Have I mentioned lately that my friend Thomas

F. Stern writes brilliant stuff. Go read it. I won't quote much from it, but this bit that he found somewhere is just genius:

...[w]henever 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

*“...[T]hat 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.”

Are we running out of celebrities?

Billy Mays yesterday, Michael Jackson, Farrah, Ed McMahon and David Carradine have all died in the last few weeks. David Carradine is the one that hits me hardest, really.

But if we keep losing them at this rate the government will have to step in to solve the Celebrity Crunch.

The Berean is talking about Matthew 7:1 this morning.

Matthew 7:1
(1) "Judge not, that you be not judged.

Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Some cite Matthew 7:1 as proof that we should do no judging whatsoever: "Judge not, that you be not judged." Here, the Greek word for "judge" is krino, meaning to condemn, avenge, damn, sentence, or levy a punishment. Christ plainly says that if we condemn others, we will be condemned ourselves. Dangerous territory indeed!

Though it is certainly hazardous to evaluate the problems or sins of others, the context answers the question of whether we are to do so. We are to judge and in every aspect of life, as other scriptures show. Christ continues His thought, in context, by showing that we are to evaluate the deeds of others, but to be very careful with our judgments. We should consider our weaknesses and sins very carefully, to the point of overcoming them, before we make harsh judgments on others. How can we condemn someone else when we may have even bigger problems? He instructs us to remove the hypocrisy and then we can help our brother with his difficulties.

Focusing on the Greek to show that "condemning" defines judgment better than "justice" really makes no difference. The sense of the context is proper evaluation of our own and others' conduct so that proper justice is done. If we wish to use a harsher definition, such as condemnation or damnation, then Christ is saying He will also evaluate us in that light. Major or minor infraction, light or harsh judgment, the outcome is the same: "As you do unto others, so shall it be done unto you!"

The copyright refers to this here, not the verse, obviously.

The guys in AA talk about GMCs: God Made Coincidences. I assume Mr. Nelson is not reading my blog. I've just been deleting these lately, after reading the verse. The commentary usually takes off in odd directions from my point of view. In fact, to be honest, I usually delete them these days without reading the verse.

But this one is quite apropos, as they say in France.

Here's something else that's apropos, Animal House at 30. Now there's a baleful influence.

In spring 2008, a band covering Otis Day and the Knights played on Alpha Delta's front lawn to an audience of boozers, brawlers and, probably, future U.S. senators.

Yeah, they'll be well-qualified for service as Senators in the new Imperium.

So why do so many college men see Bluto as a model? "People think that behaving like Bluto will win them respect," Mr. Watson says. Bluto has nearly become the archetype of the college man. His poster is found in dorm rooms across the country. He is a binge drinker, physically aggressive and impervious to pain -- especially when he is chugging a fifth of whiskey.

"The time has come for someone to put their foot down. And that foot is me."

Judge and prepare to be judged

That's Ayn Rand's corollary to Jesus' "Judge not that ye be not judged."

So, here's the deal. I believe that, but I've done very little to prepare to be judged. I take it pretty easy; others have paved my path with marshmellows, really. Maybe people mistake my tendency to say, "you don't have to do that" for politeness and that just encourages them to do more, but the fact is that I feel that favors done for me are debts that I'll never be able to repay. I'm getting better at feeling and expressing gratitude, but that sort of thing still goes on in my head. People do get the message eventually, and stop doing the things that usually ingratiate them with others. Unfortunately, they have no idea what to do to ingratiate themselves with me.

It would be good if I had any idea what to tell them. Or how. Hence the shrink. I'm not sure if this one will work out, but that's the way it goes sometimes, I'm told.

Did anyone think I was going to write a brilliant essay today? Why should today be any different? Lol.

I judge myself harshly for not living up to values that I can respect. The temptation there is to judge others equally harshly; to displace my anger at myself onto others who don't live up to my values. I try not to do that, but I'm afraid I too often give the impression that I do. There are people who live up to my values, I think. The younger boy does. The older boy has, and, hopefully is on his way to doing it again. Most business men and women do. As far as I know, all of the ones I've met do, but I'll leave room for any hidden Ken Lays in the bunch.

I fear their judgment. I hide my values, so that people can't judge me by them, but the people who are already living by them... I fear their disapproval.

Saying "F___ 'em!" doesn't cut it as a way to rebuild me self-esteem. I still admire entrepreneurs, inventors, businessmen and builders...creators of beautiful (and/or useful) things...and I know that I'm not one of them.

