Category: Uncategorized

I just received an Ann Coulter doll in the mail. We’re very happy together. You realize, of course, it’s only a matter of time before there’s an Ann Coulter blow-up doll.

We may never see Eric Alterman in public again.

AG writes: Still no luck on the random slides in Impress. I am thinking that perhaps the functionality I need to use has not been written into Impress yet. This functionality would be the ability to select a slide, cut the slide, select another slide or spot between slides, and paste the cut slide there. All I have found so far is the function of selecting a slide and “remove”ing it, but no way to paste it anywhere.

AG is the latest addition to the Reader Blogroll. He’s also working on a macro to provide the ability to do slide show randomization in OpenOffice Impress. He’s got it partially working, but is not there yet. If anyone knows anything about this, let me know or visit The Blog in My Own Eye and fill him in directly.

There are times when I have serious sympathy for my fellow elitists who don’t believe that the Great Unwashed should be permitted to decide anything but which channel to watch.

John Lott writes: With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over the years, it’s no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to surveys there are about two million defensive gun uses each year; guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes.

The rebuttal to this claim always is: If these events were really happening, wouldn’t we hear about them on the news?

And when would that be, when there’s so much celebrity porn that requires indulging? I’m surprised the television media even bothered to report on the Iraqi war, considering that a celebrity somewhere did something during that time. Oh, I’m an elitist all right, I’m just an Aristotelian libertarian Christian instead of a secular Platonist collectivist. Anyhow, it’s a good article. Lott seems to know his stuff, although I wish he wasn’t so reticent about his research records. He’s no fantasist like Bellesiles, but he’s not as transparent and solid as he should be either.

Marvin Olasky writes: …in India, where cars stop for sacred cows but abortion or infanticide of little girls is rampant, the problem is very visible on streets where young men without women prowl. Skewed birth statistics tell the story. For example, look at the district-by-district birth figures for areas surrounding the ancient pilgrimage region of Madurai in south India. Usilampatti in December 2002 had 910 male births and only 690 female ones. Chellampatti had 848 male births and 623 female ones.

The situation is much the same in China, and will get much worse as access to pre-birth sex-identification technology improves. In Italy, the birth rate has already dropped to 1.2 per woman, far short of the 2.1 needed to keep the population stable. As in India, a son is usually preferred. The irony is that the historically dubious notion of female equality is looking increasingly likely to kill off entire societies in less time than some of the most savage wars in history, mostly by significantly reducing the number of women. Freud asked, famously, what women want. Judged by the results, the feminist answer appears to be divorce, lesbian chic and dead little girls.

Environmentalists and those worried about population explosion may cheer declining birth rates, but I expect that in 25 years or so, when the demographic chickens seriously begin to come home to roost, they’ll feel rather differently. And as Denmark, Holland and France are learning, importing individuals from manifestly different cultures to make up the gap creates significant new problems of its own.

On a tangential note, here’s an interesting essay on Italian demographics and the immigration issue. It’s even got two quotes from Umberto Eco’s Cinque Scritti Morali. Che bello!

A British television talk-show host for BBC1 is under fire for a newspaper column he wrote criticizing Arabs. Robert Kilroy-Silk faces a possible police investigation after referring to Arabs as “suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors,” reports Sky News. The comments, which included a charge that Arabs “murdered” 3,000 civilians on September 11, were published in a weekend column in the Sunday Express.

Apparently the truth is no defense. Are the suicide bombers Arab? Yes. Is the amputation of limbs a normal punishment in Arab countries? Yes. Are women repressed in Arab countries? Yes, by Western standards. But apparently it’s a crime to mention any of this in Britain.

Good thing we have a 1st Amendment to protect our right to free speech… well, we did until the Supreme Court decided that we didn’t last month.

SC writes: I accept the idea that each individual should have the freedom to do anything that does not diminish the freedoms of another without the other’s permission. I would make the argument that not wearing a seat belt or motorcycle helmet does diminish the freedoms of others. If you are driving without your seat belt and I cause an accident that would not have caused you injury with a seat belt, but did cause sever injury because your head struck the windshield, I would be liable for your medical bills. With the seat belt law in place, I could argue that the injuries were a result of your choice to break the seat belt law and therefore not my fault. What say you?

With all due respect, I say that shows a failure to think things through. If we’re talking about hypotheticals – which we are – then in a libertarian society you would not be liable for anyone else’s medical bills. This is why neo-socialist medical systems like we have now in the United States are so pernicious. One bit of government involvement always justifies the next.

Using this reasoning, you have a perfect right to insist that I have my body injected with chemicals I don’t want in my body because if I get the flu, you have to pay for my treatment. And in any event, you are not responsible for another’s bad choices regardless of whether a behavior-controlling law is in place or not. Everything ultimately boils down to one question. Either the State is supreme (Plato) or the individual is supreme (Aristotle, Jesus Christ). I’m down with the latter, and will brook no compromise.

