is a fall guy for all of this and if you really look at what has happened there is nothing any one person can do. There is no right answer, we are outside the petrie dish now. why do conservatives always champion god and the right to life while killing people (mostly children and women in foreign lands?) and yet call yourself ‘right to life’ a real right to life conservative would do anything to stop the war, cause thats where all the killing takes place. and why do all you conservatives never balk at endless military spending but then get up in arms (no pun intended) when anyone tries to spend some of our own tax revenue not on the annihilation of other peoples but on helping our own peoples?

George Bush deregulated nothing. He didn’t have the ability to do so. SM doesn’t know that Congress repealed Glass-Steagell in 1999, when Clinton was president; banking deregulation was supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. SM clearly doesn’t realize that the New York banking industry leans more Democrat than it does Republican.

i am going to cite you now: ‘Considering the incredible amount of economic destruction that has occurred in only six weeks of Democratic rule’ okay here you go again forgetting short term history (what did you do smoke too many ‘fattie’s’ before you wrote your article) remember who was the leader that got us into this then retired to Crawford, TX just as it was all crumbling

Obama isn’t responsible for George Bush’s actions. He is responsible for his own actions, which have been incredibly stupid. Since SM believes that George Bush’s DEBT AND SPEND approach was bad, why doesn’t he believe that Barack Obama’s decision to engage in an even bigger DEBT AND SPEND program is worse? The stock market isn’t getting killed because of Bush’s actions any longer, it’s reacting to Obama’s embrace of a ruinous Keynesian approach that will extend and deepen the depression.

‘the thought of four more years of the ongoing presidential debacle’ whoa hold on. presidential debacle? WTF????? who got us into this? i have been watching this whole country loose itself and ruin itself under Bush for the last 8 years, he is the ‘debacle’ if there ever was one. what was his approval 22%? c’mon bro put the blame where it belongs

Bush was a disaster. Obama is already a debacle; it’s interesting to note that at the same stage in his presidency, Bush had higher approval ratings than Obama does now despite the 2000 election controversy. As for putting the blame where it belongs, I am putting it squarely on the monetary authorities, not the guys who do little more than sign the bills passed by the fiscal authorities.

its like this: the captain of the ship steered us onto the rocks and then took the last life boat to safety, leaving someone else to figure out how to stop the ship from sinking, key to remember: the ship was already sinking before the new captain even got on deck. and no matter how you slice it; no good leadership or bad leadership now is going to make a difference. the irreversible damage has already been done. and if there is to be any moving forward in this country then conservatives and all those who voted for Bush need to accept their own responsibility for voting for him and placing us in this grave situation. Bush gave himself more presidential rights/powers than anyone in history, yet you still want to play the blame game like it was someone else to blame. check out the mirror and you will see just who is at fault. Not Barak. he just showed up to the party, but the cops broke it up 15 minutes before he stepped in the door.

I have the feeling that the Obamatons are going to be clinging desperately to the “Blame Bush” notion for the next four years. There’s no shortage of blame to pass around. Bush was terrible. Obama has actually managed to start off worse. We’ll have to wait and see if he improves, or if he gets worse from here on out.

on a different note: i have been saying for years that the only way to win the war on drugs is to surrender, glad you guys have finally figured it out. Amazing how conservatives and libertarians always think of freedom first, but then don’t let you own your own body and make your own decisions.

I’d be very interested to know what libertarian SM has ever heard either try to claim his body or try to make decisions for him. Although, based on this email, one could make a fairly airtight case for SM’s cognitive inability to be permitted outside without a helmet and leash.

How smart can one regard science majors to be when they aren’t intelligent enough to pay any attention to the law of supply and demand? Or when they can’t be bothered to pay attention when a science professor warns them not to waste their time by pursuing a science career.

Science is fun and exciting. The thrill of discovery is unique. If you are smart, ambitious and hard working you should major in science as an undergraduate. But that is as far as you should take it. After graduation, you will have to deal with the real world. That means that you should not even consider going to graduate school in science. Do something else instead: medical school, law school, computers or engineering, or something else which appeals to you.

Why am I (a tenured professor of physics) trying to discourage you from following a career path which was successful for me? Because times have changed (I received my Ph.D. in 1973, and tenure in 1976). American science no longer offers a reasonable career path. If you go to graduate school in science it is in the expectation of spending your working life doing scientific research, using your ingenuity and curiosity to solve important and interesting problems. You will almost certainly be disappointed, probably when it is too late to choose another career.

American universities train roughly twice as many Ph.D.s as there are jobs for them. When something, or someone, is a glut on the market, the price drops. In the case of Ph.D. scientists, the reduction in price takes the form of many years spent in “holding pattern” postdoctoral jobs.

No wonder the Pharyngulan crowd tends to be so bitter and nasty. Over-degreed, unemployable, and angry is no way to go through life. And it’s not exactly hard to figure out why they so often bang on about the desperate need for more government funding for scientists science. The truth is that very few scientists produce anything of value and the university degree bubble means there are far more science-credentialed individuals than are required by the American economy.

Before a science fetishist leaps in to confuse science and technology, it’s worth noting this timely quote from historians Will and Ariel Durant, sent in by EJ last week:

“The influence of science, strange to say, was least and last upon technology. Man’s ways of sowing and reaping, mining and manufacturing, building and transporting, had been formed through centuries of trial and error, and traditions and inertia only reluctantly accepted improvement suggested by laboratory experiments; not till the end of this era did science accelerate the Industrial Revolution.”
– The Age of Voltaire, p.584

VDH explains how conservatives created the pathway to the present situation and the administration that presides over it:

Conservatives created Barack Obama and his vision of the Europeanization of America, and so have themselves to blame for the current recessional, as the present as we have known it fades into the past….. The pillar of conservatism is fiscal responsibility. Why? Balancing budgets and saying no to always expanding government, first, is a moral issue. Just as the individual does not borrow from others to satisfy his own appetite, does not consume what he does not earn, so too government should not spend what the nation has not produced. The conservative, as the custodian of ancient morality, must remind the populace of the thriftiness of our ancestors that explains the bounty we inherited. If not he, who will say that life is not fair, that human nature is predictable and thus tragic, that in our brief corporal lives we can guarantee an equality of rough opportunity but hardly mandate an equality of absolute result—since we are mere mortals, not gods?

VDH’s case is damning indeed. Conservatives foolishly decided that the exigencies of the War on Terror justified their behaving like liberals; instead of guarding against the expansion of central state power, they joined forces with the liberals in growing it. Now, as libertarians like me have been predicting for years, they’re unhappy that the expanded power they helped create is in the hands of their political foes, as if that wasn’t predictable from the start.

Modern politicians didn’t cause the economic crisis, as the seeds for that were planted back when the 63rd Congress elected to turn monetary power over to the Federal Reserve. They merely helped determine the particular form it took. If the credit inflation hadn’t taken place in the tech and housing sectors, it would simply occurred in some other part of the economy. But in first choosing George W. Bush as their standard bearer, then lining up behind him in support of his wars and occupations, conservatives laid the groundwork to put Obama into office at this critical juncture. The insane selection of John McCain instead of Ron Paul as the 2008 Republican Party standard bearer was little more than the foul icing on an excremental cake. Paul might well have lost… but he certainly couldn’t have done any worse than McCain and the Republican Party would have far more credibility with regards to the present crisis than it does now.

Actions have consequences. It’s a genuine pity so many conservatives forgot such a conservative concept.