But I could be...if I could just latch onto whatever the hell it is that launches people to great deeds.

You know what? That translates to "if I could figure out how to feel like it."

People smile at me...my daughter! smiles at me... and I think, "You don't know me very well, or you'd know I don't deserve that beautiful gift."

All right, I think I just succumbed to the temptation to write black poetry rather than explore my feelings. That doesn't ring true at all. But I scared something inside me. Is it my true self? Or is it the false self - the defensive mask, created to protect me? From what?

The first betrayal I can remember was in Kindergarten. But... No, come to think of it, though I won every real fight with that kid afterward, I could never best him at slinging insults. And there was a bully before that. Not Ron. But several of us bested that one.

Thank you, doctor. That was helpful.

Vortigern, Prince of Dumnonium

Smile when you call me that!

A name I ran across reading David Hume's History of England.

We are not exactly informed what species of civil government the Romans on their departure had left among the Britons; but it appears probable, that the great men in, the different districts assumed a kind of regal though precarious authority; and lived in a great measure independent of each other. To this disunion of counsels were also added the disputes of theology; and the disciples of Pelagius, who was himself a native of Britain, having increased to a great multitude, gave alarm to the clergy, who seem to have been more intent on suppressing them, than on opposing the public enemy. Labouring under these domestic evils, and menaced with a foreign invasion, the Britons attended only to the suggestions of their present fears; and following the counsels of Vortigern, Prince of Dumnonium, who, though stained with every vice, possessed the chief authority among them, they sent into Germany a deputation to invite over the Saxons for their protection and assistance.

Yeah, that'll do it. What is he, the proto-type of Mordred?

Crap! Look at this:

The Saxons

Of all the barbarous nations, known either in ancient or modern times, the Germans seem to have been the most distinguished both by their manners and political institutions, and to have carried to the highest pitch the virtues of valour and love of liberty; the only virtues which can have place among an uncivilized people, where justice and humanity are commonly neglected.

I wonder how long that "Germanic Liberties" crap was going on in England. I'm guessing it started around 1714 and ended about 1914.

The things you find googling around!

I was checking out something Spooner said that I thought was inaccurate (get link), when I came across Nazarenus: The Gospel According to Seneca. Very interesting!

Update: from the chapter entitled, "The Physical Abuse," a quote and a little Latin lesson:

The traditional explanation is that the abuse fulfills messianic prophecies: Usually reference is made to a passage of Isaiah (50:6):

I gave my back to the whips, and my cheeks to slaps,
and did not turn away my face from the shame of the spittings.

It can be objected that this passage of Isaiah has nothing to do with Messianic prophecy and that it relates only vaguely to the gospels’ account of Jesus’ abuse. The bias of the gospel writers is perfectly understandable if we keep in mind the purpose for which the gospels were writtento prove to the Romans that the Temple authorities, by their outrageous treatment of the Messiah, had forfeited any claim to official recognition of their religion, and that such recognition should instead be extended to the followers of Jesus.

Seneca, however, had quite different reasons for having his tragic hero suffer abuse. The emphasis put by the gospels on the abuse of Jesus during the procedure before the Jewish authorities can be explained by what Tacitus tells about the procedures for high treason in the reign of Nero. The historian was aling with the trial of Thrasea Paetus, the leader of the philo­sophical upholders of republicanism, who was brought to trial before the Roman Senate in A.D. 66, one year after the Pisonian conspiracy and the death of Seneca.

Tacitus relates that there had been an intense debate among Thrasea and his friends on the question of whether he should appear in the Senate to defend himself or wait for the sentence to be pronounced. In favor of the first alternative there was the argument that it would be an opportu­nity to show how a man can stand by his principles without any fear of death:

The people would see a man defying death, the Senate would hear words
coming from a mouth almost divine and more than human.

But there prevailed the opinion of those who agreed on the advantages
of a show of defiant fortitude, but added that this advantage would be
much less than the disadvantage of exposing Thrasea to the abuse,
mockeries and insults threatened him... there was an abundance of people
who would be likely because of their brutality to dare to use hands and blows.

Even the decent ones are given to fear. He should rather spare the Senate,
of which he had been the greatest ornament, the infamy of such a disgrace...[1]

These remarks, which according to Tacitus were uttered on the eve of the trial of Thrasea, indicate that under Nero it had become the practice of the Senate, in cases of high treason, to subject defendants to physical and verbal abuse. From a Roman point of view this was much worse than a sentence of death. The Romans had come to accept as a necessity of the state system that prominent figures could be asked to forfeit their lives at the request of the Emperor and that the Senate would comply, but they still expected that the dignity of the victim and of the Senate would be preserved.