ST writes: So now apparently Dean’s logic supercedes that of God….

Well, in fairness, Howard only said he’d be talking about God. He didn’t say he’d be listening to Him.

DW writes: I read your blog with interest. Much of it is well-reasoned (NFL allegiances aside, although I certainly can claim no better!). And want to or not, one leaves the blog thinking. Certainly I did not expect to bethinking about cannibalism this morning. Regarding Brandes consent, what about codes that are in place to preventone from inflicting serious harm on oneself?

I do not know the laws pertaining to this in Germany, but that’s not the point of my question. Are codes like this an example of state interference in individual choice and morality? If not, could such a principle be applied to Brandes, and if so, would you prefer to see these laws eliminated?

Yes, they absolutely are. Seat belt laws and helmet laws are good examples of this. Such an example certainly applies, and I would absolutely prefer to see these laws eliminated. If the State has the power to tell you to wear a helmet on a bicycle, they also have the power to tell a woman to wear the chador.

The jury has sent the judge another question.

Question: Since no proof has been offered by the government that the defendant’s business is required to file under Section 7202, are we to assume that they are not required to file or are we to read all 7000 pages of businesses required to file?

Answer from Judge: I have made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U.S.A. and the defendant’s business falls into the category of businesses required to file. They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant’s business to file.

The defense objected that this amounted to a directed verdict. The judge overruled the objection.

After this, the verdict came back guilty on 29 of 31 counts. Which is understandable, given the fact that the judge simply made up the law and directed the verdict. “They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant’s business to file.” That was what the whole case was about; it was precisely what the jury was there to judge! This is why you must never use a lawyer in these circumstances. The jury has the power to judge the law; the judge does not, but no lawyer will dare to bring up jury nullification for fear of being disbarred. It’s too bad the Simkanin jury did not know its own power.

Since there’s now no law as written, it’s clear that Aleister Crowley’s rule is now in effect. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” I don’t expect this to turn out well, in the long run. The socialist crisis is approaching – what will they do when strong arm tactics such as these still don’t cause freedom-loving people to submit? And what will the next honest and informed entrepeneur take from this lesson in judicial tyranny? Some will submit and pay the taxes they know they don’t owe. Some will resist and go to jail with their head held high. And some will quietly leave the country, never to return.

A nation that persecutes its best and brightest doesn’t tend to survive long.

JM writes: Your answer to the question freaked me out. What about the people in the society? Don’t they have the right to be protected from such an act happening in their midst? If there were the possibility of a man murdering and eating another man next door to me, and it was a common practice (who knows where we will be in 30 years?), I would not be able to live in peace. I would never even consider bringing children into the world. Such acts cannot simply happen “behind doors”, their very presence in a society effects every member of the society. The act is so reviling to basic human nature that everyone is effected.

For some reason the consent makes it far more bone-chilling than your run of the mill “jungle cannibalism”. It is as if you get a glimpse of hell. And by your logic you could have this sort of stuff on pay-per-view. I would rather be persecuted under a tyrant than to live in such a society. Personal freedom in this life is only so valuable, it is not to be idolized, which is exactly what you border on doing.

I think this is absolutely a glimpse of Hell. This is what happens when people turn from God. And legal or no, the possibility already exists. But instead of expecting the government to stop it, I would say that the correct response is social ostracism and a refusal to do business or have dealings with such a person. Sans a government that violates the right to freedom of association, you would be very unlikely to have such a person living next door for long; he would not be able to do so in a town where no one would have anything to do with him. Ostracism is a very powerful force, unfortunately Americans have lost the ability to use it.

Otherwise, you have a society where the government has the power to prevent people from worshipping God next door. You can’t have things both ways. I don’t idolize personal freedom. God, who has far more power than any government, decided to give it to us as a gift. Who are you to attempt to take away what He has chosen to give? Private property and a philosophy of my rights ending where yours begin is the only reasonable foundation for secular law. I would say, however, that it is foolish to think that it would be better to live under a tyrant – there have been tyrants in the past thirty years who have practiced such abominations themselves. You would prefer to allow them the power to force you to do the same?

Neither governments nor people can be controlled for long. Not for good, not for evil. This is the great lesson of history.

JM responds: This is a very good argument. I gladly submit to it. I never considered the effect two seemingly disconnected freedoms can have on one another. My nightmare scenario was actually a form of tyranny because we would be forced to “get along” with persons who engage in such behavior in the name of respecting their liberty. It is not really a respect of liberty, [though], it is a respect of sin.

Indeed.