Tacitus, in listing the abuses to which a person appearing as defendant before the Senate could be subjected lists:

ludibria:mockeries, sports, jests;

contumeliae:insults, invectives;

convicia:reviling, abuse, and also blows;

probria:infamous words or acts;

manus ictusque:manhandling and blows or blows of the hands.

These are the very abuses to which Jesus was subjected according to the gospels. This indicates that Seneca took the opportunity of his presentation of the trial of Jesus to condemn the Roman practice. From the point of view of Seneca it was much more disgraceful that the Jewish Senate had abused Jesus as a defendant than that they had found him guilty of a capital offense.

In Seneca’s play, Jesus played a role not unlike that which Tacitus envisioned for Thrasea. Jesus’ attitude was that of the ideal Stoic, a man in full control of his emotions, unafraid of suffering, unmoved by the prospect of death. That this was Seneca’s ideal as well is shown by one of the choral odes in his Thyestes, where true nobility is ascribed to

...a man who has put aside fear...

Who willingly goes to meet his fate

And makes no complaint of death...

Such nobility each man bestows upon himself.

Now, it should be mentioned, if you haven't looked already, that Seneca's play is mostly evident by its conspicuous absence. The authors of Nazarenus: The Gospel According to Seneca are Seneca scholars who have noted the absence of the - what did they call it? - the praetexta historicum from Seneca's cycle of plays. The one that was published with the rest of the plays is either not Seneca's or it's a farce written to get even with Nero for spurning him. They've noticed similarities in the style of the Gospels to Seneca's style and are speculating that the trial and Passion of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels are taken from Nazarenus.

I looked for critiques of their idea but I couldn't find any. I'd be interested to see some.

Here it is

From Alice Miller's article The Political Consequences of Child Abuse:

Why were there people brave enough to risk their lives to save Jews from Nazi Persecution? Much scientific inquiry has been expended on this question. The usual answers revolve around religious or moral values such as Christian charity or a sense of responsibility instilled in them by parents, teachers and other caregivers. But there is no doubt that the active supporters of the extermination and the passive hangers–on had usually also been given a religious upbringing. So this can hardly furnish a sufficient explanation.

I was convinced that there must have been some special factor in the childhood of the rescuers, in the prevailing atmosphere of their childhood, that made it so fundamentally different from what the war criminals had experienced, but at first I couldn’t prove my hypothesis. For years I sought in vain for a book that would give this subject adequate coverage. Finally, thanks to Lloyd deMause’s help, I found an empirical study by the Oliners, The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe, based on interviews with more than 400 witnesses of those dark days. It confirmed my hypothesis. The study concluded that the only factor distinguishing the rescuers from the persecutors and hangers–on was the way they had been brought up by their parents.

Almost all rescuers interviewed reported that their parents had attempted to discipline them with arguments rather than punishment. They were only rarely subjected to corporal punishment, and if they were it was invariably in connection with some misdemeanor and never because their parents had felt the need to discharge some uncontrollable and inexplicable feeling of rage on them. One man recalled that he had once been spanked for taking smaller children out onto a frozen lake and endangering their lives. Another reported that his father had only ever hit him once and apologized afterwards. Many of the statements might be paraphrased thus: “My mother always tried to explain what was wrong about whatever it was I had done. My father also spent a lot of time talking to me. I was impressed by what he had to say.”

So Schindler, Wallenberg and others weren't raised in the standard Prussian way (described earlier in the article).

Similar cases are discussed by Philip Greven in his highly informative book, Spare the Child. He quotes various American men and women of the church recommending cruel beatings for infants in the first few months of life as a way of ensuring that the lesson thus learnt remains indelibly impressed on them for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately they were only too right. These terrible destructive texts which have misled so many parents are the conclusive proof of the long–lasting effect of beating. They could only have been written by people who were exposed to merciless beatings as children and later glorified what they had been through. Fortunately, these books were not published in 40 editions in the USA.

The last sentence refers to Schreber's book on what I just called "Prussian" child-rearing. I call it that, not to deride that strain of the Germans, but because, to me at least, the term conveys the image of a monacled, German officer clicking his heels as he snaps to attention before a superior.

I've been fond of the Deists for quite some time.

Tom Paine's The Age of Reason is probably the most readable text of theirs. I found it most entertaining. As, I'm sure, did Lysander Spooner, who actually goes him one better with The Deist's Reply to the Alleged Supernatural Evidences of Christianity. Unfortunately the typists who transcribed to the work to the web didn't check their work. I plugged it into Word and fixed up some of it:

Let us then inquire into the causes of the success of the Apostles, and see whether they were not natural ones.

One of the most efficient of these causes was the manner in which they preached. That alone was calculated to make very strong impressions upon the minds of such as were too ignorant or simple, (and such the first converts will hereafter appear generally to have been,) to judge rationally the truth of the statements they heard, and the soundness of the religious doctrines, that were taught. The manner of all the Apostles must have exhibited a great deal of sincerity and zeal, (for they were undoubtedly honest in their faith,) and nothing makes so favorable an impression upon the minds of men in general, in favor of those, who advocate new doctrines; nothing inclines them so much to listen willingly to all they have to say, as an appearance, on their part, of perfect sincerity and simplicity.

Another trait in the manner of some of them, particularly of Paul, who appears to have been by far the most efficient apostle, was boldness. The exhibition of this quality was always powerfully affects the imaginations of the weak and ignorant, of whom the early converts were evidently composed.

The question, is often asked, how is the boldness and zeal of the Apostles to be accounted for, when they knew they had no worldly honors to expect, but, on the contrary, persecution, and the contempt of a large portion of the community, where ever they should go? To answer this question, it is necessary to refer to what was the condition of these men, (with the exception of Paul) when they first became the disciples of Jesus. They were obscure, illiterate, simple and superstitious men- men of no importance as citizens either in their own eyes or the eyes of others. They had never looked to the worldly honors or promotions; but evidently had expected from their youth up, to pass their days in the obscurest paths and humblest walks of life. The contempt of those above them had no terrors for such men as these- the had never aspired to be their equal, and they were willing, because, in whatever situation they might be, they had always expected, to be despised, as a matter of course, on account of their degraded conditions of mind and fortune. Still, at the same time, to be at the head of little sects and bands of those, who had once been their equals, and to be looked up by them as guides, was a distinction adapted to excite most powerfully the ambition of these men, however much they be despised by all but their followers. They, by becoming and being acknowledged as, the teachers of others, acquired an importance, of which a few years before they had never dreamed. They owed whatever of worldly consequence they possessed entirely to the fact of their being esteemed leader by their proselytes. Simple, artless, and sincere as these men were, such circumstances were calculated to attach them strongly to the cause in which they were engaged, although they might not be aware of being so influenced.

So there, says I!

So, how can I be all doom and gloom

with these girls in my life?

Rush: “Freewill”

Permanent Waves (1980)
Words by Neil Peart, music by Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson

There are those who think that life
Has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors
To direct our aimless dance

A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren’t aligned —
Or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path thats clear
I will choose free will

There are those who think that theyve been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them —
They weren’t born in lotus-land

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can’t pray for a place
In heavens unearthly estate

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path thats clear
I will choose free will

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt
That’s far too fleet…

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path thats clear
I will choose free will

H/T: Stephen Littau

I'm going to be adding this link to

Lost Liberty Cafe pretty soon (ideally tomorrow, it's way too late tonight).

But, seriously, folks...

Here's the very first change I'd make to the government: repeal the law that makes it illegal for anyone but the USPS to deliver First Class Mail. It might kill the Post Office, but who cares? As long as letters get where we want them to go.

Hey, it's morning, I've had a good breakfast

and time to recover from all that forgive and forget BS they preach in the AA meetings.

If there's a God (one who's worth worshipping), you can have faith that he'll do as you ask. Your anger shows a lack of faith and an impatience with God's methods. If there aren't any gods, then no one's listening.

And, btw, how did monotheism defeat polytheism? Or did it? You reason from creation to the Trinity; why not to polytheism or pantheism?

I'm sorry, Ron. I am communicating poorly.

I am not the person to defend atheism or anarchy. I must back down because I don't know enough about either to make the case for them.

What I need to be preaching is Love. Just as I said on the other blog. What I want people to do is love one another. I don't understand that subject any better, but it seems a lot more promising than arguing about religion or politics.

And it has the advantage of being something that I can do right now, here in my home and tomorrow at work.

And on the blog here, I have to say that I've said things to hurt Ron. Not all here. Not most here. But it's important enough for me to publicly apologize here.

There is, unfortunately a "but" that I can't ignore without sacrificing complete sincerity. I'm in therapy. Some of what has been said here is part of that process and I don't want to do anything to queer that. Rather, it's an outcome of that process. No, my therapist hasn't told me to say any of this - neither this apology nor the fight I started to necessitate it. He'd probably be appalled if I told him I was going to, or had. Actually, I have no idea what he'd say about it. I haven't let him get a word in edgewise; I've just been spewing out everything that has occurred to me over the past twenty-some years.

My Defenses are telling me to protect myself here, by making my stomach churn. I don't know if they're right or not. I've been listening to nothing but them for a helluva long time. And I'm not sure what they mean.

Oh, Man! What a great article!

Wilt Alston's Do You Really Want Freedom, Or Are You Just Kidding Yourself?, about freeing yourself contains this bit (I think I'll put in his links):

...I came across a fascinating post from a woman who “escaped” from her Amish sect. In the comments of response to her story one can find, among several interesting musings, a discussion of this supposedly Biblically-derived phrase which is generally used to justify physical punishment of children. The fascinating tidbit was this: The Bible doesn’t actually contain that phrase. The sentiment is apparently a paraphrase of Proverbs 13:24, which says:

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

While I’m certainly no Biblical scholar, it seems to me a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy to use that single verse as a justification for physical abuse. Back on Ferriss’s blog, a poster simply shown as “Betsy” offered what I believe is the most humane (and libertarian) translation of that verse:

“Spare the rod and spoil the child” is actually analogous to the rod of the shepherd. It’s really a beautiful, sentimental teaching that has been totally perverted by some.

The poster went on:

A good shepherd never beats the sheep, but uses the rod to guide them with a gentle touch. That this homily should justify child abuse is the exact opposite of its intended meaning, which is “by failing to guide your child with love and instilling discipline (not punishment) in a consistent and gentle way, you ruin the child’s chances of successfully functioning in relationships and society as a whole.”

Indeed! This sentiment seems to resonate with the non-aggression axiom. How can the thugs with whom so many of us deal claim to be protecting anyone from anything? (They certainly aren’t gently guiding anyone, either.)

I think everybody who knows me would find it incomprehensible that I'd convert to this philosophy, but this guy's got me pegged. Nietzsche's "What does not kill us, makes us stonger" has been more my style... S**t! It's been pretty much my motto until about a month ago.

Once again, let me say that since my older daughter was born I've been trying to figure out how to make the world the kind of place she'd be happy in. I think Alston and Molyneux and Alice Miller have the answer: knock it off with the humiliating!

What ideas of the American Founders, and those who influenced them

come from the Bible? The Founders were steeped in the Bible, although probably not as much as the regular folks of the time. The former spent more time studying law, English and European history, Greek and Roman history, philosophy and mythology than did Americans who were left out of the Framing.

Did Jesus support any particular constitution? Freedom of Religion is an extra-Biblical idea, certainly. What was the preferred mode of government in the Old Testament? It seems to me that God allowed Centralization for about the same reasons he gave the Hebrews food other than manna... and divorce.

The Tenth Amendment informs me that today is the bicentennial

of Thomas Paine's death. They've got an exerpt of his here.

[Whoops! Correction: "The Tenth Amendment Center informs me..."]

And, naturally, a quote:

Government is no further necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.

For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defense to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet, during this interval, order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resources, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.

So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, it acts by contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organization which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilized life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out of it.

Hey, kids! See if you can follow ol' Stef

out to the end of this one True News 42: Morality, Atheism and Child Abuse!

I you want to check his references, he talks about this study here and refers to an earlier video here.



There's a link there on the video that will let you go straight to YouTube where you can see what other commenters have to say about this.

I had a couple teeth yanked today.

I'm surprised I'm not out cold right now. They told me they were prescribing Vicoden for me, but I think my wife just picked up whatever they prescribed for her. She had one out too. She's afraid I'll get hooked on the crap, I'm sure.

I'm actually pretty sure I won't. I'm working on the issues my subconscious wanted me to deal with, so I don't think it'll be flailing around so wildly now. I'm not so confident that I feel free to roam the aisles at the liquor store - thinking about cheap, strong, high-gravity beer still sucks me in, but other things don't, really. I never was that big a fan of hard liquor... I mean, don't set your bottle of scotch right in front of me... but if I walked into a store that only had hard booze and wine, even if I had a pocketful of cash, I don't think I'd be that strongly tempted to turn away from the joys of sobriety. I'd found the buzz I was looking for.

Interestingly, I can still get most of that buzz just by staying up, staring at a computer screen until ungodly hours of the morning.